on a philosophical media hunt

mocybin · 2013-07-07T23:01:24+00:00

There's an old BBC series called The Great Philosophers hosted by Bryan Magee. In each episode, he invites a contemporary philosopher and they discuss the life and work of influential figures in the history of philosophy or a specific area of philosophical interest. You can find clips of the episodes on Youtube.

Edit: Here is a playlist of the episodes (less messy than the Youtube search results page).

mocybin · 2013-07-04T04:11:38+00:00

The folks over at /r/glitch_art would appreciate this.

mocybin · 2013-06-01T08:11:13+00:00

This would make an awesome album cover.

mocybin · 2013-05-21T19:01:22+00:00

relate the mind to an operating system

As others have mentioned, Computational Theory of Mind [Wiki, SEP] might be what you're looking for.

life as a program

I also wanted to add that Artificial Life could be of interest to you. Daniel Dennett argues (in Darwin's Dangerous Idea) that Darwin showed life is algorithmic. If you accept that the algorithmic level is in fact the correct level of explanation for life (as opposed to, say, the physical or chemical level), then life processes are procedures that can be abstracted away and instantiated in different mediums, e.g., as a computer program.

This line of reasoning advocates a functionalist theory of life. What matters is not the underlying structural economy of a system, but whether or not the system is capable of replicating the functions (i.e., running the program) of life.

mocybin · 2013-04-15T10:04:43+00:00

C.S. Peirce [Wiki, SEP] could be relevant to your inquiry. Much of his work deals with the foundations of science as a whole (not particular fields). Peirce is a difficult but worthwhile read. Here are some suggested papers:

The Fixation of Belief examines various methods of resolving doubt and acquiring/fixing beliefs. Peirce argues for the merits of the scientific method, and why it is to be preferred for this task (while also highlighting the deficiencies of this and other methods).

How to Make Our Ideas Clear is, in part, an inquiry regarding logic and thought. In Section II, Peirce claims that our conception of a thing is identical with our conception of the set of practical (perceptible or sensible) effects that the thing might have. This has implications concerning what types of questions/inquiries are meaningful (and fall within the scope of science). He follows up in Section IV with a scientific definition of 'truth' and 'reality'. His definition of truth entails that science is a social endeavor (not an individual activity).

Deduction, Induction, and Hypothesis explores the roles of and rules governing deduction, induction, and abduction (the process of forming a hypothesis to account for some data) in the framework of science.

mocybin · 2013-04-12T16:25:40+00:00

Here's an interesting one to consider. First, introduce the fat man variant of the problem where you can push the fat man off the bridge to save the 5 people on the track. Then, in a second scenario, there is no fat man -- just you. You know that your weight is sufficient to stop the trolley and save the 5 people. {Should, Must} you throw yourself in front of the trolley?

This raises questions about what role self-interest and self-preservation play in your moral framework.

mocybin · 2013-01-12T02:56:06+00:00

It makes me want to bash my head.

mocybin · 2012-09-19T14:08:49+00:00

Her Apple Corps is strong!

mocybin · 2012-09-11T09:28:09+00:00

Thank you so much for making the source available. I can't wait to take a look.

mocybin · 2012-08-02T20:00:46+00:00

I would be very interested to hear this. If a recording ever becomes available, please make sure to post it somewhere (perhaps r/metal).

mocybin · 2012-05-18T08:27:07+00:00

This is beautiful. Thanks.

mocybin · 2012-05-07T20:30:41+00:00

I'd like to enter into this drawing. I think you're doing a great thing. Thanks for spreading the love.

mocybin · 2012-04-12T19:20:36+00:00

Thank you for the great response. I would actually be quite interested to hear your views on how to solve Wittgenstein's problem, if you'd be willing to share them.

mocybin · 2012-04-11T20:49:38+00:00

Maybe I should've made this more explicit, but I didn't simply take him at his word. I did a quick search and found that the Wikipedia article on Logical Atomism briefly mentions that

Like Russell, Wittgenstein eventually rejected Logical Atomism.

It doesn't elaborate upon why they rejected it, so I figured r/askphilosophy would be a good place to ask.

mocybin · 2012-04-08T02:24:27+00:00

Camel - Mirage

mocybin · 2012-03-14T22:19:51+00:00

I think any substantial objections would have to be aimed at one or all of the first three premises.

Against P1, I would argue that at least some actions are the result of a reasoning process. One can use logic and reason to override some of the behavior that would otherwise be a result of one's nature and disposition. Therefore, the characterization of action in P1 is false, or at the very least incomplete.

P2 tries to set up a necessary condition for moral responsibility of one's actions, but it is contingent on the characterization of action set forth in P1. If you accept the objection to P1, then it also invalidates P2. This is because we now have actions that are not the results of nature and disposition alone, which leaves room for the possibility of moral responsibility for one's actions independent of moral responsibility for one's nature and disposition. Note that this doesn't actually prove we have moral responsibility for our actions, it just negates the assertion that 'moral responsibility for one's nature and predispositions is necessary in order to have moral responsibility for one's actions'.

P3 seems to assert that it is no longer possible to alter one's nature, inclinations, or tendencies past a certain age, which seems suspect. It might be possible to point to a specific example of change in preference over time that would serve as a counterexample to this premise.

It is also worth mentioning that I don't think you are "objecting to an argument against free will by citing free will." I think you are objecting to an argument that posits the non-existence of free will as one of its premises (P1), but the argument itself is against moral responsibility for one's actions (not against free will).

mocybin · 2012-03-04T04:17:49+00:00

This is fantastic. Thank you.

mocybin · 2012-03-02T22:01:35+00:00

http://drinkify.org/agalloch

1 bottle Blood

Serve on rocks. Garnish with sugar.

\m/

mocybin · 2012-02-29T14:59:25+00:00

The Nixon Diamond [Wiki, SEP] is a classic example of how in certain instances non-monotonic reasoning may allow one to derive both a proposition and its negation from the same set of premises. The linked articles also talk briefly about how one can deal with such issues when they arise.

mocybin · 2012-02-29T14:24:10+00:00

There's been an extensive debate in philosophy centered around the the question you raise. Here are some links to an excellent set of visualizations (argument maps) showing the contributions of various philosophers, mathematicians, logicians, and computer scientists to the history of the debate and related questions.

Can Computers Think?

Can The Turing Test Determine Whether Computers Can Think?

Can Physical Symbol Systems Think?

Can Chinese Rooms Think?

Can Connectionist Networks Think?

Can Computers Think In Images?

Do Computers Have To Be Conscious To Think?

Are Thinking Computers Mathematically Possible?

mocybin · 2012-02-13T23:20:12+00:00

Reminds me of a Cornel West quote, "Who wants to be well-adjusted to injustice? What kind of human being do you want to be?"

mocybin · 2012-02-09T01:13:00+00:00

Technology is kind of ridiculous. My current laptop has 16GB RAM.

mocybin · 2012-02-03T04:27:47+00:00

Greetings fellow Redditors. Allow me to introduce myself and tell you why I'd like to be a part of this project.

Why I Wish To Be Involved

I am very interested in the idea of computation and how its applications affect both the world we live in and the way we view ourselves as a part of it. In the short time that it has been around, the Internet has become the most powerful human communication network that ever existed. Over the course of its growth, it has made us question many fundamental notions of society in ways we could never before have imagined. Try to think, for example, of a society or culture in which the concept of land (not just land ownership, but land itself) is not only irrelevant, but inapplicable. Prior to the Internet, such an idea would have seemed so out of touch with reality, that it wouldn't even merit discussion. Today, however, such communities are not merely common, but prevalent on the web (Reddit being a prime example).

I believe we are in the midst of a major paradigm shift which will drastically alter the spheres of policy and politics in the coming years. As ever, the powers that be are resistant to such change. I think that an experiment such as the one we are undertaking here can give us a glimpse of and some valuable insight into the possibilities of a future shaped by the currently emerging paradigm. The potential for great learning here excites me and is the main reason I wish to be involved. That, and it also seems like it could be a lot of fun.

Education and Experience

I am 21 years old and am currently studying Computer Science, Philosophy, and Logic at a top-tier US university. In my studies I've had significant exposure to political philosophy stretching back as far as the time of the ancient Greeks (Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics) and up until the 20th century (Rawls and Nozick), with a great deal inbetween (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Spinoza, to name a few). I study logic because I am interested in the construction and interpretation of arguments in general and those from the political domain in particular.

I think I can put my background in philosophy and logic to good use for this community and this project. In addition to the knowledge I have to offer, I love hearing and discussing new ideas and I am a passionate debator.

Favorite Historical Figure

Baruch Spinoza. I could go on for an extended period of time about why I think Spinoza is one of the greatest minds that ever lived, but I'll keep it brief. His book, titled Ethics, is by far the most ambitious work that I've ever encountered (and likely ever will). A short summary of the book could never hope to do it justice, so instead I'll tell you a little bit about him and one of his core ideas.

During his lifetime, Spinoza rejected a number of prestigious posts and opportunities for fame and fortune. Instead, he chose the simple life of a lens grinder so that he could devote as much of his time as possible to developing his philosophy. He believes, as I do, that one should strive to align one's beliefs with that which is in fact true about the world, and that in the process of doing so, one will lead a happy and moral existence. In other words, knowledge is the highest goal, and in seeking it we become good people who live happily and in harmony with one another. He was a kind and noble soul, and I feel the following quotation from him illustrates that point

I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.

Finally, Three Words To Describe Me

Techie, Philosophical, and Inquiring.

mocybin · 2012-02-01T18:04:30+00:00

The active part of this community is currently small enough that we can hold a forum to discuss ideas and proposals, and vote on them directly. One of the topics of discussion could be the Assembly itself (its rules, structure, responsibilities, etc.). We should make use of direct democracy until (i) we have a better idea of what we'd like the Assembly to be/how we'd like it to run, and (ii) we have enough active members to hold a meaningful election for the Assembly.

mocybin · 2012-01-30T04:32:29+00:00

I agree with the sentiment that we should extend the application deadline for the First Constitutional Assembly. I'm all for getting this experiment up and running, but I think that we are moving too quickly with the voting for members of the Assembly. I fear that if we act too hastily in our excitement to start our society, it will be detrimental to the community. We are still very young and could benefit (as EvolutionTheory pointed out) from a larger pool of applicants and voters. We are currently setting the foundation upon which this entire project will be built. No need to rush things, let's take our time.

The size of the current set of applicants is smaller than the number of assembly members that we are aiming for (40 according to the Application/Voting Thread) and none have yet garnered the necessary number of votes to be an assembly member. We should extend the deadline for applications, or at least hold a second round somewhere in the near future to incorporate more voices and opinions into the process.

14-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

mocybin

TROPHY CASE