Stack Exchange
log in

christo183

 Discussion on question by Mozibur Ull…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Jun 4, 2020 10:55
This is also mirrored by the move in Science from an explanation to a prediction paradigm.
 

 Discussion on question by christo183:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Nov 20, 2019 09:13
@TedWrigley You're right about choice and behavior, however in habitual behavior it seems we can still override: one may, by choice, override the normal action and walk like a zombie for instance. Without free will, automatic behavior should always be the same and any deviations would require explanation... Though I imagine there can be several such explanations, I was wondering in this question whether anyone has taken this to be evidence of free will.
christo183
Nov 20, 2019 09:13
@PeterJ if we were dogs we'd be conscious of being wagged or of doing the wagging. The point is that it is not always one or the other (and we are aware of that). It is this inconsistency that I'm positing as the experience of free will.
christo183
Nov 20, 2019 09:13
@TedWrigley I'm intrigued as to what "analytic dimensions" you speak of? Also see comment to PeterJ.
christo183
Nov 20, 2019 09:13
@PeterJ Will look into that. Interesting though that most would take habituation as a negative wrt freedom. Is there anyone who forwards a positive view of conditioning, e.g. I drive my car almost automatically leaving my thoughts free?
christo183
Nov 20, 2019 09:13
@Conifold Not habit breaking as such. Rather the inconsistency in following conditioned behavior, as if there exist some power to decide whether a habitual action gets performed or not.
 

 Discussion on question by Mimikyu: I'…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Oct 21, 2019 17:11
You can serve in a noncombatant role? Engineers, medical corpse, etc. Be aware though that in the military you follow orders, there is little room to make a positive change from inside (not impossible). As for political objections, those are best addressed by political actions like voting.
 

 Discussion on question by Riccardo Aq…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Aug 20, 2019 12:47
"In order to arrive to the "I" / "ego" / "me" an a priori intuition of space-time is needed" I don't think everybody would agree with that, e.g. prove that statement to a solipsist to the same degree of certainty as their "ego". Point is you can start with acceptance of manifest reality e.g. "space-time", in which case there is doubt as to the substrate of Reality. Or, you can start from absolute certainty in which case you have an "ego" having to doubt everything. These aren't really different approaches, in the end it all comes to the same thing: Some things must be taken on faith.
christo183
Aug 20, 2019 12:47
That is exactly what Descartes tried. The problem is that once you start from a solipsistic base, then nothing else can be proven to the same degree of certainty, which just leaves you back where you started.
 

 Discussion on question by David Bloms…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Aug 19, 2019 13:27
I don't think you'll find any simply because: How can you falsify the truth? Falsification is not meant to test fact, rather it is a test of viability of a theory; falsification isn't used indiscriminately NOR SHOULD IT BE. People do frequently interchange fact and theory but keep in mind that happens when the theory has withstood some experimental attempts at falsifying it. While deciding whether a theory is falsifiable happens usually long before any resources are allocated to test it experimentally.
 

 Discussion on question by polcott: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Jul 26, 2019 20:18
Is there anyone else that believe all that? - Regardless, you are going about this wrong. Both how you are going about explaining and how you are trying to construct a complete language. A complete language cannot accept new facts, but let's forget for the moment your program: look at Noah Sweber's last comment... I'll go out on a limb a state that it summarizes the community consensus. You are not communicating your idea, nor are you attaining any credibility. (Credibility comes after demonstrating a new idea) You have only insisted that you have an idea, never demonstrated it.
christo183
Jul 26, 2019 20:18
Also see: philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/5973/33787
christo183
Jul 26, 2019 20:18
How could you know that every objective fact has at any point in time been so encoded/stipulated? How do you account for possible discovery of new facts? And if a new fact contradict something already established do you then simply discount it as "I'll formed"? Apparently you think that a simple hierarchy of ontologies could be the base for a model of a useful fraction of Reality. At best you need two disparate ontological frameworks, one to describe the other, and at worst an infinite regress.
christo183
Jul 26, 2019 20:18
I think what you need to do here is construct a proof in the stipulated language of the following sentence: "The proof of this sentence will not halt"
 

 Discussion on answer by Noah Schweber…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Jul 26, 2019 20:17
@polcott 1) "stipulated" by whom? How do you stipulate objective fact? 2) This: "find any word that represents any concept where the meaning of this concept is specified without using language" just means: "find a word, being not part of language" Is this meant as some sort of proof from contradiction? - Most importantly the writer of this (very nice) answer indicated quite clearly an unwillingness to engage you any further here...
 

 Discussion on question by another_nam…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Jul 23, 2019 14:37
Parts of Reality in principal not categorizable under any discernible ontology? Intriguing. - Or, objects of Reality that are only ever considered "false"? A kind of opposite world...
christo183
Jul 23, 2019 14:37
If Reality lies at the intersection of separate ontological domains then there would be ontological 'truth' outside of reality.
christo183
Jul 23, 2019 14:37
Could you give some more context? I had a question about overlapping ontologies that may touch ...
 

 Discussion on question by pete olcott…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
May 28, 2019 09:11
@JohnForkosh / everybody - Even on this SE the trend you mention is evident. However I also note that OP has taken some pains at conforming to site rules and there is some measure of evolution in thought apparent...
 

 Discussion on question by PL_OLCOTT: …

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
May 21, 2019 20:16
On a tangent, if you can help me state this: philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/63515/33787 paradox more clearly, then possibly I can help with this Question...
 

 Discussion on question by David Lewis…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Mar 29, 2019 12:48
@Richard that would be Roger Penrose - Shadows of the Mind, I believe. Probably one of the earliest instances I noticed that even consummate physicalists aren't averse to the occasional bout of magical thinking. ;)
christo183
Mar 29, 2019 12:48
@Richard ".. the brain is a kind of antenna", do you perhaps have any references for that? I had a question about "incompatible ontologies" where the envisioned mechanism of information exchange, between ontologies, would be some sort of co-resonant structure (also known as an antenna).
 

 Discussion on question by George Ntou…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Mar 26, 2019 06:14
@GeorgeNtoulos Sorry I should have linked they answer instead of the question: philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/53745/33787 it has some references you may find helpful. For the materialist paradigm you seem to prefer I would recommend Douglass Hofstadter and Roger Penrose. you can also ask the question on psychology.stackexchange.com if your interest is more scientifically bent.
christo183
Mar 25, 2019 10:57
You have run into a problem as old as Philosophy, known as the mind-body problem. There is no undisputed answer. You will have to form your own opinion... - You can gain deeper insight to the issues around this by exploring some of the tags you used and also the_mind-body_ tag. See eg: philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/53238/33787
 

 Discussion on question by christo183:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Mar 7, 2019 19:17
@Conifold This "complementary" aspect is a can of worms I'm still struggling to pick through. (in fact many of my questions are skirting the issue) I'll bet Pragmatism is just one of those worms... Tongue in cheek aside, I get the sense you see resources as the only obstacle to a proliferation of scientific paradigms?
christo183
Mar 7, 2019 19:17
@Richard What is interesting about that view is how well it gels with the Simulation hypothesis. I.e. only what is observed, is rendered...
christo183
Mar 7, 2019 19:17
@Conifold But this "phenomenon" holds in both programs? - If there are two, there will be more... Does humanity face a future scourged by warring clans of physicists?
christo183
Mar 7, 2019 19:17
@Bread "more and more questions" not less and less: it is this trend under question. Eg. what would it mean if we suddenly realize the the questions are now becoming less and less? - Assuming you know about the whole "it from bit" thing, what would the "it" look like if the "bits" encoded an untruth? Also see: philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/59490/33787
christo183
Mar 7, 2019 19:17
@MauroALLEGRANZA Thanks. I didn't actually make that connection in terms of the bigger debate. I was thinking of the "phenomenon" as something that a realist and non-realist would regard in the same terms. However their explanations would surely diverge greatly?
 

 Discussion on question by Type Theori…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Mar 5, 2019 08:02
NOTE: I'm saying you used Logic ineffectively, NOT "programming". Actually you used programming quite effectively...
christo183
Mar 5, 2019 07:59
Of course GIGO! Any computer professional will confirm. But validation is done BEFORE Logic is invoked, NOT during. Logic work BY DEFINITION, instantaneously. Whatever control you try to exert, changes the defined Logic.
christo183
Mar 5, 2019 07:58
Think about what you are looking at, look at what you are holding, none of it would be possible without Logic. None of it embodies the entirety of reality. Logic is a TOOL, it is USED by a mind. The fact that you can break it doesn't mean it is faulty, it means you have used it wrong. Essentially you have read the packaging of a hammer which said: "Cannot be used for screws.", and then you went and used the hammer to beat in a screw...
christo183
Mar 5, 2019 07:49
Of course GIGO! Any computer professional will confirm. But validation is done BEFORE Logic is invoked, NOT during. Logic work BY DEFINITION, instantaneously. Whatever control you try to exert, changes the defined Logic.
christo183
Mar 5, 2019 07:43
No! NOT "potato potatoh". If you have Logic A and you add ANYTHING to it, then you have Logic B. If you haven't proven the consistency of Logic B, by means of a more powerfull Logic C, then it is UNSURPRISING if you find contradictions in Logic B.
 

 Discussion on question by rus9384: As…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Feb 4, 2019 13:48
Interesting question, I've long suspected Jesus of having been influenced, or at least knowledgeable, of the ancient Greeks. Only edit I can suggest is to explain the flavor of "love" in question. Maybe if you have particular Bible passages in mind, @Gordon can say something on the translations...
 

 Discussion on question by John Forkos…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Jan 12, 2019 11:56
The give away is Sophia that 'want': family, career, emotions. Why emotions, wouldn't a consciousness have to have emotions before 'wanting' anything? There is two possibilities: that 'wanting' is inserted by programming, in which case Sophia is just basically saying what her creators want. In fact Sophia does learn from human interaction, but its 'answers' are a form of aggregate (with the weighting and biases its creators wanted) of previously encountered responses. When you talk to Sophia, you're talking to a mass-mimic, the consciousness involved is actually that of other humans.
 

 Discussion on question by christo183:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Jan 6, 2019 10:24
@Conifold As you note sciences aren't well defined either, but then why should they (as long as they work). Would there be a general rule for things that are pointless to define? Defining Philosophy still seems different... yet no less a fool's errand.
christo183
Jan 6, 2019 10:24
@ChrisSunami didn't think of that, see also discussion with Conifold about self-reference, and my question :philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/54384/33787
christo183
Jan 6, 2019 10:24
@Conifold see edit. Also I would argue that formal langues in general exist to address inadequacies in natural language. Such inadequacies as may be responsible for, or a consequence of deeper issues, that would prohibit a sufficiently precise definition of philosophy.
christo183
Jan 6, 2019 10:24
@Richard I often use the phrase: Science is metaphysically impoverished.
christo183
Jan 6, 2019 10:24
@MauroALLEGRANZA how can one describe a zero-sum equation without definitions? Would you simply say "there is nothing" or "it is equal"? but what then of all the detail and avenues of possibility, the life/process of the algorithm? You see I'm looking at what this (and your Art example) is telling us about our (as yet) inability to understand our own consciousness.
 

 Discussion on question by Frank Huben…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Dec 29, 2018 09:08
Sorry, one of my own conceptions of 'forms' that seemed useful via: "...this activity is thought." related to "...contemplation of their instances or recognition of their imitation"
christo183
Dec 29, 2018 09:08
We come to knowledge of Forms through contemplation of their instances or recognition of their imitation. Forms come to life through instantiation.
 

 Discussion on question by confused: I…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Nov 29, 2018 10:09
Anyone qualified to create an IQ test would not say "and that's all there is". The reductionist 'trap' of IQ tests are well known to psychologists. A working understanding of the underlying statistical methodology makes it quite plain.
 

 Discussion on question by christo183:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Nov 15, 2018 16:53
@Gordon if you can put all that in an answer, I would accept. Historical Criticism is very much in line with my train of thought. My focus is somewhat more contemporary and secular. But maybe biblical philosophy cannot be extracted from religion?
christo183
Nov 15, 2018 16:53
I was thinking along the lines of, for instance, a Henry Sidgwick adapting biblical morals to the secular world, or a treatise by Frege on the coherence of biblical deontology. In other words treating the Bible as a secular text, completely outside of a religious context.
christo183
Nov 15, 2018 16:53
Good stuff, thanks. Now, about the Bible?
 

 Discussion on answer by Logikal: Is a…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
christo183
Aug 30, 2018 17:48
I'll assume you are in fact using a translator since it seems that we are having a translation issue. Different languages have different ways to express affirmation and negation. Then there are words that chance meaning in different contexts. So for instance where I set two expression in OPPOSITION, it may translate as "the expressions are similar". After all the distinctions you make may not even be visible in another language, which could make this whole answer moot. --- _Please do not take this to be in a condescending tone, I am also writing this for the benefit of future Readers.
christo183
Aug 30, 2018 17:48
@Logikal Your lack of reading anything except "lack of" belies the fact that I have been agreeing with you the whole time. Just for interest, are you translating from another language?
christo183
Aug 30, 2018 17:48
@rus9384 It is an interesting question, but there will be all kinds of nuances and flavors of distinction; as Logikal have aptly demonstrated.