[quote]Severiano wrote:
Lol, that’s straight up Descartes homework. Bro do your reading.
[/quote]
The only substantial thing I’ve ever learned of Descartes is that quotation and his existence during the Enlightenment. Pretty sure that’s all that actually matters. I don’t take philosophy. I read what he piques my interest, not what someone tells me to read. I consider suggestions but don’t follow orders.[/quote]
You forgot the Cartesian plane and coordinate system. That’s kind of important.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Lol, that’s straight up Descartes homework. Bro do your reading.
[/quote]
The only substantial thing I’ve ever learned of Descartes is that quotation and his existence during the Enlightenment. Pretty sure that’s all that actually matters. I don’t take philosophy. I read what he piques my interest, not what someone tells me to read. I consider suggestions but don’t follow orders.[/quote]
Well, that’s all you are aware you have learned from him. There’s plenty of contemporary film, books, video, art that is somewhat if not heavily, if not outright rip off Descartes ideas.
Philosophy isn’t for everyone, the questions asked seemed like something a professor might give for a quiz or maybe take home test which is why I suggested he do the reading. Descartes works are tricky to understand, usually it involves a professor establishing language and translating as there is a great deal of time that has passed since he passed on. I just wanted to point in him in the right direction, though I think he’s talking about Searle when he goes into Artificial Intelligence.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Lol, that’s straight up Descartes homework. Bro do your reading.
[/quote]
The only substantial thing I’ve ever learned of Descartes is that quotation and his existence during the Enlightenment. Pretty sure that’s all that actually matters. I don’t take philosophy. I read what he piques my interest, not what someone tells me to read. I consider suggestions but don’t follow orders.[/quote]
Well, that’s all you are aware you have learned from him. There’s plenty of contemporary film, books, video, art that is somewhat if not heavily, if not outright rip off Descartes ideas.
Philosophy isn’t for everyone, the questions asked seemed like something a professor might give for a quiz or maybe take home test which is why I suggested he do the reading. Descartes works are tricky to understand, usually it involves a professor establishing language and translating as there is a great deal of time that has passed since he passed on. I just wanted to point in him in the right direction, though I think he’s talking about Searle when he goes into Artificial Intelligence. [/quote]
Ah okay. I thought the “do your reading” remark was directed at me since I stated Descartes’s name in the preceding post.
I never said anything about what I learned from Descartes himself. Ripping off of ideas and intellectual property is certainly a philosophical discussion in and of itself. To be fair though, I’m not a fan of most contemporary works to start with.
As pertains to the questions, I take interest mainly in the AI and dualism (I gravitate towards duality moreso) for math, science, and engineering reasons although I’m philosophically inclined and can apply that interest as such. The other stuff is meh.
[quote]chobbs wrote:
Damn I felt like I had a solid grasp on this until I read everyone’s thoughts lol[/quote]
it’s philosophy, not math.[/quote]
But there are still right and wrong answers it’s up to you to find them. Math is a branch of philosophy after all.[/quote]
Many of the theorems and methods were made by people that were also philosophers, but I don’t think that constitutes designating mathematics as a branch of philosophy. You’re also implying that philosophy answers questions, which is another philosophical discussion lol.
[quote]chobbs wrote:
I feel like I could be a philosopher if weed was legal [/quote]
If you need weed to get in state, you have a lot of problems to work out. Anyone can be a philosopher at any given time.
[quote]chobbs wrote:
Damn I felt like I had a solid grasp on this until I read everyone’s thoughts lol[/quote]
it’s philosophy, not math.[/quote]
But there are still right and wrong answers it’s up to you to find them. Math is a branch of philosophy after all.[/quote]
Many of the theorems and methods were made by people that were also philosophers, but I don’t think that constitutes designating mathematics as a branch of philosophy. You’re also implying that philosophy answers questions, which is another philosophical discussion lol.[/quote]
Well if Gottlieb von Frege (???) Had not solved the problem of how to determine whether a conclusion follows from a premise formally, there would be no computers.
That was more or less pure philosophy.
Once could say that it answers formal questions, but those are kind of important to.
[quote]chobbs wrote:
Damn I felt like I had a solid grasp on this until I read everyone’s thoughts lol[/quote]
it’s philosophy, not math.[/quote]
But there are still right and wrong answers it’s up to you to find them. Math is a branch of philosophy after all.[/quote]
Many of the theorems and methods were made by people that were also philosophers, but I don’t think that constitutes designating mathematics as a branch of philosophy. You’re also implying that philosophy answers questions, which is another philosophical discussion lol.[/quote]
Well if Gottlieb von Frege (???) Had not solved the problem of how to determine whether a conclusion follows from a premise formally, there would be no computers.
That was more or less pure philosophy.
Once could say that it answers formal questions, but those are kind of important to. [/quote]
That just sounds strange to me. It’s hard for me to see that as ever having been a problem. Analytic philosophy? How is that different from just being a logician? I wasn’t talking about solving problems, but answering verbal questions.
[quote]chobbs wrote:
Damn I felt like I had a solid grasp on this until I read everyone’s thoughts lol[/quote]
it’s philosophy, not math.[/quote]
But there are still right and wrong answers it’s up to you to find them. Math is a branch of philosophy after all.[/quote]
Many of the theorems and methods were made by people that were also philosophers, but I don’t think that constitutes designating mathematics as a branch of philosophy. You’re also implying that philosophy answers questions, which is another philosophical discussion lol.[/quote]
Well if Gottlieb von Frege (???) Had not solved the problem of how to determine whether a conclusion follows from a premise formally, there would be no computers.
That was more or less pure philosophy.
Once could say that it answers formal questions, but those are kind of important to. [/quote]
That just sounds strange to me. It’s hard for me to see that as ever having been a problem. Analytic philosophy? How is that different from just being a logician? I wasn’t talking about solving problems, but answering verbal questions.[/quote]
[quote]chobbs wrote:
Damn I felt like I had a solid grasp on this until I read everyone’s thoughts lol[/quote]
it’s philosophy, not math.[/quote]
But there are still right and wrong answers it’s up to you to find them. Math is a branch of philosophy after all.[/quote]
Many of the theorems and methods were made by people that were also philosophers, but I don’t think that constitutes designating mathematics as a branch of philosophy. You’re also implying that philosophy answers questions, which is another philosophical discussion lol.[/quote]
Well if Gottlieb von Frege (???) Had not solved the problem of how to determine whether a conclusion follows from a premise formally, there would be no computers.
That was more or less pure philosophy.
Once could say that it answers formal questions, but those are kind of important to. [/quote]
That just sounds strange to me. It’s hard for me to see that as ever having been a problem. Analytic philosophy? How is that different from just being a logician? I wasn’t talking about solving problems, but answering verbal questions.[/quote]
Logic more or less is a philosophical discipline.
[/quote]
I know. It’s just that when I looked it up, it sorted his work as a logician as separate from his work as a philosopher.
[quote]chobbs wrote:
Damn I felt like I had a solid grasp on this until I read everyone’s thoughts lol[/quote]
it’s philosophy, not math.[/quote]
But there are still right and wrong answers it’s up to you to find them. Math is a branch of philosophy after all.[/quote]
Many of the theorems and methods were made by people that were also philosophers, but I don’t think that constitutes designating mathematics as a branch of philosophy. You’re also implying that philosophy answers questions, which is another philosophical discussion lol.[/quote]
Well if Gottlieb von Frege (???) Had not solved the problem of how to determine whether a conclusion follows from a premise formally, there would be no computers.
That was more or less pure philosophy.
Once could say that it answers formal questions, but those are kind of important to. [/quote]
That just sounds strange to me. It’s hard for me to see that as ever having been a problem. Analytic philosophy? How is that different from just being a logician? I wasn’t talking about solving problems, but answering verbal questions.[/quote]
Logic more or less is a philosophical discipline.
[/quote]
I know. It’s just that when I looked it up, it sorted his work as a logician as separate from his work as a philosopher.[/quote]
Have you ever looked into science fiction?
Because if you have you may have notice that the outstanding works of sci suddenly no longer are sci fi, they are SERIOUS FICTION…
Meaning, the second something undeniably has a serious impact it no longer is what it was before.
That is a sign of a lazy, complacent society and not of the worthlessness of certain disciplines.
I dislike doing someone’s homework for him. These aren’t questions of opinion, these are questions of reading.
I will address number 2, because I feel the answers are incomplete. Weak AI can refer merely to artificial intelligence that doesn’t match human capabilities. The more interesting definition (the weak AI hypothesis) is that a machine can actually pass a Turing test and be indistinguishable from human beings, yet not have sentience or consciousness. The strong AI hypothesis, on the other hand, posits that the machine has something extra.
An example of the weak AI hypothesis is the Chinese Room. Suppose that I (or John Searle, who came up with the damned idea, and whom you’ve probably been assigned reading from) have been placed in a room with an extensive card catalog. People pass notes through a slot in the room in Chinese. Using the card catalog, I find a response card - also in Chinese - from the card catalog, and pass it back through the slot.
The catalog is so good, and so well organized, that native speakers of Chinese are convinced that whoever is in the room speaks flawless Chinese. In fact, I speak none; I am merely executing a program codified in the card catalog. So, where is the consciousness or sentience in this scenario?
Just about everything taught in school is a child of Philosophy, or a branch of it.
From math/physics, sciences, to law, to art/ aesthetics, psychology, politics, and most likely religion all came from Philosophy. We are all Philosophers with varying degrees of ability and study.
Philosophy is everything’s daddy, just the way the world is.
[quote]chobbs wrote:
Damn I felt like I had a solid grasp on this until I read everyone’s thoughts lol[/quote]
it’s philosophy, not math.[/quote]
But there are still right and wrong answers it’s up to you to find them. Math is a branch of philosophy after all.[/quote]
Many of the theorems and methods were made by people that were also philosophers, but I don’t think that constitutes designating mathematics as a branch of philosophy. You’re also implying that philosophy answers questions, which is another philosophical discussion lol.[/quote]
Well if Gottlieb von Frege (???) Had not solved the problem of how to determine whether a conclusion follows from a premise formally, there would be no computers.
That was more or less pure philosophy.
Once could say that it answers formal questions, but those are kind of important to. [/quote]
That just sounds strange to me. It’s hard for me to see that as ever having been a problem. Analytic philosophy? How is that different from just being a logician? I wasn’t talking about solving problems, but answering verbal questions.[/quote]
Logic more or less is a philosophical discipline.
[/quote]
Yep, in order to get a degree in phil, you need logic under your belt. If you end up taking advanced classes in say Phil of language you need formal logic to understand guys like Frege and Hume.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I dislike doing someone’s homework for him. These aren’t questions of opinion, these are questions of reading.
I will address number 2, because I feel the answers are incomplete. Weak AI can refer merely to artificial intelligence that doesn’t match human capabilities. The more interesting definition (the weak AI hypothesis) is that a machine can actually pass a Turing test and be indistinguishable from human beings, yet not have sentience or consciousness. The strong AI hypothesis, on the other hand, posits that the machine has something extra. An example of the weak AI hypothesis is the Chinese Room. Suppose that I (or John Searle, who came up with the damned idea, and whom you’ve probably been assigned reading from) have been placed in a room with an extensive card catalog. People pass notes through a slot in the room in Chinese. Using the card catalog, I find a response card - also in Chinese - from the card catalog, and pass it back through the slot. The catalog is so good, and so well organized, that native speakers of Chinese are convinced that whoever is in the room speaks flawless Chinese. In fact, I speak none; I am merely executing a program codified in the card catalog. So, where is the consciousness or sentience in this scenario?
Now, do your own research.[/quote]
I never was convinced there is a difference. In a game of something like chess we might argue the AI is simple, it has a standard reaction to moves you make and will not adjust according to your playstyle or whatever.
But what would the advanced AI be? The ability to make a bad move of it’s own volition? How do we even know we give volition to machines? By giving them code to have more than one option for a decision? How does it become an educated move without just being random? And does that even constitute volition? Is there a difference between flipping a coin and flipping a couple coins if that’ all a machine is doing? I mean, that’s all it does anyhow with zero’s and 1’s so they are all the same.
It’s self defeating if you see it through. The way I see it, AI can always be improved to the point some other version of AI become superfluous and considered weak.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
It’s self defeating if you see it through. The way I see it, AI can always be improved to the point some other version of AI become superfluous and considered weak.
[/quote]
The question (of the weak AI hypothesis) is whether the machine experiences consciousness, not so much the extent to which the machine has free will, or how good the AI is.
What do you think is the weakest point(s) in dualism?
[/quote]
The weakest point in dualism is that dualism does not prepare a Philosophy graduate for the major questions he or she will be asking after spending four years and $100,000, such as:
Do you want fries with that?
Paper or plastic?
Are you happy with your wireless provider?
Mom, will you at least knock before coming in? I’m 22 and have needs.
Until dualism helps a student master these basic life issues facing a philosophy graduate, then it is very weak, indeed.
