Earlier quoted context omitted.
what if you sever your corpus callosum?
Then we have two brains.
Two half brains. Everything has two halves.
A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer
31–40 of 107 posts
Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer
#32Only programmers that enjoy philosophy. Personally I feel the whole field is obsolete with the invention of neuroethology and similar.
How will neuroethology answer normative questions?
It won't, it will show that there are no normative questions. (exaggerated on purpose, of course, but it's The Final Frontier - once we know how the brain works, we will have a real insight into the nature of morality and we will have 'proof' for the objective nature thereof - all this IMNSHO of course ;) )
Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer
#33To be honest, it seems very superficial to me - like most philosophy. It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all.
To me the interesting bit is "why does the brain want to process symbols". Which is probably better answered by evolution theory than by philosophy.
Another example of the shallowness of philosophy: "I think, therefore I am". Again, an arbitrary premise. What does it mean to exist? Again, philosophy does not seem to be interested.
Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
And as long as philosopher will refuse to dig a bit into mathematics or computer science for answers to questions they call "philosophical", I'll have a hard time being interested by philosophy.
And as long as mathematicans will refuse to stop asserting that their holy science is the one and only correct answer to all problems on this earth, I'll have a hard time being interested in mathematics. This goes both ways, you see?
As soon as philosophy gets to even a fraction of the use mathematics has, then maybe it will be worth looking to for answers.
Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer
#35To be honest, it seems very superficial to me - like most philosophy. It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all. To me the interesting bit is "why does the brain want to process symbols". Which is probably better answered by evolution theory than by philosophy. Another example of the shallowness of philosophy: "I think, theref…
I thought, "I think, therefore I am" was an answer to the question, "how do I know what is real and what is not?"
So, for example, we're all stuck in some virtual reality world and everything is fake, how would we know? How do we even know, for that matter, that we ourselves our real?
Well, we're wondering about it, so therefore we ourselves are definitely real in some way, even if everything else is fake - "I think, therefore I am"
Although most philosophy never draws a conclusion, I actually quite like this "proof".
And further, just because philosophy rarely draws conclusions, it doesn't mean it's not worth thinking about, if just for the fun of it.
Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
And as long as mathematicans will refuse to stop asserting that their holy science is the one and only correct answer to all problems on this earth, I'll have a hard time being interested in mathematics. This goes both ways, you see?
As soon as philosophy gets to even a fraction of the use mathematics has, then maybe it will be worth looking to for answers.
I would rather people look to philosophy for answers to their intractable problems than religion.
Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer
#37To be honest, it seems very superficial to me - like most philosophy. It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all. To me the interesting bit is "why does the brain want to process symbols". Which is probably better answered by evolution theory than by philosophy. Another example of the shallowness of philosophy: "I think, theref…
I realize it is easy to pick on philosphy, but if you're going to write off one of our oldest disciplines it should at least come from an informed place: "I think therefore I am" is not Descartes' premise, but one of his conclusions. Even as a conclusion, it is mostly misunderstood. The point is not that it is the thinking that brings one into being, but that there is something there that must exist in order to do the thinking. Other translations I have read have it "I am deceived, therefore I am," again the point being that something must first exist in order to be deceived. His original "arbitary premise" is that he must first discard everything he thinks he already knows.
Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
And as long as mathematicans will refuse to stop asserting that their holy science is the one and only correct answer to all problems on this earth, I'll have a hard time being interested in mathematics. This goes both ways, you see?
As soon as philosophy gets to even a fraction of the use mathematics has, then maybe it will be worth looking to for answers.
Philosophy doesn't really give answers - it only states interesting questions, and if we can answer some of them - a new science is born.
Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer
#39To be honest, it seems very superficial to me - like most philosophy. It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all. To me the interesting bit is "why does the brain want to process symbols". Which is probably better answered by evolution theory than by philosophy. Another example of the shallowness of philosophy: "I think, theref…
I realize it is easy to pick on philosphy, but if you're going to write off one of our oldest disciplines it should at least come from an informed place: "I think therefore I am" is not Descartes' premise, but one of his conclusions. Even as a conclusion, it is mostly misunderstood. The point is not that it is the thinking that brings one into being, but that there is something there that must exist in order to do th…
Still, he dodges the question as to what it means that something exists. But I admit I haven't really read him. It is just that whenever I pick up a philosophy book (very rarely), I tend to hit upon false premises immediately.
Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer
#40To be honest, it seems very superficial to me - like most philosophy. It starts with an arbitrary premise ("the brain wants to process symbols"). Since the premise is arbitrary, it doesn't help me at all. To me the interesting bit is "why does the brain want to process symbols". Which is probably better answered by evolution theory than by philosophy. Another example of the shallowness of philosophy: "I think, theref…
I thought, "I think, therefore I am" was an answer to the question, "how do I know what is real and what is not?" So, for example, we're all stuck in some virtual reality world and everything is fake, how would we know? How do we even know, for that matter, that we ourselves our real? Well, we're wondering about it, so therefore we ourselves are definitely real in some way, even if everything else is fake - "I think,…
I have studied maths, and I enjoy thinking logically. The difference is that while mathematical axioms are also arbitrary, they never claim to not be arbitrary. Therefore it seems more honest to me.