Live data from Hacker News

A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

daddymodern.com

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#101
post #80
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ;) )

I think you're confused. There are clearly normative questions ; "Should I do X?" for any value of X is a normative question. You might have intended to contend that there are no normative facts : that there is no "right answer", as it were, to normative questions, merely what we choose to do. However, this is not something that science can prove, at least without adding the claim that the only facts there are are ph…

Yes of course there's the distinction between the normative question and the underlying reality that question is about; my point doesn't require a distinction so I found it useless to make it and just went with the phrasing of the post I was replying to.

My point was that there is nothing science won't be able to prove; and that there is only physical reality, and facts, and that once we crack the 'code' (as in 'security code', not 'programming code', although in another discussion I'd posit that it's both) we will learn about the fundamental nature of morality - as humans perceive it; it's exactly this realization (that moral issues stem from interpretation by man) that will show that most things we consider 'moral issues' really aren't.

(the above may make it seem that I'm a moral relativist but I'm not - au contraire, once we peel away the human-induced layers of morality we will find the fundamental nature of it at the core)

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#102
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather people look to philosophy for answers to their intractable problems than religion.

> I would rather people look to philosophy for answers to their intractable problems than religion. Religion ended slavery. (Yes, some religions advocated and supported slavery - they lost to the ones that didn't.) What has philosophy done in that domain. (Is it poor form to point out that philosophy pretty much went Nazi during the 30s.) Yes, philosophers produced logic et al.

It can be argued that religion invented retconning way before we could think of a name for that process.

Noah is the retconning of Gilgamesh, Jesus the retconning of Ra, etc.

Every religious explanation should be taken with a ton of salt.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#103
post #12

Only programmers that enjoy philosophy. Personally I feel the whole field is obsolete with the invention of neuroethology and similar.

Schoppenhauer and Sokrates knew more about the functions of the brain than all scientists of any neuro branch together.

I would argue that Rodolfo Llinás in fact knows more about the brain than either one of your two philosophers.

Please read the book 'I of the Vortex' before answering this comment.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#104

Regarding why we dream, I've always thought that it's got something to do with exercising our right brain. We feed our left brain when we're awake, we feed our right brain when we're asleep ... can anyone confirm or deny this ?

It is my understanding that we have two different future-predicting brains: the limbic system (mammalian brain) and the neocortex (primates and dolphins brain). The r-complex is a purely reactive brain, and tries to predict little.

The neocortex is incredibly powerful, but the limbic system notices stuff that the neocortex misses on our day-to day routine. Things like micro-gestures (emotions drawn by our faces for mere fractions of a second), non-spoken language, etc.

This neocortex-unperceived stuff is perceived by us as 'feelings', the operating material of the limbic system.

The REM dream stage is the limbic system putting all those feelings as requests to the neocortex, in the way of: "give me a logical and understandable explanation for this feeling I've been having all week".

Then we experience crazy stuff that actually matches the limbic sensation, or we get the right answer. This also helps/interacts with learning processes.

For the rest of the dream state, I have no current theory/explanation.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#105
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strangely, there were Christians on both sides of the issue, all claiming doctrinal support for their positions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Chri... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Oppo...

> Strangely, there were Christians on both sides of the issue I wonder if that's why I wrote: "Yes, some religions advocated and supported slavery" The existence of religious slavery supporters does not refute the claim was that religious people ended slavery. As I put it the first time: "[the religious supporters of slavery] lost to [religious opponents]."

I found it misleading to praise religion for motivating the winners but not blame religion (in fact almost all of the very same denominations) for also motivating the losers. Also interesting because I still can't imagine how people used the same sources but got such wildly different answers.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#106
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Strangely, there were Christians on both sides of the issue I wonder if that's why I wrote: "Yes, some religions advocated and supported slavery" The existence of religious slavery supporters does not refute the claim was that religious people ended slavery. As I put it the first time: "[the religious supporters of slavery] lost to [religious opponents]."

I found it misleading to praise religion for motivating the winners but not blame religion (in fact almost all of the very same denominations) for also motivating the losers. Also interesting because I still can't imagine how people used the same sources but got such wildly different answers.

> found it misleading to praise religion for motivating the winners but not blame religion (in fact almost all of the very same denominations) for also motivating the losers.

My comment was about what caused the change, and the losers didn't do that.

Why do you think that these losers deserve as much attention as these winners? Or, is this a general rule?

In other news, the folks pushing 3/5 person (or less) rule were the anti-slavery folks while the slave states wanted slaves counted just like everyone else. (That rule was part of how congressional representation was determined. The "not slave" states were trying to minimize the representation of the slave states and the slave states were trying to maximize their representation.) So, anyone who brings it up as evidence of "not valuing them as people" is either dishonest or ignorant....

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#107
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure this is what the parent meant, but in America at least, the antislavery movement was part of a broad social reform movement which was strongly tied to the popular Christianity of the day. For example, see the connections between Charles Finney (a prominent theologian) and Oberlin College (one of the first integrated universities). Also, look up the full lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic- it sound…

Yes, and support for slavery was also strongly tied to the popular Christianity of the day. The fact that religion so permeated debates in those times makes it easy for us to cherry-pick people and places to support our positions (this applies to me as much as you).

> Yes, and support for slavery was also strongly tied to the popular Christianity of the day.

I didn't claim otherwise.

My comment was solely about the winners.

FWIW, I think that the winners are more important than the losers.

Post reply on HN