81–90 of 99 posts
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%AD%C4%81dhy%C...
The fact that Hegel is not there is ridiculous. Perhaps the most influential philosopher since Aristotle. Not only did he influence the young hegelians and Marx, he continues to influence many philosophers across all kinds of schools and ideologies. Marx not being there is an implicit moral judgement - if “great” means good in some ethical sense subjective, then OK. But if “great” means impactful or influential, that…
I also agree that Marx is a thinker who altered the course of the world and I see where you are coming from regarding the moral judgement on his absence. As a counterpoint, what would Marx’s great intellectual achievement be, and could it stand up to the early capitalists like Smith? What comes to mind is the Labour Theory of Value, and I would say it is a strong candidate for sure. Whether it figures as a key human…
Asking ChatGPT, I have: - The scientific method - Calculus - Einstein's Relativity - Darwin's Evolution And more generally: - The zero - Formal logic - The written language This is the kind of questions I think a LLM work well for, because people are going to have different opinions. I think that most of us will think about science, maths, etc... But what about, say, monotheism, Athenian democracy, banking and accoun…
Hmm, I wonder why that could be. Perhaps because most LLMs have ingested scads of utter online shit in, so guess what comes out.
But the thing is, I used a LLM because I want to see the "scads of utter online shit". The "greatest intellectual achievement" is an opinion reflecting what people think matters most, not an empirical fact. And what I want is something approaching a global consensus, not what the HN bubble thinks matters. And for that, I think LLMs have value.
And anyways, what LLMs say generally match what people are saying here, so unless you are implying that we are all talking shit, I don't really see the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes in terms of philosophy, Kant absolutely needs to be here, Newton and Leibniz not as notably so.
On the other hand, Leibniz was one of the very first philosophers who recognized the value of the unique combination of formal thinking and computation. There’s no doubt that he was one of the originators of the idea that calculation could be applied to general reasoning and not just arithmetic (although he also built a mechanical calculator, the “stepped reckoner”). Anyway, the following is one of my favorite Leibni…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it though? All languages have the word 'nothing'. Better candidates: a) place-value numbering aka the positional numeral system, b) the Cartesian coordinate system. Forced to choose, I would pick (b).
The difference is that zero is explicitly a number, rather than a concept. Making it a number allows it interact with the rest of mathematics in a consistent way, which I'd argue you can't do with "nothing". To use your later example of "no apples": Is no apples the same thing as no bananas? What about no meters? I honestly don't know, the question is a bad one. My gut says yes, nothing in each case is just nothing.…
One should also mention the creation of "God(s)" in any religion (sub)context. We are probably the only mammalian creature who delegated all his existential angst to an abstracted entity responsible for anything that it didn't make sense at the time. I think it is THE intellectual pinnacle of a brain trying to survive and process information full of null pointers without halting its programming:/)
One should also mention the creation of "God(s)" in any religion (sub)context. We are probably the only mammalian creature who delegated all his existential angst to an abstracted entity responsible for anything that it didn't make sense at the time. I think it is THE intellectual pinnacle of a brain trying to survive and process information full of null pointers without halting its programming:/)
I ascribe the creation of God(s) to sub-rational behavior - paredolia, superstition, emotion born of fear and ignorance. The pinnacle of intellect was realizing the universe operated by rules that could be understood rather than the capricious will of supernatural forces.