/lit/ - Literature

>>18315258
this still isnt incompatible with moderate realism though

>>17940815
why is he retarded anon? he's my husbando, sorta
>>17942166
you need to commit to paraconsistent objects in your ontology. for instance, "what if the riemann hypothesis was false?". this is an intelligible counterfactual, as even if it was true you can say something about it. i dont know you'd formalize it in an information system, and even then it seems to be missing the point. you don't need an entire world. maybe modal chunks which would be like ersatz possible worlds. but meh... say i want to speculate about what would happen to our society's technology if P=NP. you will get a contradiction there. really it's also too bloated. i dont want to commit to an exact replica of the universe. all of this also connects to my more scholastic (??) sensibilities here. i'd prefer there to be an actual world which would be a substance (or more generally a cognitive invariant). as opposed to possible worlds, what i am really interested is a slight modification of the underlying invariant. when speculating about how things would be in a hypothetical universe where X was possible, obviously such a universe would not exist so it is unimaginable the literal world which was surely determined by different laws in the case of X. at the very least i am interested in trying to see how things change in my near vicinity, like with the world we have now, but changed a bit. i do admit i am being a little harsh on it, but in some sense i am not being harsh (as these things are really applicable to cases where paraconsistency isn't an issue, say in physics... the many-worlds interpretation, though im not sure how related to this, can die for all i care btw) enough, since in designing a hypothetical intelligent system, it's modal cognition isn't going to use possible worlds as could be utilized for some abstract theoretical system. maybe what's needed here instead is more of a modality schema? like the counterfactual statement has a pragmatic import in directing a system to construct a particular picture of reality based off of a mix of deductive (like you might use some of the consequences of P=NP) and abductive (which is necessary as the deduction is only possible for some modal chunk)

at least you guys don't necessarily treat it as a real thing (which i admittedly forgot lol, im retarded). ontological commitment language trips me up sometimes
>>17944083
>and Russell
redpill me on this
>>17945939
idk stuff like deleuze (esp difference and repetition) does try to solve some outstanding problems. also i think i am a bit weird because the main philosopher ive inadvertently taken influence himself is from analytic philosophy, but odd
>>17946162
why do you fill your head with garbage. if it isn't i want you to tell me how any of those thinkers (save wittgenstein as he is being synthesized into my larger system as we speak) can help me construct agi (btw this is the main criteria i judge all philosophies by now). otherwise afaic it is edificatory garbage

why is this board so obsessed w race when most of u guys are white???