/lit/ - Literature

>Is this century going to be one of empiricism or rationalism?
Holy shit, some people are absolutely fucking stupid.

People holding pipes by their stems/shanks annoys me much more than it should.

>>4711990
That's Chomsky btw.

>>4712012

Yup. I can understand the desire to hold the pipe from the top, as holding it from the bottom often puts you in an uncomfortable body position when seated, but I generally just hold the top of the bowl.

>>4711990
He stopped smoking, if that calms you

It'll be more of a rationalist one, I should think, at least when it comes to Analytic philosophy - and of course, no-one cares about Continental "philosophy". Positivism - even Quinian positivism - is growing increasingly out of favor, and things like speech act theory - which is, although very much working in tandem with linguistics, largely a rationalist endeavor - growing into favor.

Leftist here.

Smart money is on the irrational backlash following an extended period of suppressing metaphysics.

>>4712033
>It'll be more of a rationalist one, I should think, at least when it comes to Analytic philosophy
>Analytic philosophy

lel, as if your movement wasn't a inconsequential, introverted scholastic dogma to begin with. analytic philosophy has no future.

>>4712039

k

>>4712033
So wrong. Even in America cognitive and linguistic approaches are slowly phasing out the dunces of the analytic tradition. Continental philosophy, despite its sophisms, is perhaps best equipped to adapt to the new empiricist model.

>>4712048
if you don't give a fuck, why did you bother replying? the fact is that a century of anglo-american analytic philosophy hasn't given us a single useful insight into society or the human condition. all its bizarrely condescending adherents are concerned with are new kinds of logic puzzles.

>>4712063
From a neuroscientific perspective, continental perspectives indeed seem to have better survivability. Analytic philosophy has two options- either largely dissolve and converge into neuroscience, or join religion in the ranks of those who oppose science (for example, by clinging to the idea of free will).

However, the topic is not continental vs analytic, but empiricism vs rationalism.

>>4712068
At least the early adherents of analytic philosophy had the grace to admit that they were truly logicians and mathematicians at heart -- nowadays the entire discipline is devoted to tinkering with thought experiments so removed from real life they might as well be the metaphysics which they profess to disdain.

>>4712077

I will agree that Analytic philosophy, linguistics, neuroscience, computer science, and perhaps a couple other disciplines, are slowly converging, as they have been since Analytic philosophy's inception. This isn't necessarily bad for Analytic philosophers nor anyone else involved, though you make it sound like it is. Furthermore, you make it sound like fact that libertarianism is antiscientific, which is very much debatable.

>>4712063

Whatever makes you feel right, buddy.

>>4712068

k

>>4712077
Is there anything in linguistics or cognitive science that is rationalist except for Noam Chomsky and other pseudo-scientific cults? As I said, the future is empirical (and the tripfag is also wrong about analytic philosophy's relevance as well).

>>4712081

This post is so hopelessly misinformed, I don't know what to begin to tell you. So instead I'll just post a condescending reaction image to put you in your place.

>>4712087
>libertarianism is antiscientific
It is. It's "debatable" only because philosophers try debating it instead of accepting the science.

Almost every single one of my phil professors are into Dewey and pragmatism, whatever that says

>>4712098
Oh yeah. Searle's Chinese Room experiment is so relevant to life. Analytic philosophy is so useful. I'm sure AI researchers care deeply about problems like this.

>>4712096

Well yeah and philosophers have every right to debate that because libertarianism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. It's ultimately philosophy that decides the significance of science - if it can be shown that recent developments in neuroscience aren't weighty enough to altogether disprove libertarianism, than so be it. So long as it's debated, it's debatable. This is obvious.

>>4712102
That means empiricism is winning and the tripfag is incorrect about everything in his life and should honestly kill himself.

>>4712110

THEN so be it*

>>4712108

Whatever fagboy.

>>4712110
>It's ultimately philosophy that decides the significance of science
Proof positive that analytic philosophers are just as pretentious and out of touch with reality as continentals.

>>4712098
>>4712087
you're starting to sound like that /sci/ troll who had nothing to substantiate his arguments with but condescension

>>4712123

Well but I am responding to the guy who's so obsessed with neuroscience, because he's informed enough to have an intelligent discussion with. The other clowns are just so hopelessly misinformed that I don't feel like spending the time and effort to argue with them. It's been a long day, so I'm only prepared to argue with someone who seems at least somewhat intelligent.

Check'em.

yes

>>4712087
>Analytic philosophy, linguistics, neuroscience, computer science, and perhaps a couple other disciplines, are slowly converging

What a load of bullshit. If anything, the scientific fields are liberating themselves from philosophicla mumbo jumbo.

>>4712147

What makes you say that? What I see is the fields I mentioned being more and more concerned with philosophical problems, and Analytic philosophy more and more concerned with those fields.

>>4712032
Kek. The future is in smart money as all companies rush to modernize themselves and escape the never ending regulations.

>>4712153
Thanks for letting us know how ignorant you are. Let me guess: Your only "education" in the sciences stems from 5 minute video clips on youtube and their associated comments?

>>4712167

Wow okay faggot I asked you to tell me why you thought something and you just responded with "hurr durr ur dum". You see, this is why I often times choose condescension instead of genuine response, because otherwise I waste time with this dumb bullshit.

>>4712172
faggot

>>4712178
fag

>>4712172
"The biggest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. It is the illusion of knowledge."
-- Stephen Hawking

Please never talk about science again. Your comments are creationist tier.

>>4712172
What are they converging to? Kind of a speculative question but hey, I'm curious to see what it is that you're seeing.

>>4712178
>>4712181
Seriously?

>mfw Mises and Bastiat are going to make their triumphal return

>>4712209
>mfw Mises and Bastiat are destined for the ash heap of history

>>4712193

Well I can't give a name for the single discipline they may or may not form (they may just stay closely knit and not actually form an identifiable single entity) since we haven't seen it yet, but I will say that linguistics and the philosophy language are already two sides of the same coin, with one only vaguely more abstract than the other. Then as neuroscience needs to increasingly consult the philosophy of mind and vice versa, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they merge in a similar fashion. When it comes to computer science, one place in which computer science and philosophy already overlap is in logic - both computer scientists and philosophers can make contributions to logic. And as the question of hard AI becomes more and more relevant, I would suspect that a mutual consultation scenario as in neuroscience and the philosophy of mind would develop between the philosophy of mind and computer science, if that makes sense. So basically I think that computer science and neuroscience are going to develop more and more of a symbiosis with the philosophy of mind, whereas linguistics and the philosophy of language are already totally symbiotic. I've even heard from a few mathematicians that once you get to a high enough level math begins to resemble more the philosophy of math, though I don't feel qualified to weigh in on this since I'm not acquainted with the highest maths. But if this is the case, then mathematics may, to a certain extent, be counted in this hypothetical singularity or near-singularity as well.

>>4712228
On what are linguistics, philosophy of language and neuroscience converging?

>>4712129
>implying you're informed

>>4712228
Interesting. I like the idea of inter-departmental communication (especially since I'm a phil major (that likes language and mind) doing a linguistics minor). Hopefully once I get to the higher level stuff there will be more talking together (not exactly seeing the communication between phil of language and linguistics, but then again all I've been doing is playing with the IPA and doing syntax trees).

>>4712228
This is the most anti-intellectual post I've ever read.

⇒Then as neuroscience needs to increasingly consult the philosophy of mind
Are you trolling? You can't be serious. Neuroscience is getting rid of "philosophy of mind". The latter has been holding back neuroscience way too long. Philosophy of mind is to neuroscience what creationism is to evolutionary biology.

⇒And as the question of hard AI becomes more and more relevant
It has never been relevant and it will never been relevant. The term "hard AI" is meaningless to AI researchers and only appears in sci fi trash literature. AI research doesn't bother with such infantile nonsense. AI is all about algorithms. Cheap escapist fantasies have no place in research.

⇒philosophers can make contributions to logic
No, they can't. Since the 19th century all research in logic requires a math degree.

>>4712222
>implying implications

State capitalism, keynesianism and other interventionist theories are being buried with the left around the world.

>>4712267
Oh boy, here we go. It's you!

>It has never been relevant and it will never been relevant. The term "hard AI" is meaningless to AI researchers and only appears in sci fi trash literature. AI research doesn't bother with such infantile nonsense. AI is all about algorithms. Cheap escapist fantasies have no place in research.
I think I've found a point we agree on! Dennet be damned!

>>4712222
>tfw lenin isn't your uncle

>>4712243

Well, I feel like when you ask this question you're assuming that there's some, if I may be permitted to use metaphor, underlying stuff over which they must converge, which isn't what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that they're becoming increasingly interrelated, and as I said, it is already basically impossible to distinguish, in my opinion, a clear line between linguistics and the philosophy of language, meaning they've already been totally integrated, and they're called different things for matter of convenience. But the more abstract side of linguistics is the same as the more applied side of the philosophy of language, if you ask me. All I'm saying is that a similar phenomenon may occur with neuroscience and computer science. Does that make sense?

>>4712263

Yeah, I mean, once you get to questions like, "what are the prerequisites for linguistic thought?" it becomes hard to tell if a philosopher or a linguist should answer it. I say this as both a phil major (not that that means much) and a huge linguistics buff (not that that means a whole lot either).

>>4712267

Whatever fagboy. Actual experts in the field don't dismiss the hard AI debate, and that's a fact - I talk to them.

>>4712293
Thank god.

>>4712297
⇒Actual experts

Sorry for bursting your bubble, my dear intellectual toddler, but the authors of your childish comics are not "actual experts" on AI.

>>4712297
>Whatever fagboy. Actual experts in the field don't dismiss the hard AI debate, and that's a fact - I talk to them.
Top kek. 19 year old undergrad tryhard detected.

>>4712305

No, I'm talking about the people who teach course on AI at my university.

>>4712307

Spot on.

>>4712300

Well, I'd enjoy it...if only for the steady supply of female Stalinist vanguards ready so follow my directions THAT I SWEAR ARE NEEDED FOR REVOLUTION.

In that vein I think I read somewhere that Communists kept trying to recruit Tupac before he was famous because of Afeni Shakur (his mother).

>>4712314

who teach courseS*

>>4712316
>reading the capital for you as a bed time story

OOOH GOOOOD NNOOOOOOOO

>>4712324
Tell me the story of the worker's revolution again, uncle! It's my favorite!

>>4712316
>Communists kept trying to recruit Tupac

ofcourse it didnt work, tupac loyal to radovan karadzic, tupac alive in serbia, tupac fast rap magic in aid of serbia

serbia fighte the communist

>>4712314
Your university must be pretty shit tier if your AI classes are teaching escapist fantasies. In my AI classes I learned actual contents. Are you sure you even attended a university? Or was it perhaps a "special needs" daycare institution?

>>4712332

Well no the AI classes themselves are not typically devoted to more philosophical questions. What I said was the PEOPLE TEACHING THEM are, as far as I can tell, by in large accepting of the hard AI debate as legitimate. You should try reading a little bit slower next time so you can fully understand what I'm saying.

>>4712336
>untestable "I choose to believe whatever fairy tale most appeals to me" metaphysics
>legitimate science debate

Choose exactly one.

>>4712348

But the thing is it isn't an empirical scientific debate (though I most certainly should think that computer scientists are the best-qualified to debate it). As for the other things you just said, I would strongly recommend sucking my dick and/or dealing with it.

>>4712355
⇒it isn't an empirical scientific debate
I guess that's why it is so appealing to you. Have fun dwelling in infantile pseudo-intellectual musings while the smart people do actual research.

⇒think that computer scientists are the best-qualified to debate it
Computer scientists are hardly qualified to talk about their own field. The field of computer science was founded by physicists, mathematicians and engineers and today those are still the ones making the most contributions to CS.

>>4712359

What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you really not believe the people who are making headway in the development of AI aren't the best qualified to talk about the properties of AI? I may not be an "actual smart person", but you're a fucking idiot if you honestly think that, mate.

>>4712363
Welcome to discussion with this arrow poster. It's best to just ignore her. No matter what you post she plugs her ears and calls you names.

>>4712363
Metaphysics is not a "property of AI' and not a worthwhile topic of discussion. Grow up.

Reason if we're lucky; crowd-engendered-emotionalism if we're not.

>>4712365

Yeah but I wanna keep going and see what happens.

>>4712366

So you're telling me the capability to have something resembling a consciousness isn't even conceivable as being a concern when it comes to AI and is somehow having more to do with metaphysics. Gotcha. I shall no reiterate my thesis: you're a fucking dunce.

>>4712378
It isn't my fault you learned absolutely nothing in that "AI class" you allegedly took. Don't project your ignorance into me.

>>4712378
>mfw she told that evolution cannot be hypothetically falsified much less actually falsified.
There's only so much a person can take. You can keep going, but I'm bowing out of this thread.

>>4712388
You think you can falsify evolution? What are you? A creationist? Tell me why you think evolution is wrong. I could need a good laugh.

Neither.

Thomas Campbell - "Reality is Virtual"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H13_3AjFxRw

Philip K. Dick - "We Are Living in a Simulation"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jXeVgEs4sOo#t=36

Terrence McKenna - "The World is Language"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfNt-ZIqYEU

Alan Watts - "The 'Real You' is God"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU0PYcCsL6o

>>4712385

I haven't taken these AI classes I've been talking about. I've had conversations with the people who teach them. Again, you seem to be REALLY bad at reading comprehension. I won't hold that against you, though: we can't all be winners in everything.

>>4712391
I never said I thought it was wrong. I'm saying it is /possible/ to be proven wrong. That is the entire point of a scientific theory. Saying it cannot be proven wrong is creationist-tier.

>>4712394
You forgot the most convincing videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NP4QmrbBww
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GLhnfsgwo

>>4712398
⇒I haven't taken these AI classes I've been talking about

Oh god, my sides! Thanks for confirming that you're full of shit. Do you feel pseudo-intellectual, talking out of your ass on 4chan about topics you don't understand?

>>4712399
How do you disprove evolution? Design an experiment to do it and you're gonna win a Nobel prize.

>>4711962
Scientism.

>>4712391
If a rock was 4.6 billion years old and evolution, as you say, is real… then it should be an animal now

There was survey done by PhilPapers a few years ago.

>The PhilPapers Survey was a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views, carried out in November 2009. The Survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students.

>http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

This should give all of you some idea as to where at least professional/academic philosophers are leaning.

>Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?
Other 346 / 931 (37.2%)
Accept or lean toward: empiricism 326 / 931 (35.0%)
Accept or lean toward: rationalism 259 / 931 (27.8%)

Also, it looks like someone woke up the /sci/ troll. Stop feeding her.

Seriously, just don't even bother to engage. All she does is baldlycontradict everything you say, throwing in some derogation of philosophy and your intelligence just to incite.

>>4712449
>Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?
Accept or lean toward: objective 382 / 931 (41.0%)
Accept or lean toward: subjective 321 / 931 (34.5%)
Other 228 / 931 (24.5%)

Meanwhile every board on 4chan argues that objective aesthetic value can't possibly exist.

>>4712474
I have always argued that aesthetics are objective.

Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?

Accept or lean toward: switch 635 / 931 (68.2%)
Other 225 / 931 (24.2%)
Accept or lean toward: don't switch 71 / 931 (7.6%)

>Other
???

>>4712479
>>4712474
which contemporary philosophers argue for objective aesthetics?

>>4712485
I do. I am a contemporary philosopher.

>>4712480
So 68.2% of philosophers are psychopaths?

>>4712500

>goodman pls

>>4712485

>>4712394
>hippie new age idealism

>>4712480

>Run away!

>Throw self onto track!

>Flip a coin!

>Forget

>>4712485
evolutionary biologists

Althusser
Derrida
Sartre
Chomsky


What is it with all these guys smoking pipes?

>>4712715
Also Tolkein, but he was a philologist.

>>4712715
also, DFW. But different...