[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 65 KB, 500x369, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4109586 No.4109586[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I bet we could figure out a couple of these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy

>> No.4109643

On the essentialism problem:

Do we need to formally define organic form if it is something intuitive to the artist? Therefore existing but at the same time (as it is intuitive) unexplainable formally in words?

>> No.4109658

i've actually proven the riemann hypo, but i'm sitting on it until i have more of a reputation in the math world (otherwise people will steal it and just say im some crazy kid).

>> No.4109660
File: 21 KB, 220x277, 1378126733460.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4109660

>>4109658

>> No.4109670

moral luck is hardly a problem. all those examples were easily answerable

>> No.4109676

>>4109670
>says examples are answerable
>doesnt answer any

why do you guys do this shit

>> No.4109683

>>4109678
well not with THAT attitude

>> No.4109678

>>4109586
Of course not, you vain, arrogant, dilettante.

>> No.4109687

>>4109658
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Prize_Problems

>> No.4109703

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avJj7SrnqT4
I actually have a pretty good argument not for the existence of God, but that it would be better if we all pretend to believe in God. I call it the argument from convenience.

>> No.4109749

That list is a joke. Schopenhauer already solved the Molyneux problem 200 years ago. See Fourfold Root.

Qualia is also nonsense; color exists in the mind, not in the object.

Delete this thread

>> No.4109765
File: 74 KB, 1020x759, 1309745336422.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4109765

>Gettier problem

Knowledge is information

>mfw all philosophers ever couldn't figure this out

>> No.4109766

>>4109703
I like to think that a universe creating diety could tell if I was just pretending

>> No.4109770

>>4109703
You're absolutely correct.

We should also tell people who have self-esteem issues and depression to imagine themselves as Superman, and all their problems will disappear.

>> No.4109867

>>4109765
we didn't really have a comprehensive notion of "information systems" until semiotics and computer science

>> No.4109910

>>4109658
have you really? how old are you? what school do you attend?

>> No.4109925

>>4109765
>knowledge is information

cool idea. but what is information?

>> No.4109947
File: 73 KB, 235x279, 1320254572440.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4109947

>>4109658

>> No.4109958
File: 973 KB, 295x221, 1369695387536.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4109958

>>4109670
go on....

>> No.4110585

>>4109925
try Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory

>Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message
> Information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system that can interpret the information.

>> No.4110592

>>4110585
just saying "knowledge is information" doesn't solve the gettier problem, the gettier problem is about having the state of "knowing," you haven't even attempted to answer the question of "when are the necessary and sufficient conditions for being in the state of knowing"

>> No.4110596

>>4110592
>when
what

>> No.4110691

>>4110592
when you receive information it affects the state of the dynamic neuronal system of your brain/mind, and this alteration is catalogued as knowledge

>> No.4110706

>>4109658
I hope this is real.

>> No.4110711

>>4110691
you're getting closer to answering it, but:

>this alteration is catalogued as knowledge

the alteration is? or the subject is said to have knowledge of X if X caused a suitable alteration? i don't think you can call the alteration itself knowledge

>> No.4110747

>>4110711
>the subject is said to have knowledge of X if X caused a suitable alteration
that sounds about right. with the caveat that a "suitable alteration" need not refer to an accurate depiction of "things in themselves" per se. all knowledge is practical knowledge in some sense, in that it is part of the ever-continuing flow of consciousness and must be somehow relevant to the subject. so if the alteration can be relied upon to continually serve its purpose within some larger conscious system of awareness or practicality, it should be considered knowledge.

>> No.4110762

>>4110747
ok so now there are more questions about what constitutes a "suitable alteration." a classic follow up epistemological problem that philosophers dealt with while trying to solve the gettier problem is the Mr. Truetemp problem

some guy (Mr. Truetemp) has a thermometer stuck in his head, that perfectly reads the temperature of his environment. Mr. Truetemp doesn't know that he has this thermometer. however, it reports the temperature to him, so that periodically he will just have the thought that the temperature is, say, 45 degrees. he doesn't know where these thoughts come from. does he know the temperature then?

your theory seems to say "yes", but this is a divisive question, and internalists (and i believe most people's intuitions) will disagree with you. some externalists will agree with you. this is why the problem hasn't been solved... there are all sorts of theories and proposed solutions, but for each one there is another scenario that divides people.

at this point i feel like you've basically just put us back in the same spot, but this time with a different way of describing things (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

>> No.4110772

>>4110762
>he will just have the thought that the temperature is, say, 45 degrees.
>does he know the temperature then?
I don't understand why that would be anything but a yes? why would he need to know the source of the info to consider it knowledge? he doesn't know the source but he absolutely knows the temperature

>> No.4110787

>>4110772
i should add that he hasn't correlated the temperature he thinks with anything else (he hasn't checked it against a thermometer). the thoughts just pop into his head. does that change anything? it's fine to think it's knowledge, but most people I've talked to disagree and so (i think) do most contemporary philosophers.

>> No.4110800

>>4110787
>i should add that he hasn't correlated the temperature he thinks with anything else
ah so he, for example thinks "30 degrees" but doesn't know what that info is about, he doesn't know its the temperature of the enviroment? right?
that actually changes everything for me. if he knew what the information he's indicating relates to I feel fine calling it knowledge but if the information doesn't relate to anything I don't really feel like calling it knowledge the "30 degrees" thought in my head, if not related to anything is the same as if listening to static in my head

>> No.4110808

>>4110787
How does the man being aware or unaware of the thermometer alter anything though? Are you aware of the intricate electrical and chemical processes behind consciousness? No, but you an still trust your own reasoning, understanding and judgment.

A thermometer is just a device that receives and interprets sense data, much in the way our five senses do. The knowledge in this case is still being received externally. So this hypothetical man has just received an acute sense of temperature in addition to his other senses. His awareness of the thermometer is irrelevant, if the information is functional for him and intersubjectively verifiable, it is knowledge.

>> No.4110817

>>4110800
oh. well in THIS case it clearly isn't knowledge. There is no such thing as "30 degrees" out there floating in the ether as Absolute Knowledge, it's just a certain degree on a spectrum of interpretation. Things in themselves do not possess some kind of "pure information", there can be no such thing as information without a system to capture, categorize, and - most importantly - make use of it.

>> No.4110829

>>4110808
what you're saying is an argument some (most?) externalists will make. they will also make the argument that, say, dogs can "know" things and they don't know why or how they came to know them.

internalists will argue, however, that while it isn't really necessary for someone to understand HOW they know things, they must be able to articulate, in some way, their reasons for what they claim to know. however, the internalists haven't worked out what it means to "be able to articulate" that stuff, which is their problem.

my personal opinion is a hybrid between the two, which is that there are two types of knowledge, call them "unreflexive" and "reflexive" knowledge. the first is accomplished in the truetemp example, and this is the kind of knowledge that dogs have as well. reflexive knowledge would not be accomplished in the truetemp example, for reflexive knowledge you need to be able to articulate reasons (i have no rigorous way to describe what "articulating" really is, but i might be able to explain it more if I had slept yet). both can be called knowledge in some way, but i think reflexive knowledge is more important, because it's the sort of knowledge we require from scientists, or when we ask a friend a question about something.

>> No.4110835

>>4110817
oh sorry, I must have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. if you are trying to say is that by not correlating his thought with another thermometer he doesn't know because he isn't sure of the exactitude then I would say that's wrong, he simply doesn't know that he knows. it still seems obvious that if the thought pops in his mind and he can't connect it to the temperature of the enviroment he definitely knows the temperature

>> No.4110843

>>4110829
>internalists will argue, however, that while it isn't really necessary for someone to understand HOW they know things, they must be able to articulate, in some way, their reasons for what they claim to know. however, the internalists haven't worked out what it means to "be able to articulate" that stuff, which is their problem.
it seems like a big one. the why of having to be able to articulate the knowledge seems puzzling to me. I would consider the development of motor skills as knowledge, for example and I don't think the person needs to be able to articulate that knowledge at all. the knowledge seems independent of its articulation. he would need the ability to articulate it verbally and by his own movement if he wanted to instruct others on it but that's a different issue

>> No.4110849

>>4110843
yeah I agree that there is some element of knowledge to motor skills, but that's why i want to say there are two types of knowledge. like if i asked a scientist if eating m&ms causes cancer, I wouldn't say that they knew unless they had reflexive knowledge. but i WOULD say that a shark knows that blood is nearby without being able to articulate it, that is to say, w/o reflexive knowledge. it depends on context, whether or not I intuitively judge it to be knowledgeable. that's why i'm also a contextualist.

>> No.4110868

>>4110849
I guess I would be a contextualist too. i pretty much agree with you spot on in that one

>> No.4110888

>>4110868
hopefully someday we'll all be contextualists

>> No.4110921

>>4110835
>it still seems obvious that if the thought pops in his mind and he can't connect it to the temperature of the enviroment he definitely knows the temperature
I would disagree. Temperature (in a specified, numerical sense) is not an inherent sense. We've imposed a superstructure on the concept of heat and cold, and the relevance of that structure is to communicate to ourselves and others the exact nature of the heat or coldness of an area. If you can't communicate what information means, nor make use of it to enhance your own awareness, then it cannot be knowledge, only nonsensical data for which you lack the context to understand.

>> No.4111297

>>4109765
You've got to be kidding me you ignorant fucking cunt.

>> No.4111301

>>4109765
Btw: here's a piece of knowledge: you're a cunt.
Btw: here's a piece of knowledge: you are literally a giant vulva and vagina, disembodied.

>Knowledge redefined by some cunt as "belief"

NOICE

>> No.4111433
File: 2.64 MB, 400x225, 1377177151507.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4111433

>>4109658

>> No.4111728

>>4111301
>associating "information" with "belief"
ignorant pleb
see >>4110585

>> No.4111762

>>4109749
The mind IS the object. A brain is just a bunch of meat unless it's thinking of something. The mind doesn't exist until an object creates a reaction with the brain, at which point it assumes the shape of that object. The mind cannot be said to be a product of either, so it must be a product of both.

>> No.4111771

>>4111728
...
You have no idea what the Gettier problem is do you, or what truth, justification or belief are?

>> No.4111802

>>4111771
I understand that theory of knowledge, yes, but I think it is an incomplete or outdated definition.

>> No.4111813

>>4111771
>>4111802
to elaborate further:
the Gettier problems assume a propositional theory of knowledge. one could make a coincidentally true statement under false belief. in actuality, because knowledge is information, knowledge is never separated from the stream of consciousness. the person who makes a coincidentally true statement may share the form of the actual true statement, but within the contextual framework of his consciousness the proposition is inexplicably associated with wrongheaded images and concepts, and hence the true form of the knowledge within the mind(as opposed to a formalistic facsimile) is unjustified and false.

>> No.4111819

>>4111802
So you're in fact solving sweet fuck all and publicly aggrandising your entirely irrelevant contribution.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO AN OPINION FUCKWIT. YOU SHOULD HAVE LEARNT THIS IN FIRST YEAR.

>> No.4111829

>>4111813
>because knowledge is information, knowledge is never separated from the stream of consciousness
Does not follow, see my previous.

Assertions aren't an argument you fucknut.

>> No.4111846

>>4109658
Say *something* about it so if in 5 years you win the Millennium prize we can have it screenshotted and blow our loads at this moment.

>> No.4111861

>>4111829
but it does follow. read some Hume, knowledge can never be separated from our conscious faculties. any attempt to justify an alternate view is mere intellectual wankery. the map is not the territory.

>> No.4111884

>>4111813
I almost feel like I could make up an analogy that involves 4 dimensional geometry, but that's getting into string theorist logic.

>> No.4111911

>>4111884
sure but it's really not complicated, it's just a matter of recognizing that knowledge is always rooted in a subject. only a subject is capable of knowing, knowledge still needs to be objective of course - that is, justifiable - but the traditional epistemological view of objectivity is wrongheaded. Things are objective only insofar as they are justified by continuous functionality and intersubjectivity.

>> No.4111988

>>4111911
What exactly is a "subject" in this context?

>> No.4111995

>>4111911
a constant conscious flow governed by awareness, categorization, pattern-seeking, and understanding

>> No.4112033

>>4111995
>categorization, pattern-seeking, and understanding
I would say all of these are part of constructing awareness and conscious flow is just another word for awareness.

I would say a pair of entangled particles have knowledge other each other.

>> No.4112045

>>4112033
perhaps matter/energy does have some kind of primal awareness and self, as Schopenhauer and Nietzsche posit. but I think a subject is something a little more complex. a subject must be able to make claims to contextualized forms of knowledge, testing and using them to inform the will and the action.

>> No.4112065

>>4111762
I see your point, but the brain isn't just a bunch of meat, it's also a wad of chemicals and electrical signals, which fire off and network with each other even without outside stimulus, i.e. dreaming, imagination and abstraction.

>> No.4112079

>>4112065
In the context of that statement, parts of the brain may act as "objects" to other parts of the brain. It's always observing something and the part that acts as the prime subject is shifting all the time.

>> No.4112138

>>4112079
“The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.”
-Kierkegaard

>> No.4114891

>>4109658
Times tamp baggette

>> No.4116642

>>4109658
how could someone steal it after you've come forward with it? make no sense kiddo

>> No.4117470

Munchhausen trilemma has always pissed me off.