/lit/ - Literature

>>4738703

Do this, OP. If I were there, I'd be cheering you on if you did this. It's less obnoxious, but just as funny.

If you want the real fucking deal, read the 20th century Principia Mathematica. If you feel that's too hardcore for you, just read a logic textbook - I'd recommend Logics by Eric Schechter. And indeed, that textbook does cover more logics than does the Principia Mathematica, but to be fair you can really see one of the earliest expressions of a cohesive logical system in the Principia.

>>4732682
>>4732686

Yeah but I'm an atheist. God is the greatest idea Man ever had. That's why something like you guys suggest is unfeasible.

God.
*tips antifedora*

The concept of not believing anything just because is fucking stupid as shit. Why wouldn't I believe P is P and ~P isn't P?

>>4728919

No, you idiot. "of people" is a prepositional phrase - you can't just remove the subject of the sentence because it feels good. "vast number" isn't modifying anything, and cannot be removed, since it is the subject. Come on, guy. This is 4th grade subject-verb agreement shit.

>>4729084

Or rather, the second wouldn't be gram,atically correct. Sorry.

It would not be grammatically correct. There is only one number being referred to.

It amazes me how rarely it occurs to Continentals that, perhaps - just PERHAPS - if something is not understood, and cannot be explained by someone who claims to understand it, then it may just be that there is nothing much there to understand. Continentals always assume it is in inadequacy on the part of reader/listener, where, in matter of fact, the blame is, I would wager, more often than not on the author/speaker for their stubbornness in the face of clarity and explication. So perhaps, OP, you should entertain the notion that dialectic is vacuous garbage through-and-though, and that THIS, very simple reason is why none of the supposedly initiated will let you in on the big secret. Just a thought.

>>4723442

>knowledge
Knowledge is "information" (just what is meant when we say that is itself a philosophical question, as well as one for physics, mathematics, and computer science) stored in the mind as well. Neuroscience can't cover that entirely
>reality
Reality includes abstract entities, most chiefly classes and relations, but also minds, and indeed even this thing you call "information" is quite possibly an abstract entity.
>and existence
I believe when he says this he means human existence as described by Heidegger - that is to say, "Dasein". I think it is curious to focus in on this to something so important to philosophy, but sure, I'll include that as well.

>>4723528

I can tell you, as a staunch Analytic, that this is absolutely, positively, untrue. We have propositional logic, predicate logic, the two modal logics, deontic logics, and a handful of weird nonclassical logics. This does not begin to touch upon all the subjects concerned with in philosophy. Logic, as it is now, can help us talk about things like sets and possibilities and that sort of thing (basically about the things which we would talk about when dealing with those logics), but cannot begin to help us talk about, as I mentioned, the mind-body problem, or many things about the foundations of mathematics, or about phenomenology, or hard AI. I'm saying that it seems not implausible to me that we could formally produce logics to accommodate all those things. And, while we're on it, you seem to be rather dismissive of formal logic, and it is true, indeed, that one must be "initiated" to understand it (i.e., one has to learn something - SHOCKING, I know), however, when it comes to postmodernism, there is nothing to be initiated into, as far as I can tell - rather it is gibberish, through-and-through.

But philosophy is wholly defined by what language can do. Trying to do philosophy without language is like trying to make an omelet without eggs - whatever you end up with isn't going to be philosophy, whatever it may be.

>>4723388

Basically, what this guy said. You can't make a philosophical thought happen unless you're using language. I can, however, see this changing - for example, what if philosophy were totally formalized? This may seem like a truly daunting task, but I can imagine the development of a logic for logic-creation, or a "metalogic", if you'll allow me to use a fancy-sounding term, which would be a logic which itself formally governs and predicts the formulations of further logics, presumably such that each philosophical subject - and perhaps even every philosophical debate (i.e. the mind-body debate, the debate of how mathematics relates to the universe, etc.) - would have its own logic, and be fully formalized. That's just an idea that's been floating around in my head, and I can't see why it COULDN'T be done, and indeed I would hail anyone who could make philosophy a formal discipline as being the most significant philosopher of all time. So ultimately I agree with the poster I quoted, however I don't think it has to be that way.

>>4721008

I couldn't tell you why this made me laugh, but it did. Thanks m8.

>>4719033
I thought I was on /lit/, not /mu/. Have I been mislead?

>>4721167

u wot?

>Our understanding of logic is from observation from a human perspective.
Human, yes, insofar as the human perspective is logical. If you're trying to tell me that an oedipal complex shapes one's understanding of logical, I'll need a damn good reason instead of a mere assertion. Otherwise, as far as I can tell, you're just saying that logic is understood from a logical point of view, which isn't very enlightening.
>Interaction and reaction to this stimuli occurs with chemical reactions in the brain which are known as "emotions" which respond accordingly.
I suppose so, but that doesn't mean logic is inherently emotional in any way. It's like saying that, since a hamburger stirs up in me a certain emotion, the hamburger IS or is BASED ON emotion, which is of course absurd.
>Although our logic (such as mathematics, science and reasoning)
Hold on there buddy. Mathematics and science may have their foundations in logic, but what makes them different from logic is that they add something more, and indeed, certain propositions in mathematics cannot be reduced to pure logic. This is like calling a basketball a circle - its geometry is BASED on that, but it obviously isn't just a circle. As for "reasoning", I have no fucking clue what you mean if not logic.
>is using the same mechanism of chemical reactions in the brain, does that necessarily mean that our perception of logic is inherently flawed
Obviously not. It's not like one's emotions get "clogged up" in one's brain. I don't see what would ever make you think this.
>since we can only observe logic through one medium (our senses)?
You've lost me completely. Logical thinking is OBVIOUSLY not conducted through the senses. When was the last time you did a proof with your tongue? I don't even know what the fuck this means.

I just throw them away after I've read all the text on them. They make the book feel "impure" to me.

>>4713909

This would apply, I would argue, to all French "philosophers" since the 18th century. They're all a bunch of fucking degenerate abortions of human beings with absolutely nothing remotely interesting to say.

Nah, you shouldn't ignore phenomenology. That's a good part of philosophy. Not when Continentals do it though. We do it a hell of a lot better.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.