In this paper, we examine the use of the term ‘life’ in the debates within and about synthetic biology. We review different positions within these debates, focusing on the historical background, the constructive epistemology of laboratory research and the pros and cons of metaphorical speech. We argue that ‘life’ is used as buzzword, as folk concept, and as theoretical concept in inhomogeneous ways. Extending beyond the review of the significant literature, we also argue that ‘life’ can be understood as aBurstwordin (...) two concrete senses. Firstly, terms such as life easily turn into fuzzy, foggy and buzzy clouds of nonsense, if their use is not appropriately reflected. In these cases, the semantic orientation is detonated. This is theBurstword Icharacteristic of the concept of ‘life’ that we reveal for its unclear terminological use. Secondly, and in contrast toBurstword I, we show that the concept of ‘life’ can be used in a methodologically controlled way. We call this kind of useBurstword II. Here the concept of ‘life’ fulfils the function of expanding an inadequately narrow disciplinary or conceptual focus in different discursive contexts. In this second sense, ‘life’ receives an important operational function, for instance as a transdisciplinary research principle. It turns out that the innovative function and paradigm-changing power of metaphorical speech belong here as well. Finally, we illustrate three ethically relevant examples that show how ‘life’ can be applied asBurstword IIin the context of synthetic biology. (shrink)

Sometimes we learn through the use of imagination. The epistemology of imagination asks how this is possible. One barrier to progress on this question has been a lack of agreement on how to characterize imagination; for example, is imagination a mental state, ability, character trait, or cognitive process? This paper argues that we should characterize imagination as a cognitive ability, exercises of which are cognitive processes. Following dual process theories of cognition developed in cognitive science, the set of imaginative processes (...) is then divided into two kinds: one that is unconscious, uncontrolled, and effortless, and another that is conscious, controlled, and effortful. This paper outlines the different epistemological strengths and weaknesses of the two kinds of imaginative process, and argues that a dual process model of imagination helpfully resolves or clarifies issues in the epistemology of imagination and the closely related epistemology of thought experiments. (shrink)

We might think that thought experiments are at their most powerful or most interesting when they produce new knowledge. This would be a mistake; thought experiments that seek understanding are just as powerful and interesting, and perhaps even more so. A growing number of epistemologists are emphasizing the importance of understanding for epistemology, arguing that it should supplant knowledge as the central notion. In this chapter, I bring the literature on understanding in epistemology to bear on explicating the different ways (...) that thought experiments increase three important kinds of understanding: explanatory, objectual and practical. (shrink)

Scientists imagine for epistemic reasons, and these imaginings can be better or worse. But what does it mean for an imagining to be epistemically better or worse? There are at least three metaepistemological frameworks that present different answers to this question: epistemological consequentialism, deontic epistemology, and virtue epistemology. This paper presents empirical evidence that scientists adopt each of these different epistemic frameworks with respect to imagination, but argues that the way they do this is best explained if scientists are fundamentally (...) epistemic consequentialists about imagination. (shrink)

While philosophers hold that it is patently absurd to blame robots or hold them morally responsible [1], a series of recent empirical studies suggest that people do ascribe blame to AI systems and robots in certain contexts [2]. This is disconcerting: Blame might be shifted from the owners, users or designers of AI systems to the systems themselves, leading to the diminished accountability of the responsible human agents [3]. In this paper, we explore one of the potential underlying reasons for (...) robot blame, namely the folk's willingness to ascribe inculpating mental states or "mens rea" to robots. In a vignette-based experiment (N=513), we presented participants with a situation in which an agent knowingly runs the risk of bringing about substantial harm. We manipulated agent type (human v. group agent v. AI-driven robot) and outcome (neutral v. bad), and measured both moral judgment (wrongness of the action and blameworthiness of the agent) and mental states attributed to the agent (recklessness and the desire to inflict harm). We found that (i) judgments of wrongness and blame were relatively similar across agent types, possibly because (ii) attributions of mental states were, as suspected, similar across agent types. This raised the question - also explored in the experiment - whether people attribute knowledge and desire to robots in a merely metaphorical way (e.g., the robot "knew" rather than really knew). However, (iii), according to our data people were unwilling to downgrade to mens rea in a merely metaphorical sense when given the chance. Finally, (iv), we report a surprising and novel finding, which we call the inverse outcome effect on robot blame: People were less willing to blame artificial agents for bad outcomes than for neutral outcomes. This suggests that they are implicitly aware of the dangers of overattributing blame to robots when harm comes to pass, such as inappropriately letting the responsible human agent off the moral hook. (shrink)

Imagination is necessary for scientific practice, yet there are no in vivo sociological studies on the ways that imagination is taught, thought of, or evaluated by scientists. This article begins to remedy this by presenting the results of a qualitative study performed on two systems biology laboratories. I found that the more advanced a participant was in their scientific career, the more they valued imagination. Further, positive attitudes toward imagination were primarily due to the perceived role of imagination in problem-solving. (...) But not all problem-solving episodes involved clear appeals to imagination, only maximally specific problems did. This pattern is explained by the presence of an implicit norm governing imagination use in the two labs: only use imagination on maximally specific problems, and only when all other available methods have failed. This norm was confirmed by the participants, and I argue that it has epistemological reasons in its favour. I also found that its strength varies inversely with career stage, such that more advanced scientists do (and should) occasionally bring their imaginations to bear on more general problems. A story about scientific pedagogy explains the trend away from (and back to) imagination over the course of a scientific career. Finally, some positive recommendations are given for a more imagination-friendly scientific pedagogy. (shrink)

This is the introduction to the Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments.

Computational systems biologists create and manipulate computational models of biological systems, but they do not always have straightforward epistemic access to the content and behavioural profile of such models because of their length, coding idiosyncrasies, and formal complexity. This creates difficulties both for modellers in their research groups and for their bioscience collaborators who rely on these models. In this paper we introduce a new kind of visualization that was developed to address just this sort of epistemic opacity. The visualization (...) is unusual in that it depicts the dynamics and structure of a computer model instead of that model’s target system, and because it is generated algorithmically. Using considerations from epistemology and aesthetics, we explore how this new kind of visualization increases scientific understanding of the content and function of computer models in systems biology to reduce epistemic opacity. (shrink)

An interview with Ed Casey where we discuss the intersections of his philosophical work with current political issues, including the Israel-Palestine conflict.

When philosophers discuss the possibility of machines making scientific discoveries, they typically focus on discoveries in physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics. Observing the rapid increase of computer-use in science, however, it becomes natural to ask whether there are any scientific domains out of reach for machine discovery. For example, could machines also make discoveries in qualitative social science? Is there something about humans that makes us uniquely suited to studying humans? Is there something about machines that would bar them from (...) such activity? A close look at the methodology of interpretive social science reveals several abilities necessary to make a social scientific discovery, and one capacity necessary to possess any of them is imagination. For machines to make discoveries in social science, therefore, they must possess imagination algorithms. (shrink)

John D. Norton is responsible for a number of influential views in contemporary philosophy of science. This paper will discuss two of them. The material theory of induction claims that inductive arguments are ultimately justified by their material features, not their formal features. Thus, while a deductive argument can be valid irrespective of the content of the propositions that make up the argument, an inductive argument about, say, apples, will be justified (or not) depending on facts about apples. The argument (...) view of thought experiments claims that thought experiments are arguments, and that they function epistemically however arguments do. These two views have generated a great deal of discussion, although there hasn’t been much written about their combination. I argue that despite some interesting harmonies, there is a serious tension between them. I consider several options for easing this tension, before suggesting a set of changes to the argument view that I take to be consistent with Norton’s fundamental philosophical commitments, and which retain what seems intuitively correct about the argument view. These changes require that we move away from a unitary epistemology of thought experiments and towards a more pluralist position. (shrink)

Here I pose a challenge to realism about knowledge, the view that facts about knowledge are non-trivially mind-independent, adapting an evolutionary debunking argument from metaethics. In brief: Our beliefs about knowledge are the products of innate knowledge-representing capacities with a deep and well documented evolutionary history, and, crucially, this history indicates that such capacities are indifferent to whether there are any mind-independent facts about knowledge. Instead, knowledge-representing capacities are likely just a byproduct of processing limitations on primate cognition. This presents (...) an explanatory challenge for the knowledge realist—How is it, then, that we nonetheless happen to have many true beliefs about knowledge? I’ll argue that, without abandoning the non-naturalism that characterizes much of contemporary epistemology, realism struggles to provide a compelling answer. In contrast, evolutionary anti-realism, the view advocated for here, meets the explanatory challenge head-on. Facts about knowledge are grounded in facts about what our innate knowledge-representing capacities classify as knowledge, so it’s no surprise that we have many true beliefs about knowledge. While none of this shows that realism about knowledge is false, these considerations give us ceteris paribus reason to prefer an anti-realist approach. (shrink)

ABSTRACT:Organismal superposition holds that the same individual both is and is not an organism, as a consequence of organismal pluralism. When coupled with the assumption that death is the cessation of an organism, this entails that there is no unique answer as to whether brain death is biological death. This essay argues that concerns about organismal pluralism and superposition do not undermine a theory of biological death, nor entail any metaphysical indeterminacy about the biological vital status of a brain-dead individual.

Philosophical conceptual analysis is an experimental method. Focusing on this helps to justify it from the skepticism of experimental philosophers who follow Weinberg, Nichols & Stich. To explore the experimental aspect of philosophical conceptual analysis, I consider a simpler instance of the same activity: everyday linguistic interpretation. I argue that this, too, is experimental in nature. And in both conceptual analysis and linguistic interpretation, the intuitions considered problematic by experimental philosophers are necessary but epistemically irrelevant. They are like variables introduced (...) into mathematical proofs which drop out before the solution. Or better, they are like the hypotheses that drive science, which do not themselves need to be true. In other words, it does not matter whether or not intuitions are accurate as descriptions of the natural kinds that undergird philosophical concepts; the aims of conceptual analysis can still be met. (shrink)

Can an ugly experiment be a good experiment? Philosophers have identified many beautiful experiments and explored ways in which their beauty might be connected to their epistemic value. In contrast, the present chapter seeks out (and celebrates) ugly experiments. Among the ugliest are those being designed by AI algorithms. Interestingly, in the contexts where such experiments tend to be deployed, low aesthetic value correlates with high epistemic value. In other words, ugly experiments can be good. Given this, we should conclude (...) that beauty is not generally necessary or sufficient for epistemic value, and increasing beauty will not generally tend to increase epistemic value. (shrink)

This paper aims to uncover some of the important contributions the phenomenological method can offer to philosophical issues in literary studies. It leads us to the idea that the archetypes found in fiction are intuited phenomenologically. This idea is then linked to a social constructive attainment of meaning for reality. From the intersubjectivity provided by phenomenology, empathy with characters in fiction is then displayed as more than an intellectual activity, as it becomes known to have practical implications. It is framed (...) as involving the same processes as the empathy we have with people in the real world. This equivalency allows for the plausibility of the notion that fiction-making is a necessary process for our interpretations of reality. It designates our involvement in fiction as beneficial to our experience of the real world and supports the notion it can train us to empathize. Such training is displayed to be posssible from phenomenology’s role in the process of empathy. Phenomenology's method de-centers the Cartesian ego to prevent any impasse between internal consciousness and the external world. Since they are bridged together by intentionality, we learn that phenomenology is a method that can contribute to how we conceive of empathy. (shrink)

The conflict between aesthetic experience and the modern vision of the world frames aesthetic experience as a defender of the plurality derived from the perspectives of individuals. This signifies that aesthetic experience confronts the unilateralism of modernity’s vision. This article propounds that this role of aesthetic experience is based on its defense of subjectivity and individuality. This defense, when investigated, reveals the compatibility between phenomenology and pragmatism. This compatibility also demonstrates that aesthetic experience should be understood as a phenomenological experience. (...) Therefore, phenomenology and pragmatism reveal a comradery that permits them to work in tandem, defending subjectivity and pluralism in the face of modernity. (shrink)

De burgemeester van Etterbeek liet tijdens de afgelopen periode van vrieskou daklozen van straat halen. Soms tegen hun wil in. Omdat het soms nodig is om mensen tegen zichzelf te beschermen.

For most of its history, decision theory has investigated the rational choices of humans under the assumption of static preferences. Human preferences, however, change. In recent years, decision theory has increasingly acknowledged the reality of preference change throughout life. This Element provides an accessible introduction and new contributions to the debates on preference change. It is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, the authors discuss what preference change is and whether we can integrate it into decision theory. In (...) the second chapter, they present models of preference change, including a novel proposal of their own. In the third and final chapter, they discuss how we can rationally choose a course of action when our preferences might change. Both the transformative experience literature and recent work on choosing for changing selves are discussed. (shrink)

I start with some famous comments by the philosopher (psychologist) Ludwig Wittgenstein because Pinker shares with most people (due to the default settings of our evolved innate psychology) certain prejudices about the functioning of the mind and because Wittgenstein offers unique and profound insights into the workings of language, thought and reality (which he viewed as more or less coextensive) not found anywhere else. The last quote is the only reference Pinker makes to Wittgenstein in this volume, which is most (...) unfortunate considering that he was one of the most brilliant and original analysts of language. -/- In the last chapter, using the famous metaphor of Plato’s cave, he beautifully summarizes the book with an overview of how the mind (language, thought, intentional psychology) –a product of blind selfishness, moderated only slightly by automated altruism for close relatives carrying copies of our genes--works automatically, but tries to end on an upbeat note by giving us hope that we can nevertheless employ its vast capabilities to cooperate and make the world a decent place to live. -/- Pinker is certainly aware of but says little about the fact that far more about our psychology is left out than included. Among windows into human nature that are left out or given minimal attention are math and geometry, music and sounds, images, events and causality, ontology (classes of things), dispositions (believing, thinking, judging, intending etc) and the rest of intentional psychology of action, neurotransmitters and entheogens, spiritual states (e.g, satori and enlightenment, brain stimulation and recording, brain damage and behavioral deficits and disorders, games and sports, decision theory (incl. game theory and behavioral economics), animal behavior (very little language but a billion years of shared genetics). Many books have been written about each of these areas of intentional psychology. The data in this book are descriptions, not explanations that show why our brains do it this way or how it is done. How do we know to use the sentences in their various way (i.e., know all their meanings)? This is evolutionary psychology that operates at a more basic level –the level where Wittgenstein is most active. And there is scant attention to context. -/- Nevertheless this is a classic work and with these cautions is still well worth reading. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

Latest Sermon from the Church of Fundamentalist Naturalism by Pastor Hofstadter. Like his much more famous work Godel, Escher, Bach, it has a superficial plausibility but if one understands that this is rampant scientism which mixes real scientific issues with philosophical ones (i.e., the only real issues are what language games we ought to play) then almost all its interest disappears. I provide a framework for analysis based in evolutionary psychology and the work of Wittgenstein (since updated in my more (...) recent writings). -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

Arnold Sommerfeld introduced the fine-structure constant that determines the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. Following Sommerfeld, Wolfgang Pauli left several clues to calculating the fine-structure constant with his research on Johannes Kepler's view of nature and Pythagorean geometry. The Laplace limit of Kepler's equation in classical mechanics, the Bohr-Sommerfeld model of the hydrogen atom and Julian Schwinger's research enable a calculation of the electron magnetic moment anomaly. Considerations of fundamental lengths such as the charge radius of the proton and mass (...) ratios suggest some further foundational interpretations of quantum electrodynamics. (shrink)

The fine-structure constant, which determines the strength of the electromagnetic interaction, is briefly reviewed beginning with its introduction by Arnold Sommerfeld and also includes the interest of Wolfgang Pauli, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman and others. Sommerfeld was very much a Pythagorean and sometimes compared to Johannes Kepler. The archetypal Pythagorean triangle has long been known as a hiding place for the golden ratio. More recently, the quartic polynomial has also been found as a hiding place for the golden ratio. The (...) Kepler triangle, with its golden ratio proportions, is also a Pythagorean triangle. Combining classical harmonic proportions derived from Kepler’s triangle with quartic equations determine an approximate value for the fine-structure constant that is the same as that found in our previous work with the golden ratio geometry of the hydrogen atom. These results make further progress toward an understanding of the golden ratio as the basis for the fine-structure constant. (shrink)

In aller Regel bestätigen renommierte Kollegen die Zuverlässigkeit einer eingereichten Forschungsarbeit. Doch manchmal entgeht ihnen etwas.

Research into ancient physical structures, some having been known as the seven wonders of the ancient world, inspired new developments in the early history of mathematics. At the other end of this spectrum of inquiry the research is concerned with the minimum of observations from physical data as exemplified by Eddington's Principle. Current discussions of the interplay between physics and mathematics revive some of this early history of mathematics and offer insight into the fine-structure constant. Arthur Eddington's work leads to (...) a new calculation of the inverse fine-structure constant giving the same approximate value as ancient geometry combined with the golden ratio structure of the hydrogen atom. The hyperbolic function suggested by Alfred Landé leads to another result, involving the Laplace limit of Kepler's equation, with the same approximate value and related to the aforementioned results. The accuracy of these results are consistent with the standard reference. Relationships between the four fundamental coupling constants are also found. (shrink)

Before remarking on “The New Science of the Mind”, I first offer some comments on philosophy and its relationship to contemporary psychological research as exemplified in the works of Searle (S),Wittgenstein (W), Hacker (H) et al. It will help to see my reviews of PNC (Philosophy in a New Century), TLP, PI, OC, Making the Social World (MSW) and other books by and about these geniuses, who provide a clear description of higher order behavior, not found in psychology nor philosophy, (...) that I will refer to as the WS framework. -/- As with so many philosophy books, we might stop with the title. As the quotes and comments above and in my other reviews and the books they cover indicate, there are compelling reasons for regarding the problems we face in describing the psychology of higher order thought as conceptual and not scientific. This ought to be crystal clear to all, but science envy and almost complete oblivion to WSH etc. is a la mode! But as H notes above, the issues discussed here are all about language games and have nothing to do with science. In fact, as usual, if one translates into plain English there is very little of interest here, and certainly nothing not said before and better by WS etc. countless times since the 30’s (see e.g., The Blue and Brown Books from 1933-35). It is not surprising that he makes no significant references to any of the above books or persons (the only reference to S is an article from 1958!), though in my view they are at the top of the list of the major figures in descriptive psychology. -/- On p119 he tells us that the key to all this is to figure out how “…a personal level cognitive process can belong to a representational subject. This is the task of the second half of the book.” But W did this 80 years ago and since we have the beautifully clear explanations of WSH, H&M etc., there is no point to torturing oneself with the rather aimless and opaque prose that veers off at the end into Sartre, Heidegger, Husserl, and Frege, with a dash of postmodernist word salad for good measure. A valiant effort on an interesting topic, but ultimately exhausting and fruitless. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

This is a book review of Karim Bschir and Jamie Shaw (eds.); Interpreting Feyerabend: critical essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, 290 pp, $99.99 HB.

Probably the leading exponent of W’s ideas on the language games of inner and outer (the ‘Two Selves’ operation of our personality or intentionality or EP etc. ) the prolific Daniel Hutto’s (DH) approach is called ‘Radical Enactivism’ and is well explained in numerous recent books and papers. It is a development of or version of the Embodied Mind ideas now current and, cleansed of its jargon, it is a straightforward extension of W’s 2nd and 3rd period writings (though Hutto (...) seems only intermittently aware of this). -/- The basic idea of the Embodied Mind or Enactivism is that much of behavior is automated and does not involve representations (basically S2 dispositions-see Hutto’s lovely dissection of the ‘representation rats nest’ in his online papers ). To me this is just another way of stating the fact that System 1 precedes the operation of System 2 which is a standard feature of contemporary psychology, which I have explained above and in further detail in my reviews of Wittgenstein (who was the first to see this and explored it in great detail) and Searle (who called it The Phenomenological Illusion in his superb essay of this name in his book Philosophy in a New Century which I have also reviewed). Since these are basic incontrovertible facts of animal behavior and I have already discussed them I won’t dwell on it here. -/- This book is a sustained argument against other similar ways of describing behavior which he calls CEC and CIC in favor of REC (Radical Embodied Cognition), which he characterizes as “the strongest reading of the embodiment thesis—one that uncompromisingly maintains that basic cognition is literally constituted by, and to be understood in terms of concrete patterns of environmental situated organismic activity, nothing more or less” (p11). This is clear as a bell if you understand the two systems view explained above but likely opaque if you don’t. Much clearer is Fodor’s characterization which he quotes as “abilities are prior to theories”, that “competence is prior to content” and that “knowing how is the paradigm cognitive state and it is prior to knowing that” (p10). That is, the unconscious automatisms of S1 are evolutionarily and behaviorally prior to the slow conscious dispositions of S2. -/- This is classic Hutto high level philosophical dialog, which is quite elegant, but somewhat too dense and a tad pretentious for the rest of us. I have not before encountered his coauthor Myin so can’t say how much of this text is really due to him. It is clear from this and the rest of Hutto’s work that (like everyone else) he has not quite kept up with the latest work in psychology nor really grasped the full power of W or S, even though he is one of the top Wittgensteinians alive and as bright as anyone in the field. His discussions of the language games of “information” and “representation” in his other papers and books (and much else including his deconstructions of Dennett and Fodor) should be required reading for anyone interested in behavior. So, I have the greatest respect for him, but one hopes that he will mellow with time and write descriptions of behavior (i.e., all we can really do as philosophers according to W) in more mundane prose such as this lovely summation on p15. “Hence, REC is nothing less than a fundamental rethinking of the very foundations of standard approaches to cognitive science and philosophy of mind.” Yes and what a pity that this great Wittgensteinian (and everyone else) does not realize that W laid it all out with great (and unmatched) clarity in his third period works over 60 years ago. -/- I have much less sympathy for the extended and scaffolded minds of Chap 7. I don’t see how one can lay the burden of explaining how the mind works at Searle’s door, nor how the convoluted prose about “decoupled contentful activities” etc helps at all. Why not just say that automated unconscious prelinguistic S1 feeds deliberate, conscious linguistic S2, which is axiomatically extended by public language into the myriad wonders of S3 culture? Beginning and end of story. -/- Their last chapter is about “regaining consciousness,” but I would say that if one has understood Wittgenstein and Searle, one has never lost it. And, though this is an excellent book by two of the brightest and the best, I suggest mulling over my thoughts in this and other reviews and reading Johnston and the latest from Searle, along of course with as much of 3rd period W as feasible, is an even better filter for folly. In sum an excellent book with various faults which I try to correct. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019). (shrink)

唯物主义、还原主义、行为主义、功能主义、动态系统理论和计算主义是流行的观点,但维特根斯坦却认为它们不连贯。行为研究包括人类生活的所有内容,但行为在很大程度上是自动的和无意识的,甚至意识部分,大多用语言 表达(维特根斯坦与头脑等同),不是一种自在的,所以拥有西尔称为理性逻辑结构(LSR)的框架,我称之为高阶思想的描述性心理学(DPHOT)。在总结了维特根斯坦和西尔提出的框架后,现代推理研究扩展了这个框 架,我展示了Carruther观点中的不足之处,这些观点渗透到大多数关于行为的讨论,包括当代行为科学。我认为,他的书是两本书的混合体,一本是认知心理学的摘要,另一本是头脑中标准哲学混乱的总结,并添加了 一些新的行话。我建议,后者应该被视为不连贯或卡通的生活观点,以维特根斯坦的话,我们可以实践成功的自我治疗,把心灵/身体问题作为一个语言/身体问题。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019) .

在《哥德尔之路》中,三位杰出的科学家讨论了不可解性、不完整性、随机性、可估计性和副一致性等问题。我从维特根斯坦的观点出发来处理这些问题,即有两个基本问题有着完全不同的解决方案。有科学或经验问题,这是关 于世界的事实,需要研究观察和哲学问题,如何使用语言可理解(其中包括数学和逻辑中的某些问题),需要通过查看我们在特定上下文中实际使用单词的方式来决定。当我们清楚要玩哪种语言游戏时,这些话题就像其他话题一 样被视为普通的科学和数学问题。维特根斯坦的见解很少被平等,也从未被超越,今天和80年前他口述《蓝书》和《棕色书》时一样具有现实意义。尽管它的失败——实际上是一系列笔记,而不是一本已完成的书——这是这三 位著名学者作品的独特来源,他们半个多世纪以来一直在物理学、数学和哲学的流血边缘工作。达科斯塔和多里亚被沃尔珀特引用(见下文或我的文章沃尔珀特和我对亚诺夫斯基的"理性的外在极限"的评 论),因为他们写了通用计算,在他的许多成就中,达科斯塔是先驱参数一致性。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Mind 和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-201 9年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019) .

美国和世界正处于人口过度增长的崩溃过程中,其中大多数在上个世纪,现在全部归功于第三世界人民。消耗资源,增加40亿人口,将崩溃工业文明,带来惊人的饥饿、疾病、暴力和战争。地球每年至少损失1%的表土,因此 ,当它接近2100年时,大部分粮食的生长能力将消失。数十亿将死去,核战争几乎可以肯定。在美国,由于大规模移民和移民再生产,加上民主带来的滥用,这大大加速了这一点。堕落的人性无情地把民主和多样性的梦想变 成了犯罪和贫穷的恶梦。只要中国坚持限制自私的独裁统治,中国将继续压倒美国和世界。崩溃的根本原因是我们与生俱来的心理无法适应现代世界,这导致人们把不相干的人当作他们共同的利益对待。人权观念是左派分子宣扬 的邪恶幻想,旨在转移人们对无节制的第三世界母性无情毁灭地球的注意力。再加上对基础生物学和心理学的无知,导致部分受过教育的控制民主社会的人产生社会工程错觉。很少有人明白,如果你帮助一个人,你伤害了别人— —没有免费的午餐,任何人消耗的每一件东西都会破坏无法修复的地球。因此,各地的社会政策是不可持续的,一个个、没有严格控制自私的社会将崩溃为无政府状态或独裁。最基本的事实几乎从未提及过,即美国或世界上没有 足够的资源来使相当一部分穷人摆脱贫困并使他们继续生活。这样做的企图正在使美国破产,毁灭世界。地球生产食物的能力每天都在下降,我们的遗传质量也是如此。现在,和往常一样,穷人最大的敌人是其他穷人,而不是富 人。如果不进行戏剧性和立即的变化,就不可能阻止美国或任何遵循民主制度的国家的崩溃。.

Dueling with Dualism takes up the commonplace understanding of man's mind as having a distinct mode of existence outside of physical space and corporeal bodies: the infamous notion of "mind-body duality." In this brisk and lucid work Spenard lays forth a historical account and cumulative critique against the intuitive conception of the mind, as separate from the brain, by bearing out fully the consequences and implications of this notion. In challenging the reader from the opening-"What is it that your name (...) names? "-Dueling with Dualism gives to the reader what all philosophy should: a renewed interest in how we conceive of ourselves by looking to the ideas of past, reconciling them with the present and pointing to a future "conceptual topography.". (shrink)

人们一再说,哲学并没有真正进步,我们仍然被和希腊人一样的哲学问题所占据。但是说这一点的人不明白为什么会这样。因为我们的语言保持不变,并不断引诱我们问同样的问题。只要继续有一个动词,看起来好像它的作用与 吃和喝一样,只要我们仍然有形容词[相同],[真],[false],只要我们继续谈论时间的河流,在广阔的空间,等等,人们会不断绊倒同样的令人费解的困难,发现自己盯着的东西,似乎无法解释,无法清除。更重要 的是,这满足了对超然的渴望,因为只要人们认为他们能看到"人类理解的极限",他们当然相信他们能看到超越这些。 这句话出自路德维希·维特根斯坦,他在大约70年前重新定义了哲学(但大多数人还没有发现这一点)。德内特,虽然他已经作为一个哲学家约40年,是其中之一。也奇怪的是,他和他的主要对手,约翰·西尔,在著名的维 特根斯坦人(西尔与约翰·奥斯汀,德内特与吉尔伯特·莱尔)下学习,但西尔或多或少得到了这一点,而德内特没有,(虽然它正在拉伸的东西打电话给西尔或莱尔·维特根斯坦人)。丹内特是一个强硬的威慑者(尽管他试图 在后门偷偷摸摸现实),也许这是由于莱尔,他的名著 《心灵的概念》(1949年)继续被重印。那本书在驱除鬼魂方面做得非常好,但它离开了机器。 德内特喜欢犯维特根斯坦、莱尔(以及许多其他人)已经详细揭露的错误。我们使用词的意识,选择,自由,意图,粒子,思维,决定,波,因,发生,事件(等等无休止)很少是混乱的来源,但只要我们离开正常生活,进入哲 学(和任何讨论脱离了语言演变的环境——即,单词含义的确切背景)混乱。和大多数人一样,德内特缺乏一个连贯的框架——西尔称之为理性的逻辑结构。我已经大大扩展了这一点,因为我写了这个评论,我最近的文章详细显 示了什么与Dennett的哲学方法是错误的,这可能称为类固醇的山达主义。让我以维特根斯坦的另一句话结束——野心是思想的死亡。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日(2019年)。.

我首先从哲学家(心理学家)路德维希·维特根斯坦的一些著名评论开始,因为平克与大多数人(由于我们进化的先天心理学的默认设置)分享了对心灵功能的某些偏见,以及因为维特根斯坦提供了独特而深刻的见解,了解语言 、思想和现实(他认为或多或少是共性)在其他地方所没有的。本卷只提到维特根斯坦,这是最不幸的,因为他是最聪明和原始的语言分析家。 在最后一章中,他用柏拉图洞穴的著名比喻,完美地概括了这本书,概述了头脑(语言、思想、故意心理)——盲目自私的产物,只是通过自动利他主义来缓和。携带我们基因副本的亲戚(包容性健身)——自动工作,但试图以 乐观的结局结束,给我们希望,我们仍然可以利用其巨大的能力进行合作,使世界成为一个体面的生活场所。 平克当然知道,但很少说,我们的心理被遗漏了比包括更多。在人类自然的窗口,被排除在外或给予最少的关注是数学和几何,音乐和声音,图像,事件和因果关系,本体论(类的东西或我们所知道的),大多数认识论(我们如 何知道),处置(相信,思考,判断,打算等)和行动,神经递质和内生,精神状态(如,萨托里和启蒙,大脑刺激和记录,脑损伤和行为的故意心理学的其余部分缺陷和障碍,游戏和运动,决策理论(包括博弈论和行为经济学 ),动物行为(很少语言,但10亿年的共同遗传学)。许多关于有意心理学领域的书籍已经写好了。本书中的数据是描述,而不是说明为什么我们的大脑这样做或它是如何做到的解释。我们怎么知道用各种方式使用句子(即, 知道它们的所有含义)？这是进化心理学,在更基本的水平运作——维特根斯坦最活跃的水平。人们对使用词语的背景关注甚少——这是维特根斯坦开创的舞台。 然而,这是一部经典作品,这些警告仍然值得一读。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019) .

霍夫施塔特牧师从原教旨主义自然主义教会的最新讲道。像他更出名(或臭名昭著的无情的哲学错误)的工作戈德尔,埃舍尔,巴赫,它有一个肤浅的合理性,但如果人们明白,这是猖獗的科学主义,混合真正的科学问题与哲学 问题(即,只有真正的问题是我们应该玩什么语言游戏),然后几乎所有的兴趣消失。我提供了一个基于进化心理学和维特根斯坦工作的分析框架(自从我最近的著作中更新)。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、心神 (Mind) 和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-201 9年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019).

我已经习惯了奇怪的书和特殊的人,但霍金斯脱颖而出,因为他使用一个简单的技术来测试肌肉张力作为关键,任何种类的陈述的"真相"-即,不只是被测试的人是否相信它,但它是否真的是真的!众所 周知,人们会表现出自动的、无意识的生理和心理反应,就像他们接触到的任何东西——图像、声音、触觉、气味、想法、人。所以,肌肉阅读,找出他们的真实感受是一点也不激进,不像用它作为一个沉思的棍子(更多的肌肉 阅读)做"超自然科学"。 霍金斯描述了在认知负荷增加时使用降低手臂肌肉的张力,从而导致手臂在手指持续压力下下降。他似乎没有意识到,在社会心理学方面,有一个长期而庞大的持续研究,被诸如"隐性认知"、" ;自动性"等短语所指,而他使用"运动学"只是一小部分。除了肌肉张力(不常使用)外,社会心理学家还测量脑电图、电光皮肤反应,以及最常见的言语反应、句子、图像或情况,有时从刺 激后几秒钟到几个月不等。许多,如巴格和韦格纳,认为结果意味着我们是自动机,学习和行动在很大程度上没有意识通过S1(自动化系统1)和许多其他,如基尔斯特罗姆和尚克斯说,这些研究是有缺陷的,我们是S2的生 物(审议系统2)。虽然霍金斯似乎并不知道,就像在高阶思维的描述性心理学的其他领域一样,"自动性"的情况仍然像维特根斯坦描述心理学无菌和贫瘠的原因时一样混乱。在30年代。然而,这本书 是一个容易阅读,一些治疗师和精神教师可能会发现它使用。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019) .

It is commonly thought that such topics as Impossibility, Incompleteness, Paraconsistency, Undecidability, Randomness, Computability, Paradox, Uncertainty and the Limits of Reason are disparate scientific physical or mathematical issues having little or nothing in common. I suggest that they are largely standard philosophical problems (i.e., language games) which were resolved by Wittgenstein over 80 years ago. -/- Wittgenstein also demonstrated the fatal error in regarding mathematics or language or our behavior in general as a unitary coherent logical ‘system,’ rather than as (...) a motley of pieces assembled by the random processes of natural selection. “Gödel shows us an unclarity in the concept of ‘mathematics’, which is indicated by the fact that mathematics is taken to be a system” and we can say (contra nearly everyone) that is all that Gödel and Chaitin show. Wittgenstein commented many times that ‘truth’ in math means axioms or the theorems derived from axioms, and ‘false’ means that one made a mistake in using the definitions, and this is utterly different from empirical matters where one applies a test. Wittgenstein often noted that to be acceptable as mathematics in the usual sense, it must be useable in other proofs and it must have real world applications, but neither is the case with Godel’s Incompleteness. Since it cannot be proved in a consistent system (here Peano Arithmetic but a much wider arena for Chaitin), it cannot be used in proofs and, unlike all the ‘rest’ of PA it cannot be used in the real world either. As Rodych notes “…Wittgenstein holds that a formal calculus is only a mathematical calculus (i.e., a mathematical language-game) if it has an extra- systemic application in a system of contingent propositions (e.g., in ordinary counting and measuring or in physics) …” Another way to say this is that one needs a warrant to apply our normal use of words like ‘proof’, ‘proposition’, ‘true’, ‘incomplete’, ‘number’, and ‘mathematics’ to a result in the tangle of games created with ‘numbers’ and ‘plus’ and ‘minus’ signs etc., and with -/- ‘Incompleteness’ this warrant is lacking. Rodych sums it up admirably. “On Wittgenstein’s account, there is no such thing as an incomplete mathematical calculus because ‘in mathematics, everything is algorithm [and syntax] and nothing is meaning [semantics]…” -/- I make some brief remarks which note the similarities of these ‘mathematical’ issues to economics, physics, game theory, and decision theory. -/- Those wishing further comments on philosophy and science from a Wittgensteinian two systems of thought viewpoint may consult my other writings -- Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle 2nd ed (2019), Suicide by Democracy 4th ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), The Logical Structure of Consciousness (2019, Understanding the Connections between Science, Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Politics, and Economics and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 5th ed (2019), Remarks on Impossibility, Incompleteness, Paraconsistency, Undecidability, Randomness, Computability, Paradox, Uncertainty and the Limits of Reason in Chaitin, Wittgenstein, Hofstadter, Wolpert, Doria, da Costa, Godel, Searle, Rodych, Berto, Floyd, Moyal-Sharrock and Yanofsky (2019), and The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Religion, Politics, Economics, Literature and History (2019). (shrink)

A mixed bag dominated by H & D's reductionist nonsense. This is a follow-up to Hofstadter´s famous (or infamous as I would now say, considering its unrelenting nonsense) Godel, Escher, Bach (1980). Like its predecessor, it is concerned largely with the foundations of artificial intelligence, but it is composed mostly of stories, essays and extracts from a wide range of people, with a few essays by DH and DD and comments to all of the contributions by one or the other (...) of them. For my views on the attempts of D and H to understand behavior see my review of Hofstadter's ‘I am a Strange Loop’ and other writings. -/- Much of it is very reductionistic in tone (i.e., " explains " everything in terms of physics/math and denies " reality " of psychology) but as Hofstadter notes, the quantum field equations of a water molecule are too complex to solve (and so is a vacuum)and nobody has a clue about how to explain the way properties emerge (e.g., water properties from H2 and 02) as you go up the scale from the vacuum to the brain, so reductionism, like holism, requires a great deal of faith and in fact is incoherent as one cannot even frame it's arguments without presupposing the coherence of higher order thought. Additional problems for reductionism are the uncertainty principle, chaos (e.g., no way to predict how a pile of sand will fall), the logically necessary incompleteness of math (and all thought) and the impossibility of matching higher order behaviors (e.g., language) with lower order phenomena (e.g., biochemistry), i.e., the combinatorial explosion or underdetermination. In sum, though there are many interesting comments, like nearly all writing on behavior, this work lacks any coherent account of the logical structure of rationality, which I try to give in my writings. -/- Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) . (shrink)

我们必须记住的第一件事是，当说中国这样说或中国这样做时，我们不是说中国人民，而是控制中国共产党的社会路径者，即七大社会病态连环杀手。中共常务委员会或中央政治局委员等25人。 中共对三战和全面统治的计划在中国政府的出版物和演讲中已经非常明确地阐述了，这就是习近平的"中国梦"。只有统治中国的少数人（也许只有几十到几百人）的梦想，也是其他人（包括14亿中国人 ）的噩梦。每年100亿美元使他们或他们的傀儡拥有或控制报纸、杂志、电视和广播频道，每天在世界各地的大多数主要媒体上放置假新闻。 此外，他们有一支军队（也许有数百万人），他们滚动所有媒体进行更多的宣传，淹没合法的评论（50美分的军队）。 除了剥夺第三世界的资源外，数万亿美元的"一带一路"倡议的主要主旨是在全世界建立军事基地。他们迫使自由世界陷入大规模的高科技军备竞赛，使得与苏联的冷战看起来像是野餐。 尽管SSSSK和世界上其他的军事国家都在高级硬件上花费巨资，但WW3（或导致它的小型交战）很可能以软件为主。SSSSK，可能有更多的黑客（编码器）为他们工作，然后世界其他国家加起来，通过通过网络瘫痪他 们的敌人，以最小的物理冲突赢得未来的战争。"没有卫星，没有电话，没有通讯，没有金融交易，没有电网，没有互联网，没有先进的武器，没有车辆，火车，船舶和飞机。 罢免中共只有两条主要途径，即释放14亿中国囚犯，结束向第三次世界大战的疯狂进军。 和平的一个方案是发动一场全面的贸易战来摧毁中国经济，直到军方受够了，把中共赶出去。 关闭中国经济的替代方案是一场有限的战争，比如在中共第20届大会上，50架热压无人机进行有针对性的打击，当时所有高层成员都在一个地方，但这种情况要到2022年才会发生。一个可以击中年度全体会议。 袭击发生后，中国人将被告知，他们必须放下武器，准备举行民主选举，否则就要进入石器时代。另一种选择是全面核攻击。 鉴于中共目前的路线，军事对抗是不可避免的。 几十年后，这种情况可能会发生在南中国海或台湾的岛屿上，但随着它们在世界各地建立军事基地，它可能发生在任何地方（见"卧虎藏"等）。 未来的冲突将有硬性与软性方面与中共的既定目标，强调网络战争，通过黑客和瘫痪控制系统的所有军事和工业通信，设备，发电厂，卫星，互联网，银行，以及连接到网络的任何设备或车辆。 SS正在缓慢地部署一系列全球载人和自主水面和水下潜艇或无人驾驶飞机，这些潜艇或无人机能够发射可能处于休眠状态，等待中国发出信号，甚至寻找美国船只或飞机的签名。 在摧毁我们的卫星，从而消除美国和我们全球部队之间的通信的同时，他们将使用他们的卫星，与无人机一起瞄准和摧毁我们目前优越的海军部队。 当然，所有这一切都是越来越多地由AI自动完成的。 到目前为止，中共最大的盟友是美国民主党。 选择是现在停止中共，或者看着他们把中国监狱扩展到全世界。 当然，对我们的生活进行普遍监控和数字化是不可避免的。任何不这么认为的人，都是极度脱节的。 当然，正是那些期待中国社会路径者统治世界的人，而悲观主义者（他们认为自己是现实主义者）则期望AI的社会病态 （或我称之为"假愚蠢"或"人造社会病态"）的选择性。）接管，也许到2030年。 那些有兴趣在现代社会的疯狂道路的进一步细节可能会参考我的其他作品，如自杀的民主-美国和世界第三版2019年和自 杀乌托邦幻想在21日世纪：哲学、人性与文明的崩溃（2019）.

「ゴーデルの道」では、3人の著名な科学者が、デシッド不能、不完全性、ランダム性、計算可能性、パラコンシステンションなどの問題について議論しています。私は、ウィトゲンシュタイニアンの視点から、全く異なる 解決策を持つ2つの基本的な問題があることをこれらの問題に取り組んでいます。科学的または経験的な問題は、言語がどのように理解的に使用できるか(数学と論理に特定の質問を含む)、特定の文脈で実際にどのように 単語を使用するかを調べて決定する必要がある、観察的および哲学的な問題を調査する必要がある世界に関する事実です。私たちがプレイしている言語ゲームについて明確になると、これらのトピックは他の人と同じように 普通の科学的、数学的な質問であると見なされます。ウィトゲンシュタインの洞察はめったに等しくなく、決して上回ることはなく、彼がブルーブックスとブラウンブックスを口述した80年前と同じくらい適切です。失敗 にもかかわらず、本当に完成した本ではなく一連のノートは、半世紀以上にわたって物理学、数学、哲学の出血エッジで働いてきたこれらの3人の有名な学者の作品のユニークな源です。ダ・コスタとドリアは、普遍的な計 算に書いて以来、ウォルパート(以下または私の記事を参照)によって引用されています(ウォルパートとヤナフスキーの「理由の外側の限界」の私のレビューを参照)、,そして彼の多くの成果の中で、ダ・コスタはパラ コンシタンションのパイオニアです。 現代の2つのシス・エムスの見解から人間の行動のための包括的な最新の枠組みを望む人は、私の著書「ルートヴィヒ・ヴィトゲンシュタインとジョン・サールの第2回(2019)における哲学、心理学、ミンと言語の論 理的構造」を参照することができます。私の著作の多くにご興味がある人は、運命の惑星における「話す猿--哲学、心理学、科学、宗教、政治―記事とレビュー2006-2019 第3回(2019)」と21世紀4日(2019年)の自殺ユートピア妄想st Century 4th ed (2019)などを見ることができます。 .

著名的蚂蚁人E.O.Wilson一直是我的英雄之一——不仅是一位杰出的生物学家,而且是一小撮正在消失的知识分子,他们至少敢于暗示我们本性的真相,而其他人却无法领会,或者只要他们所掌握的,刻意避免政治权 宜之计。可悲的是,他以最脏的方式结束了他漫长的职业生涯,成为对科学的无知和傲慢攻击的一方,至少部分是出于哈佛同事的宗教热情。它显示了当大学接受宗教团体的钱,科学期刊被大牌们敬畏,以至于他们避免适当的同 行评议,当自我被允许失控时,后果不堪设想。它带我们进入进化的本质,科学方法论的基础,数学如何与科学的关系,什么构成一个理论,甚至什么态度的宗教和慷慨是适当的,因为我们无情地接近工业的崩溃文明。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019) .

The golden ratio is found to be related to the fine-structure constant, which determines the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. The golden ratio and classical harmonic proportions with quartic equations give an approximate value for the inverse fine-structure constant the same as that discovered previously in the geometry of the hydrogen atom. With the former golden ratio results, relationships are also shown between the four fundamental forces of nature: electromagnetism, the weak force, the strong force, and the force of gravitation.

在评论这本书之前,我提出了对维特根斯坦和西尔和理性的逻辑结构的评论。这里的文章大多在过去十年中已经出版(尽管有些已经更新),还有一个未发表的项目,这里没有什么会令那些跟上他的作品的人感到惊讶。和W一样 ,他被认为是他时代最好的站立哲学家,他的书面作品是坚如磐石,自始至终具有开创性。然而,他未能足够重视后来的W,导致一些错误和混乱。仅举几个例子:在第7页,他两次指出,我们对基本事实的确定性是由于支持我 们主张的压倒性理由,但W在《关于确定性》中明确表明,不可能怀疑我们的系统1感知,记忆和思想,因为它本身就是判断的基础,不能判断本身。在第8页的第一句中,他告诉我们确定性是可更新的,但是这种" 确定性",我们称之为确定性2,是通过经验扩展我们的公理和不可更新的确定性(确定性1)的结果,它完全不同于它命题(真或假)。这当然是W反复展示的"用语言来打击我们智力的魔咒" ;的一个经典例子。一个词- 两个(或许多)不同的用途。 他的最后一章"命题的统一"(以前未出版)也将受益匪浅,阅读W的"关于确定性"或DMS的两本书的OC(见我的评论),因为他们清楚地区分了真正的只有句子描述S1和真 或假描述 S2 的命题。这让我觉得S把S1观念视为命题的一种超优方法,因为他们在S2中开始思考它们后才变成T或F。然而,他的观点是,命题允许陈述实际或潜在的真理和虚假,过去和未来和幻想,从而提供了一个巨大的进步,超过 前或原语言社会,是令人信服的。正如他所指出的,"一个命题是任何可以决定满足条件的东西...和满足的条件...就是这样的。或者,需要补充的是,这可能是或可能想象成这种情况。 总体而言,PNC很好地总结了在维特根斯坦的半个世纪的工作,许多实质性的进展,但在我看来,W仍然是无与伦比的,一旦你明白他在说什么。理想情况下,它们应该一起阅读:西尔为清晰的连贯的散文和概括,用W的敏锐 例子和辉煌的格言来说明。如果我年轻得多,我会写一本书。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日(2019年)。.

霍维奇对维特根斯坦(W)进行了精妙的分析,是一位顶尖的W学者,但在我看来,他们都没有达到完全的欣赏,正如我在评论和许多其他评论中详细解释的那样。如果一个人不理解W(最好也是西尔),那么我看不出一个人怎 么会对哲学和更高层次的思想,从而对所有复杂的行为(心理学,社会学,人类学,历史,文学,社会)。简而言之,W 演示了当您演示了句子在感兴趣的上下文中的使用方式时,就没有什么可说的了。我将从几个值得注意的引言开始,然后给出我认为是理解维特根斯坦、哲学和人类行为所需的最低考虑因素。 首先,人们可能会注意到,把"元"放在任何单词前面都应该是值得怀疑的。例如,元数学和任何其他数学一样。我们可以走出哲学的概念(即更高层次思维的描述性心理学)本身就是一种深刻的困惑。这 里的另一个刺激(以及过去40年的学术写作)是"她"和"她"和"她"或"他/她"等不断的反向语言性别歧视,其中" 他们"和"他们"和"他们"会很好。同样,使用法语单词""汇编",其中英语的"汇编"将做得很好。主要的 不足是完全失败(虽然很常见),使用我所看到的浩浩特和西尔框架的非常强大和直观的两个系统视图,我已经概述了上面。这在关于含义 p111 及其 seq 的章节(特别是在脚注 2-7 中)中尤为尖锐,在非常泥泞的水中游泳,没有自动真正的 S1、命题处置 S2、COS 等框架。通过阅读约翰斯顿或巴德(见我的评论),还可以更好地了解内部和外部。然而,霍维奇却发表了许多尖锐的评论。我特别喜欢他关于W的反理论立场在第65页导入的总结。他需要更加强调"关于确定性& quot;,最近丹尼尔·莫亚尔-沙罗克、科利瓦等人努力的主题,并在我最近的文章中进行了总结。 霍维奇是一流的,他的工作非常值得付出努力。人们希望他(和每个人都)将学习西尔和一些现代心理学以及胡托,里德,哈钦森,斯特恩,莫亚尔-沙罗克,斯特罗,黑客和贝克等,以获得广泛的现代行为观。他们的大部分论 文都academia dot edu和philpapers dot org,但对于PMS黑客看http colon //info.sjc dortox dot ac dot uk/scr/hacker/DownloadPapers dot html。 他给出了一个最美丽的总结,其中对维特根斯坦的理解留给我们,我见过。 "绝不能像弗雷格将算术缩减为逻辑那样,试图解释我们的语言/概念活动 (PI 126);没有试图给它认识论基础(PI 124),如在基于意义的先验知识的帐户;没有试图将理想化的形式(PI 130)描述为感官逻辑;没有试图改革它(PI 124,132),如麦基的错误理论或杜梅特的直觉;没有试图精简它(PI 133),如在奎因的存在帐户;没有试图使它更一致(PI 132),如塔尔斯基对说谎悖论的反应;并且没有试图使它更完整 (PI 133), 在解决奇怪的假想"传送"场景的个人身份问题。 最后,让我建议,以我在这里鼓励的观点,W是当代哲学和心理学的中心,不是晦涩,困难或不相干,但闪烁,深刻和水晶般清晰,想念他是错过一个最伟大的智力冒险可能。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Mind 和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-201 9年第3次(2019 年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019).

你可以在第135或326页快速获得这本书的摘要。如果你对进化心理学没有跟上速度,你应该先阅读标题中这个术语的最近许多文本之一。其中最好的是《进化心理学手册》第二部,由Buss出版。直到大约15年前,对 行为的解释还不是对心理过程的真正解释,而是对人们做了什么和说什么的模糊和基本上无用的描述,而对原因却一无所知。我们可以说,人们聚集纪念一个事件,赞美上帝,接受他(或她或他们)的祝福,等等。,但这一切都 没有描述相关的心理过程,因此,我们可以说,他们是解释的方式,它解释了为什么一个苹果下降到地面,如果我们说它,因为我们释放它,而且它很重,没有机制,也没有解释或预测能力。这本书继续阐明人类行为的遗传基础 ,学术界、宗教界、政界和公众几乎普遍忽视和否认(见平克的优秀书《空白斯莱特》)。他的陈述(p3)认为,问宗教是否遗传是没有意义的,因为任何行为因基因和环境而发生变异的百分比都可以被研究,就像所有其他行 为一样(见Pinker)。标题应该是"初步尝试解释原始宗教的某些方面",因为他根本不对待更高的意识(例如,萨托里,启蒙等),这是迄今为止最有趣的现象,也是唯一的21世纪对聪明、受过 教育的人个人感兴趣的宗教的一部分。读整本书,你永远不会猜到这样的事情存在。同样,对于毒品和宗教的巨大领域。它缺乏一个理性的框架,没有提及思想观的双重体系,这种观念现在如此富有成效。因为我建议我最近的一 些论文。然而,这本书有很多的兴趣,尽管日期仍然值得一读。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Mind 和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-201 9年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日(2019年)。 .

对富人和名人有不同的看法怎么样？首先显而易见的——哈利·波特小说是原始的迷信,鼓励孩子们相信幻想,而不是对世界负责——当然,这是常态。JKR和大多数人一样对自己和世界一无所知,但破坏力是普通美国人的2 00倍,比一般中国人高出800倍。她一直负责破坏大约3万公顷的森林,以产生这些垃圾小说和所有的侵蚀(不是微不足道的,因为它至少是6,也许12吨/年的土壤进入海洋,地球上的每个人或100吨每个美国人,所 以约5000吨/年罗琳的书和莫夫和她的3个孩子)。地球每年至少损失1%的表土,因此,当它接近2100年时,大部分粮食的生长能力将消失。然后是大量的燃料燃烧和废物,使书籍和电影,塑料娃娃等。她通过生孩子 ,而不是用她数百万的人来鼓励计划生育或购买雨林,以及通过宣扬正在毁灭英国、美国、破坏英国、美国、、世界和她的后代的未来。当然,她和其他7个也没有什么不同。8十亿无头 - 只是嘈杂和更破坏性的. 这是没有免费的午餐问题写大。暴徒们就是看不上没有伤害别人就能帮助一个人。给予新进入拥挤世界的人的权利或特权只能使其他人的权利或特权黯然失色。尽管每天都在他们面前发生大规模的生态灾难,但他们无法把它们与 "多样化"的无拘无束的母性相统一,因为"多样化"占上个世纪人口增长的大部分时间。一个。他们缺乏智力、教育、经验和理智,因此需要将每天对社会资源和运作的攻击推断为 工业文明的最终崩溃。每顿饭,每次坐汽车或公共汽车旅行,每双鞋都是地球棺材里的另一颗钉子。她可能从未想过,从伦敦飞往旧金山的飞机上的一个座位会产生大约一吨的碳,融化了大约3平方米的海冰,而作为特权阶层之 一,她可能飞过数百次这样的航班。 不仅富人和名人,而且几乎任何公众人物,包括几乎所有的教师,都被迫在政治上正确,这在西方民主政体中,现在意味着社会民主(新马克思主义者——即被稀释的共产主义者)第三位。世界至高无上主义者为毁灭自己的社会 和自己的后代而工作。因此,那些缺乏教育、经验、智力(和基本常识)的人,应该禁止他们发表任何公开声明,完全主宰着所有媒体,给人留下一种印象,即聪明和文明必须有利于民主、多样性和平等,而事实是,这些是问题 而不是解决办法,它们本身就是文明的主要敌人。看到我的自杀民主2nd(2019).

简要回顾独特的美国神秘阿迪达(弗兰克林·琼斯)的生活和精神自传。一些版本封面上的贴纸上写着"有史以来最深刻的精神自传",这很可能是真的。我70多岁,读过许多由精神导师和灵性的书,这 是最伟大的之一。当然,这是迄今为止我所见过的启蒙过程最全面、最清晰的描述。即使你对人类最迷人的心理过程毫无兴趣,它还是一个惊人的文件,揭示了很多关于宗教、瑜伽和人类心理学的信息,并探讨了人类可能性的深 度和局限性。我详细地描述了它,并将他的教学与当代印度神秘奥修的教导进行比较。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019).

I have read many recent discussions of the limits of computation and the universe as computer, hoping to find some comments on the amazing work of polymath physicist and decision theorist David Wolpert but have not found a single citation and so I present this very brief summary. Wolpert proved some stunning impossibility or incompleteness theorems (1992 to 2008-see arxiv.org) on the limits to inference (computation) that are so general they are independent of the device doing the computation, and even (...) independent of the laws of physics, so they apply across computers, physics, and human behavior. They make use of Cantor's diagonalization, the liar paradox and worldlines to provide what may be the ultimate theorem in Turing Machine Theory, and seemingly provide insights into impossibility,incompleteness, the limits of computation,and the universe as computer, in all possible universes and all beings or mechanisms, generating, among other things,a non-quantum mechanical uncertainty principle and a proof of monotheism. (shrink)

L'America e il mondo sono in procinto di collassare a causa dell'eccessiva crescita demografica, la maggior parte per il secolo scorso, e ora tutto questo, a causa della gente del terzo mondo. Il consumo di risorse e l'aggiunta di altri 4 miliardi di ca. 2100 crolleranno la civiltà industriale e porterà alla fame, alle malattie, alla violenza e alla guerra su scala impressionante. La terra perde almeno l'1% del suo suolo superiore ogni anno, così come si avvicina a 2100, la (...) maggior parte della sua capacità di coltivazione alimentare sarà andato. Miliardi moriranno e la guerra nucleare è tutt'altro che certa. In America, questo è stato enormemente accelerato dalla massiccia immigrazione e dalla riproduzione degli immigrati, unite agli abusi resi possibili dalla democrazia. La natura umana depravata trasforma inesorabilmente il sogno della democrazia e della diversità in un incubo di criminalità e povertà. La Cina continuerà a travolgere l'America e il mondo, finché manterrà la dittatura che limita l'egoismo. La causa principale del collasso è l'incapacità della nostra psicologia innata di adattarsi al mondo moderno, che porta le persone a trattare le persone non correlate come se avessero interessi comuni. L'idea dei diritti umani è una fantasia malvagia promossa dalla sinistra per distogliere l'attenzione dalla spietata distruzione della terra da parte della sfrenata maternità del terzo mondo. Questo, oltre all'ignoranza della biologia e della psicologia di base, porta alle illusioni di ingegneria sociale dei parzialmente istruiti che controllano le società democratiche. Pochi capiscono che se aiuti una persona che fai del male a qualcun altro, non c'è pranzo gratuito e ogni singolo oggetto che qualcuno consuma distrugge la terra in modo irreparabile. Di conseguenza, le politiche sociali ovunque sono insostenibili e una dopo l'altra tutte le società senza rigorosi controlli sull'egoismo crolleranno nell'anarchia o nella dittatura. I fatti più basilari, quasi mai menzionati, sono che non ci sono abbastanza risorse in America o nel mondo per sollevare una percentuale significativa dei poveri dalla povertà e tenerli lì. Il tentativo di farlo sta mandando in bancarotta l'America e distruggendo il mondo. La capacità della terra di produrre cibo diminuisce ogni giorno, così come la nostra qualità genetica. E ora, come sempre, di gran lunga il più grande nemico dei poveri sono gli altri poveri e non i ricchi. Senza cambiamenti drammatici e immediati, non c'è speranza di prevenire il crollo dell'America, o di qualsiasi paese che segua un sistema democratico. (shrink)

这是既惊人的,适合这个巨大的,行话满载(这本书真的需要一个词汇表!),大量的学术工作已成为畅销书在世界上的教育。一个人必须专心学习行话,然后翻阅551页的文本和238页的笔记。M,我们一次又一次地被告 知,这只是一个即将发生的事情的轮廓! 虽然他严厉批评了三个运动的过激行为,但从非常自由的精神观点来看,这是一种解构的、新时代神秘主义和后现代对宗教、哲学和行为科学的解释,没有最坏的德顿,下午和不结盟运动的行话,狂热的平均主义和反科学的反知 识主义。 他详细分析了哲学、心理学、社会学和宗教的各种世界观,揭露了哲学、心理学、社会学和宗教等不同世界观的致命减少缺陷,但如今他分析的大部分来源几乎毫无关系。 他们使用的术语和概念,已经过时的,当他研究和写作20年前。人们不得不浏览无数页的行话——关于哈贝马斯、康德、爱默生、荣格et.al。去珍珠 你得到一个了不起的样本,糟糕的写作,混乱和过时的想法和过时的行话。 如果一个人有一个良好的当前教育,读这本书(和大多数关于人类行为的写作)是双重痛苦的。 痛苦,因为它是如此的折磨和困惑,然后再次当你意识到它是多么简单与现代心理学和哲学。术语和想法是可怕的混乱和过时的(但在威尔伯自己的分析比在他的来源更不然)。 这本书和它的大部分来源是可能的心理文本,虽然大多数作者没有意识到这一点。它是关于人类行为和推理的,关于我们为什么以我们的方式思考和行动,以及将来我们如何改变。但是(就像直到最近所有的这类讨论一样),没 有一个解释是真正的解释,因此它们不能洞察人类的行为。没有人讨论所涉及的心理机制。这就像描述汽车是如何工作的by讨论方向盘和金属和油漆没有任何了解的发动机,燃料或传动系。事实上,像大多数老人们的行为解释 一样,这里引用的文字和威尔伯的文法通常更有趣,因为他们接受(和忽略!)作为解释,以及推理的种类,而不是实际内容。 如果一个人对哲学、认知和进化心理学有一套,大部分都是古老的。像几乎每个人都一样(学者和公众一样。g g.,看看我对丹奈特的自由进化和其他书籍的评论,他不明白宗教和伦理的基本知识——事实上所有的人类行为,都是被编程到我们的基因中。当他写许多书时,一场了解自己的革命正在发生,它经过他。 那些希望从现代两个系统的观点来看为人类行为建立一个全面的最新框架的人,可以查阅我的书《路德维希的哲学、心理学、Min d和语言的逻辑结构》维特根斯坦和约翰·西尔的《第二部》(2019年)。那些对我更多的作品感兴趣的人可能会看到《会说话的猴子——一个末日星球上的哲学、心理学、科学、宗教和政治——文章和评论2006-20 19年第3次(2019年)和自杀乌托邦幻想21篇世纪4日 (2019).