Favorite Philosophers?

Still a Youth

Well-Known Traveler
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
3,142
Awards
247
hehehe
 

Attachments

  • albert-camus-photo-french-school.jpg
    albert-camus-photo-french-school.jpg
    167.5 KB · Views: 74
Virtual Cafe Awards

Ogerch

The Hammer of Philosophers
Joined
Nov 14, 2021
Messages
23
Reaction score
50
Awards
12
Virtual Cafe Awards

Steingar

Traveler
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
93
Awards
25
Amongst old school philsophers I like Zhuang Zhe and Thoreau. Amongst contemporary philsophers I quite enjoy listening to Hans Jorg Mueller of 'Carefree Wandering' fame on YouTube.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

ZinRicky

Vapor Number & Data Guy
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
297
Reaction score
837
Awards
87
Website
zinricky.tilde.team
everyone except descartes fuck that guy
In Math uni our profs said: «Descartes's most useful discoveries are almost unknown to the general public, whereas his most obtuse takes are the most famous»
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

gathermore

Active Traveler
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
177
Reaction score
286
Awards
60
Joscha Bach
an AI researcher and cognitive scientist. He currently is the principle researcher at Intel Labs
I like him because he is trying to build a conscious mind from a constructivist/computationalist perspective.
Instead of just sitting around "intellectually jacking off" to his own ideas like so many "philosophers" do

helped me wrap my mind around the idea of a "belief attractor" and the importance of leaving yourself open to believing everything without assigning confidence
for example: if you believe in God, its very expensive to your world view to give up this belief, so you rarely do or push against it

111.PNG



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3K5UxWRRuY&list=PLSiiU6GT5xuAi7QaPVmhnKLn2d_1rAse2&index=5
 
Last edited:
Virtual Cafe Awards

brinefine

Internet Refugee
Joined
Aug 18, 2021
Messages
10
Reaction score
18
Awards
8
according to nick bostrom this is logically probable
I think it's only probable if you have a certain techno-optimism. IIRC the probability component only comes in if it's possible and feasible to create ancestor simulations. I can't point to a specific reason why it's impossible, but I'm not convinced it is.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Still a Youth

Well-Known Traveler
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
3,142
Awards
247
I think it's only probable if you have a certain techno-optimism. IIRC the probability component only comes in if it's possible and feasible to create ancestor simulations. I can't point to a specific reason why it's impossible, but I'm not convinced it is.
Bostrom saves himself by saying that it's possible that it could become feasible in the distant future. If it weren't for that premise I'd agree, but by the time we reach e.g. 2552 we'll probably have the tech for it imo
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Still a Youth

Well-Known Traveler
Joined
Nov 12, 2021
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
3,142
Awards
247
Joscha Bach
an AI researcher and cognitive scientist. He currently is the principle researcher at Intel Labs
I like him because he is trying to build a conscious mind from a constructivist/computationalist perspective.
Instead of just sitting around "intellectually jacking off" to his own ideas like so many "philosophers" do

helped me wrap my mind around the idea of a "belief attractor" and the importance of leaving yourself open to believing everything without assigning confidence
for example: if you believe in God, its very expensive to your world view to give up this belief, so you rarely do or push against it

View attachment 18404


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3K5UxWRRuY&list=PLSiiU6GT5xuAi7QaPVmhnKLn2d_1rAse2&index=5

I know I saw this and told myself was going to reply, but I guess I forgot.
Disclaimer: I come from a philosophy background.
My biggest problem with computer science/mathematics/cybernetics people is that they often presuppose a scientism that is void of actual philosophical reflection. In the case of this Bach guy, he's reducing most of Wittgenstein down to the problem of communication. While it's true LW was in part trying to communicate, he was also interested in other problems. Turing similarly was interested in more than just communication. His historical analysis seems a bit revisionist, in this sense.

Another problem is the project of building a mind. He's approaching the project from a computationalist/constructivist pov. While I think it's cool he's going against the vogue (i.e. the connectionist paradigm ala Machine Learning), he's simply presupposing that these perspectives in philosophy of mind accurately represent what the human mind is.

From the pov of Philosophy of science (which could be called into question) this could be characterized as pseudoscience. He's not actively attempting to disprove any hypotheses, or forwarding any new conjectures. If we wanted to say he's just an engineer, and avoid the bags of the term "scientist", then more power to him. But often people in his position insist that they're scientists by virtue of the fact that they use math to describe things.

This isn't necessarily an attack on him individually, all I'm saying is that there's gotta be more standards in regards to what we call "science". I think his project is mislead. I don't think you can brute force reality.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Similar threads