:) Thank you. At this point I'm wondering if the difference in positions is that I think of "underdetermination" with respect to scientific theories, ...
Oh yeah I don't think logic is intuitive at all. It's part of why it's interesting. Just thinking out loud here about the stuff I like to think about ...
Cool. Let's look at this. If the property is "is the set of these individuals", effectively F in F(x), what is the individual which satisfies this pre...
This might make the point better -- Consider "The set whose elements consist of sets without properties which is a member of itself" -- The concept of...
"unification" -- I'd say this is an extra-logical notion. We may posit the set consisting of ununified elements, for instance -- is this then not a se...
If there are abstract properties which define sets without a known common property -- such as the set I proposed grouping an abstract and a concrete i...
Same for me. I now wish I had more patience for Husserl -- but I do need to recognize him as a giant that could provide interesting input if @"Joshs" ...
I'm open to 'being in set X' because I think Russell's paradox is legitimate, and generally I like the paradoxes of self-reference as a point of thoug...
" My understanding is that "classes" can include rules, but I don't understand how to do that formally while I do understand naive set theory at least...
Does that avoid Russel's paradox? If so, does it do so by delaying the question? :D I'm good with forming sets in stages either way. Defining sets in ...
That single object is the collection, but the thought here is that there's nothing more to that than being the collection of the individuals in the se...
Relations are different from sets in that they are somehow connecting one set to another, but sets have no "rules" for inclusion. My understanding is ...
I think covered this well in that "object" is ontologically loaded. I'd include "property" there. A set is a collection of individuals. They need not ...
I've expressed it as "a set is a collection of objects -- where objects are logical objects (any name whatsoever) -- that need not share anything in c...
That's my understanding, at least given Russell's paradox. (which the OP reminds me of) It feels plausible that a set can be identified by a property ...
I think that the way you are using AI is okay to use. Our antipathy isn't directed at what you've described what you use it for, at least. You're not ...
Is this different from the Cartesian scenario, in your mind? Heh. I'm a "Copenhagen interpretation" dude, but only by habit and because it made more s...
I myself have used thesauruses, dictionaries, and rhyming dictionaries in writing poetry. Some people manage to carry the unstructured poem, but I pre...
I think this is the scary part of underdetermination. I was taught that evidence leads to conclusions. That's still true! They do! It's just more comp...
Good questions. I gave three characteristics, but they are generalizations which aren't always strictly true in the universal way. Also, I don't think...
You can "use" AI to learn material, particularly if you verify it elsewhere. That is, if your friend teaches you something where you then know it and ...
Sorry for double posting @"Count Timothy von Icarus" but I wanted to make sure you saw this thought: I ought say that underdetermination, to my mind, ...
:up: I wouldn't propose radical skepticism, but also it's not a possibility I feel the need to deny. It is, after all, logically possible -- it's just...
And the medievals are the ones who have a better solution to underdetermination and realism, yes? Is the outline that I gave of @"Count Timothy von Ic...
Hrrrmmm, I don't think so. But fair that I misread you, then -- in part at least. There's still something here that I can see that wasn't conveyed on ...
I think this is a mistake to draw these philosophies towards some sort of anti-scientific agenda. At least, not when I speak on them they're not -- mo...
Which part? Is it enough to say "Modern philosophy has problems. These medieval thinkers didn't have these problems. This is because modern philosophy...
Plenty can be, and has been, and ought be said in the future. I think it's broad in that you're talking about any and all arguments from underdetermin...
I want to nitpick these examples on the basis that they're underdetermined -- or, the flip side of "underdetermination" is confirmation bias. There's ...
Heh. Spores from the mushrooms tell us to take care of dogs and cats in order to grow more cellulose which the fun guys can then consume. It could be ...
In a rough way, yes. I'm wanting the eating disorder example to be filled out in a general manner which might apply elsewhere -- but that means the id...
Yeah, we don't need Sartre -- but in my ignorance at least I prefer Sartre ;) Not with all that implies**, but the notion of not knowing yourself thro...
That helps me a lot in understanding what we've talked about before. Especially the designation of which names go on which side of "the break" -- Sart...
Heh, fair. Obviously, that's not my experience, but also, I don't claim a good understanding of Husserl while recognizing him as the giant that he is....
Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration, though? I'm not sure Sartre is a lightweight compared to Husserl, at least (and thereby Heidegger, whom I respect...
I'm in the same boat as y'all in terms of not being an anthropologist, just an interested bystander. My thinking is that this is similar to when Pluto...
They could be, though there's only one way to find out. . . Must said knowledge base itself on some Queen Science, or might it be the case that the ph...
I'm sympathetic to obviating the objective/subjective distinction, but wasn't sure how else to respond to @"TClark" than through that distinction give...
I share those concerns. My suspicion is that I'll end up defending the project of science while simultaneously trying to point out philosophical probl...
Insightful, as always. It's not a bad thing to manipulate atoms to do what you want, but it is a bad thing to manipulate humans to do what you want (e...
I have no doubt that you know what you're talking about, I just didn't want to say something ignorant about GA when I was thinking about other stuff. ...
Comments