Computer science recycles key philosophical terms with similar but different meanings. This causes systematic patterns of confusion for CS people thinking about philosophy.https://twitter.com/everytstudies/status/1042660178796142592 …
-
-
Hardcore rationalism makes natural sense to people with computer science backgrounds. What would the world have to be like for rationalism to be true of it? It would need to conform perfectly to some set of rules—as software does, and practically nothing else can.Show this thread -
Given how utterly unlike reality logic is, it’s astonishing that we were able to build devices that conform to it so precisely. But, for many decades, we did devote most of the time of the smartest people in the world, plus trillions of dollars, to the effort.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
You are hard into the territory and interests I was into just before I discovered buddhism. I wrote essays trying to translate sentences into logic like... could there be truth conditions for "if I were you"... in searching for paradoxes to analyze, came across Koans. :)
-
If you're still doing that survey of analytic philosophy I'd love to lend a hand and if there's anyway of making this multi-player fun, let me know.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
“Representation” and “reference” are other major trouble sources. In CS, each is a relationship between perfectly crisp software things; elsewhere, at least one end of the relationship is nebulous, in the world.
BCS discusses in this:
Mathematical logic was invented to eliminate all nebulosity; it conclusively failed. But computers are logic made flesh; as a consolation prize, we got the whole contemporary world out of logicism’s failure.
Gregory Chaitin’s delightful explanation: