I was referring to Lakoff's characterization of philosophy and Hestenes characterization of mathematics. The commonality here is the requirement for all thought be grounded. This is a principle that is no less convincing than the principle of parsimony.
-
-
Replying to @IntuitMachine @BobKerns and
I think the intuition that drives you and Lakoff is that there must be an ultimate source of priors, "out there" in reality. But there are only patterns, all order must be mathematically constructed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @IntuitMachine and
Basically, the same motive as Russell and Whitehead. The belief that reality itself is built from a handful of parts and we just have to find the right parts and then all knowledge follows as a logical consequence, by fitting them together in different ways.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BobKerns @IntuitMachine and
I don't think it is a belief. It is a hypothesis. Where it gets exciting: we can show that our descriptions of the universe must bottom out in finite automata (i.e. all constructive language is computational), and conversely, all observables can be produced by finite automata.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @IntuitMachine and
1/2 It *should* be a hypothesis. Russell and Whitehead were believers. Not unreasonably, but it was a blind spot that took others to spot, and actually test the hypothesis, rather than treat it as a search for an answer that turned out not to exist.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
2/2 The flip side is, their belief and ambition led them to incredibly valuable explorations, and did lay the ground for the eventual work of Godel etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BobKerns @IntuitMachine and
I think that Kant, Gödel and Wittgenstein made incredible contributions, but because they were largely misunderstood, their adopters created intellectual devastation and contributed to the enduring blight of systemic philosophy and foundational thinking.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Could you briefly comment on how Kant, Gödel and Wittgenstein were misunderstood by their adopters?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @IntuitMachine @BobKerns and
I read Kant as a computational cognitive scientist, but his readers spawned phenomenology. I read Gödel as a theorist of formal languages, but folks thought it is about epistemology and metaphysics. I read Wittgenstein as a symbolic AI pioneer, but he caused the linguistic turn.
1 reply 5 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @Grady_Booch and
ok, Camus (isolated systems)? Hunter S. Thompson (chaos theory)? - have to think some more to come up w/ more ":" relationships....
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I have to admit that I have not read their works at all! I am woefully uneducated on the wrong vs. right readings of chaos theory and isolated systems!
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.