Prev: historical query
Next: instructor solution manual for Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach 2e by Russell, Norvig
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 31 May 2010 08:10
On May 31, 6:48 am, Spade <javed47ras...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 5:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ...For a number of important historical reasons, the philosophy of
> > mind has become the central topic in contemporary philosophy. For most
> > of the twentieth century the philosophy of language was "first
> > philosophy." Other branches of philosophy were seen as derived from
> > the philosophy of language and dependent on results in the philosophy
> > of language for their solution.
>
> > The center of attention has now moved from language to mind.
>
> > Why? Well, first, I think many of us working in the philosophy of
> > language see many of the questions of language as special cases of
> > questions about the mind. Our use of language is an expression of our
> > more biologically fundamental mental capacities, and we will not fully
> > understand the functioning of language until we see how it is grounded
> > in our mental abilities.
>
> > A second reason is that with the growth of knowledge we have seen a
> > movement away from treating the theory of knowledge, epistemology, as
> > central in philosophy and we are now prepared to do a more
> > substantive, theoretical, constructive philosophy, rather than just
> > dealing piecemeal with specific traditional problems. The ideal place
> > to begin that constructive philosophy is to start by examining the
> > nature of the human mind.
>
> > A third reason for the centrality of the mind is that, for many of us,
> > myself included, the central question in philosophy at the beginning
> > of the twenty-first century is how to give an account of ourselves as
> > apparently conscious, mindful, free, rational, speaking, social, and
> > political agents in a world that science tells us consists entirely of
> > mindless, meaningless, physical particles. Who are we, and how do we
> > fit into the rest of the world? How does the human reality relate to
> > the rest of reality? One special form of this question is, What does
> > it mean to be human? The answers to these questions have to begin with
> > a discussion of the mind,
>
> > because mental phenomena form
> > the bridge by which we connect
> > with the rest of the world.
>
> > A fourth reason for the preeminence of the philosophy of mind has been
> > the invention of "cognitive science," a new discipline that attempts
> > to go deeper into the nature of the mind than was customary in
> > traditional empirical psychology. Cognitive science requires a
> > foundation in the philosophy of mind.
>
> > Finally, more controversially, I think the philosophy of language has
> > reached a period of relative stagnation because of certain common
> > mistakes that surround the doctrine of so-called externalism, the idea
> > that the meanings of words, and by extension the contents of our
> > minds, are not inside our heads, but are matters of causal relations
> > between what is in our heads and the external world. ...the failures
> > to give an account of language on an externalist premise have led to a
> > fallow period in the philosophy of language; and the philosophy of
> > mind has taken up the slack.
>
> > Let us suppose then that the mind is now the central topic in
> > philosophy and that other questions, such as the nature of language
> > and meaning, the nature of society, and the nature of knowledge are
> > all in one way or another special cases of the more general
> > characteristics of the human mind, How should we proceed to examine
> > the mind?
>
> > "The philosophy of mind is unique among contemporary philosophical
> > subjects, in that all of the most famous and influential theories are
> > false - [We need] to rescue the truth from the overwhelming urge to
> > falsehood.
>
> > Mind: A Brief Introduction - John R. Searlehttp://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brief-Introduction-Fundamentals-Philosophy...
>
> Very well written , I do bemoan the fact that science has center
> staged philosophy and issues like origin of life and purpose of life
> has been left to scientific inquiry whereas philosophy has been
> relegated to language and mind ,important in their own right buT yet
> not center stage but as the Sufis say knowing oneself is the path to
> true knowledge

Whatever communication we attempt on the mind will have to be in
language. This restriction is unconditional, except for what one
attempts within one's own mind. It would be hoped that such a
discovery could be translated out into a language, though this could
require a new word, and perhaps many pages of dialog to even attempt a
clean translation. I'm not clear on whether internal thought can
transcend language completely, but it must to some degree, otherwise
there would be no language development. The trouble runs into a big
slowdown when one attempts to communicate in a language that others do
not understand. Until adopters of the language communicate back and
forth there is no actual verification that the translation is clean.
There can be alot of miscommunication going on. There can be
fraudulent language. There can be false belief systems. We are stuck
with this. In some ways better off than when there were just maybe
five unique words uttered by hominids, but worse off for all of the
conflicts.

Is what I just wrote what you will read? Taking your mind awareness as
fundamental then my thoughts were first translated into a language,
transferred, and then reverse translated by your mind. There are two
option for miscommunication on a potentially flawed basis. I don't
wish to be completely discouraging and prefer to simply state that the
problem is open. As to which is the basis; the language or the mind;
we have to grant the mind as more fundamental, but as to the freedoms
of the mind, well, they are hampered by the language, presuming that
communication to another is desired. Even communication to ones self
may be possible, as a man might draw something on paper without ever
sharing it. Especially mistaken thoughts not fully developed are a
fine instance, but here if we presume the mistake is of the mind, then
we will never expose the mistakes of the language.

- Tim
From: BOfL on 31 May 2010 09:31
On May 31, 6:48 pm, Spade <javed47ras...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 5:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ...For a number of important historical reasons, the philosophy of
> > mind has become the central topic in contemporary philosophy. For most
> > of the twentieth century the philosophy of language was "first
> > philosophy." Other branches of philosophy were seen as derived from
> > the philosophy of language and dependent on results in the philosophy
> > of language for their solution.
>
> > The center of attention has now moved from language to mind.
>
> > Why? Well, first, I think many of us working in the philosophy of
> > language see many of the questions of language as special cases of
> > questions about the mind. Our use of language is an expression of our
> > more biologically fundamental mental capacities, and we will not fully
> > understand the functioning of language until we see how it is grounded
> > in our mental abilities.
>
> > A second reason is that with the growth of knowledge we have seen a
> > movement away from treating the theory of knowledge, epistemology, as
> > central in philosophy and we are now prepared to do a more
> > substantive, theoretical, constructive philosophy, rather than just
> > dealing piecemeal with specific traditional problems. The ideal place
> > to begin that constructive philosophy is to start by examining the
> > nature of the human mind.
>
> > A third reason for the centrality of the mind is that, for many of us,
> > myself included, the central question in philosophy at the beginning
> > of the twenty-first century is how to give an account of ourselves as
> > apparently conscious, mindful, free, rational, speaking, social, and
> > political agents in a world that science tells us consists entirely of
> > mindless, meaningless, physical particles. Who are we, and how do we
> > fit into the rest of the world? How does the human reality relate to
> > the rest of reality? One special form of this question is, What does
> > it mean to be human? The answers to these questions have to begin with
> > a discussion of the mind,
>
> >  because mental phenomena form
> >  the bridge by which we connect
> >  with the rest of the world.
>
> > A fourth reason for the preeminence of the philosophy of mind has been
> > the invention of "cognitive science," a new discipline that attempts
> > to go deeper into the nature of the mind than was customary in
> > traditional empirical psychology. Cognitive science requires a
> > foundation in the philosophy of mind.
>
> > Finally, more controversially, I think the philosophy of language has
> > reached a period of relative stagnation because of certain common
> > mistakes that surround the doctrine of so-called externalism, the idea
> > that the meanings of words, and by extension the contents of our
> > minds, are not inside our heads, but are matters of causal relations
> > between what is in our heads and the external world. ...the failures
> > to give an account of language on an externalist premise have led to a
> > fallow period in the philosophy of language; and the philosophy of
> > mind has taken up the slack.
>
> > Let us suppose then that the mind is now the central topic in
> > philosophy and that other questions, such as the nature of language
> > and meaning, the nature of society, and the nature of knowledge are
> > all in one way or another special cases of the more general
> > characteristics of the human mind, How should we proceed to examine
> > the mind?
>
> > "The philosophy of mind is unique among contemporary philosophical
> > subjects, in that all of the most famous and influential theories are
> > false - [We need] to rescue the truth from the overwhelming urge to
> > falsehood.
>
> > Mind: A Brief Introduction - John R. Searlehttp://www.amazon.com/Mind-Brief-Introduction-Fundamentals-Philosophy...
>
> Very well written , I do bemoan the fact that science has center
> staged philosophy and issues like origin of life and purpose of life
> has been left to scientific inquiry whereas philosophy has been
> relegated to language and mind ,important in their own right buT yet
> not center stage but as the Sufis say knowing oneself is the path to
> true knowledge- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So Pythagoras was a Sufi?

Man has an overwhelming need to compart-mentalise.

BOfL
From: Jeff on 31 May 2010 14:58
On May 30, 8:25 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...For a number of important historical reasons, the philosophy of
> mind has become the central topic in contemporary philosophy. For most
> of the twentieth century the philosophy of language was "first
> philosophy." Other branches of philosophy were seen as derived from
> the philosophy of language and dependent on results in the philosophy
> of language for their solution.
>
> The center of attention has now moved from language to mind.
>

There's a theory that at one time in the distant past people
communicated telepathically using a form of radiation.

The Tower Of Babel event in the bible indicates the time when human
beings lost the ability to understand the radiation.

However animals, plants, and even insects can still understand it.

If you've ever watched the 'pet psychic', Sonya Fitzpatrick,
communicate with animals it is very interesting. She doesn't talk to
them verbally. However she does it she just sits there in silence
communicating with them.

The animals may think more in terms of pictures I don't know. But
yesterday I noticed these frogs over in some water by the side of the
road so I started talking to them. I asked the one frog what he does
all day. He then ate some sort of insect or something. (This
probably isn't a good thing to allow other people watch you do.). I
was trying to tell them about the oil spill down in the Gulf Of
Mexico.

Many people feel that animals have feelings, memories, and unique
personalities. This is a sobering thought indeed when we see some of
the things that people do to animals. The anguish that human beings
cause to other living things is going to ultimately destroy us all
probably.

The mysterious alchemist Fulcanelli talks about this. He called it
'the language of the birds'. That book about Fulcanelli I'm showing
below is very strange and a classic in the world of occult
literature.

There's the account in the bible where the apostles are giving a
speech to people from many different countries but everyone heard the
apostles speaking 'in their own language'. This may not have been any
language but rather the radiation.

St. Francis Of Assisi supposedly also had this ability.

There's was this little girl who felt she could communicate with the
trees. The other kids made fun of her and she had to leave the
school.

To me if I place my hand on a plant or tree I can feel that they are
alive.

Jeff Marzano

Ufo...Contact from Planet Iarga (Hardcover)

Fulcanelli: Master Alchemist: Le Mystere des Cathedrales, Esoteric
Intrepretation of the Hermetic Symbols of The Great Work (Le Mystere
Des Cathedrales ... of the Hermetic Symbols of Great Work) by
Fulcanelli (Paperback - Jan. 15, 1984)
From: THE BORG on 31 May 2010 16:42

"Jeff" <rjmarzano(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9c7cd408-c086-4b15-9f82-a5c708391f8e(a)c11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
On May 30, 8:25 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:
> ...For a number of important historical reasons, the
> philosophy of
> mind has become the central topic in contemporary
> philosophy. For most
> of the twentieth century the philosophy of language was
> "first
> philosophy." Other branches of philosophy were seen as
> derived from
> the philosophy of language and dependent on results in the
> philosophy
> of language for their solution.
>
> The center of attention has now moved from language to
> mind.
>

There's a theory that at one time in the distant past people
communicated telepathically using a form of radiation.

The Tower Of Babel event in the bible indicates the time
when human
beings lost the ability to understand the radiation.

However animals, plants, and even insects can still
understand it.

If you've ever watched the 'pet psychic', Sonya Fitzpatrick,
communicate with animals it is very interesting. She
doesn't talk to
them verbally. However she does it she just sits there in
silence
communicating with them.

The animals may think more in terms of pictures I don't
know. But
yesterday I noticed these frogs over in some water by the
side of the
road so I started talking to them. I asked the one frog
what he does
all day. He then ate some sort of insect or something.
(This
probably isn't a good thing to allow other people watch you
do.). I
was trying to tell them about the oil spill down in the Gulf
Of
Mexico.

Many people feel that animals have feelings, memories, and
unique
personalities. This is a sobering thought indeed when we
see some of
the things that people do to animals. The anguish that
human beings
cause to other living things is going to ultimately destroy
us all
probably.

The mysterious alchemist Fulcanelli talks about this. He
called it
'the language of the birds'. That book about Fulcanelli I'm
showing
below is very strange and a classic in the world of occult
literature.

There's the account in the bible where the apostles are
giving a
speech to people from many different countries but everyone
heard the
apostles speaking 'in their own language'. This may not
have been any
language but rather the radiation.

St. Francis Of Assisi supposedly also had this ability.

There's was this little girl who felt she could communicate
with the
trees. The other kids made fun of her and she had to leave
the
school.

To me if I place my hand on a plant or tree I can feel that
they are
alive.

Jeff
Marzano

Ufo...Contact from Planet Iarga (Hardcover)

Fulcanelli: Master Alchemist: Le Mystere des Cathedrales,
Esoteric
Intrepretation of the Hermetic Symbols of The Great Work (Le
Mystere
Des Cathedrales ... of the Hermetic Symbols of Great Work)
by
Fulcanelli (Paperback - Jan. 15, 1984)


Indigenous Aborigines have telepathy to this day, they do
not communicate with words.
Also they understand dreams.
They can also use positive mind over matter and heal broken
bones overnight.
So it is not a question of telepathy "a long time ago" - it
is something the Western World has lost through speed, rush,
materialism and superficiality, but in slow, indigenous
natural species such as Aborigines, it does still exist.


From: RayLopez99 on 31 May 2010 18:20
On May 31, 4:12 am, huge <h...(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote:
> Immortalist :
>
> Searle's  reputation itself has fallen because of the failures
> intuition pumps like 'philosophical zombies' and 'Chinese symbols'
> have been largely destroyed, IMNSHO, by the likes of Minsky,
> Dennett, and Hofstadter.   If he thinks philosophy of mind is
> important, he should do it better!
>

Destroyed? I doubt it. If I say I've programmed a machine to be just
like you, would you volunteer to commit suicide? The machine would
"live on" on your behalf, so why not?

Ditto with the thought experiment where a teleporter can transport a
copy of you anywhere in the universe, so there are two "yous" now.
Does the first copy (the 'original') volunteer to commit suicide?

Clearly not, at least for most people. Ergo, we have a disconnect.

RL
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: historical query
Next: instructor solution manual for Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach 2e by Russell, Norvig