Philosopher's Guild

Comment

Comment by Sir Spiffy on August 27, 2009 at 12:04pm

In reply to Meanderthal,

As an English major and avid philosophy student, I'd really like to see this work of Herr Wittgenstein's

Comment by robert f (noobusinglinux) on August 26, 2009 at 12:01pm

Comment by robert f (noobusinglinux) just now
Delete Comment in response to BigBad Vista
just of the top of my head it might not be posible to be him but if you know him you can emulate his response to the same efect not that i woldrecomend doing so its best to be origonal but its also handy to know what your friends wold do especially if there a mentor or anyone you look up to (quoting from varous pesons in christianity) what wold jesus do or i want to be like jesus. lol its up to you if you want to be like chris Pirillo

*if your his friend what would he do

now more towards science i think that when 2 people of very distinct and simialar experinces that had similar responses cold be considerd the same
so i prefeer to use a key moral standard standard to identify who my friends are thats not to say that i cant be a good influence on everyone
*if your his friend help him decide what he should do
but that dosent alwayse work out spell-check was off

Comment by Tony the Tiger on July 31, 2009 at 10:58pm

check out my philosophies!!!

Comment by The Gypsy Dad on July 31, 2009 at 8:20pm

Spoken word is mere resonance used to transmit spells, it's the energy projected from your heart and soul that really speaks.

Comment by Shtanto on December 13, 2008 at 10:39pm

First problem: We assume human cognitive analysis works.
Second problem: We assume human logical processes work.
Third problem: We assume language is sufficient for solving problems 1 and 2.

Logic would seem to work. If it can put a man on the moon then it should work for me. We have to accept the constraints the physical world places on us based on the information portrayed to our brains by the various senses. It's actually a very limited toolkit, like trying to take a picture of the grand canyon from the inside of a tank.

What we can't perceive has to be presumed to exist. Technology allows us to prove the existence of things we couldn't previously see. The telescope, the microscope and most recently the Large Hadron Collider are all important tools that extend the capabilities of our existing human sensory toolkit. Thus, technology is a right and noble end. It is my belief that technology will some day allow us to extend our perception to a point where we can 'see' the whole picture.

Comment by Night*Hawk on September 25, 2008 at 11:00pm

Before one can begin to Grasp philosophy one must wonder. What does it all mean, what is philosophy? What does it mean to philosophize. Rationality is not philosophy thats my philosophy!

Comment by Jim Mallett on September 6, 2008 at 11:00pm

cogito ergo sum is the Cartesian ground for all knowledge, and the origin of the famous "turn to the subject" in modern philosophy, and still prevails today, especially in its Kantian interpretation. Kant said that we can know "phenomena" -- that which appears to us-- but we cannot know the underlying noumena (whatever that is!).

What about going back to the ancients, especially to Socrates who said something quite different: pathein mathein (if you will forgive the transliterated Greek) is a concise way of saying that we learn by difficult experience, or, if you will, by suffering. W. H. Auden, the great poet, said that true poetry begins with humiliation.

There is a theme here that I would like to analyze with general systems theory, which we all use with computers. The key concepts are input, transformation system, output, and feedback loop. You can also add the environment to make the conversation much more complex, but I prefer to stick to just the four.

This is the way computers work, of course. We key or mouse or network of copy our information or code in; then it gets transformed by the hardware, the hardware abstraction layer and the kernel of the operating system. The output is usually to a standard shell or GUI. We take a look at the output, express our pleasure with it, or express our disappointment with it, see where we made a mistake, see how we can expand the input with more variables, see how we can make better use of the transformation system, etc., all of which forms part of the feedback loop. That is how we learn. Right?

I am interested in how this analysis might help us to understand human experience and human learning because we also are systems with the same key concepts, though infinitely more complex. In particular, I am interested in those experiences of output that totally defy our expectations. Do we learn from them? More to the point, are we CHANGED by them, and how?
Any thoughts? Anyone interested in discussing this?

Comment by AtheistWrestler on September 6, 2008 at 10:20pm

That quote is actually in theory an impossibility. You can't thing you're Chris Pirillo and become Chris Pirillo.

Comment by Neil Bakker on September 6, 2008 at 9:56pm

"I think, therefore I am"....err wait, never mind that's not sound Philosophy.