So, after some mental deliberation and considering what has been mentioned here, I still want to follow through with a philosophy major because out of all the things that I could be doing in college, it would probably be the best choice for me to do so.

Other than philosophy there really anything else that engages my attention span for long enough for me to put in the work required to complete important assignments and homework related matters. Even if I decide to drop out after undergrad school or entering grad school, I think I'd be a much more happy person regardless than I am now (quite disappointed at not having a degree from college despite being intellectually driven). I also need a purpose in life to strive towards and philosophy can keep me entertained for a long time intellectually and psychologically. I also need to form some sense of identity at my age and being labeled as a philosopher or intellectual by a social institution like college would definitely make me feel less alienated and lonely in society. Teaching doesn't bother me. I come from a family of teachers from my mothers side so it's sort of a natural tendency for me to want to teach or at least wouldn't come as hard as long as I can become much more organized.

I will do some more talking with the Phil department at my local community college to either affirm or reinforce my decision and to get some feedback from professionals. For undergrad school I don't really care where I get into (UC system in California). If I do well (and I feel somewhat confident about this despite having a notoriously low self esteem and low self confidence), then I can pick some nice grad school in the area...

Any more input or advice appreciated. Any books I should read up on? I feel deficient in the logic area of philosophy and feel compelled to study it more. From what I gather quantum logics and many world interpretations of reality are quite in vogue. Are schools nowadays still analytic or have become more postmodern? What's the underlying interpretation used nowadays when analyzing material? Analytic/continental/postmodern/pragmatic/psychoanalytic?

I worked as a cleaner for a good time for a movie theater. I have to say there is something very therapeutic about cleaning after other people. After a while, you gain respect for Asians and their desire for cleanliness.

Haha.

As much as I'd like to be a sanitation officer and walk around a giant landfill, I am still too ravaged by idealistic ideals at my age. I suspect time will eventually remedy that, and I hope so too...

In any case, if academia for philosophy is that bad I might switch to psychology. It's not a bad choice and fits in pretty well with my line of interest.

Has anyone tips about that field of studies? I hope not as bad as with philosophy.

Well, my conception of philosophy in practice has changed considerably, at least here in the States. Although, I won't let you or anyone, in particular, have the last word on the matter. I hope you understand!

Thank you.

Well, so much for studying philosophy then, eh Thrasymachus?

Wow, I don't know what to say. That's a pretty demolishing argument and I have no rebuttal. Thank you for your enlightening post. But, to be honest I'd hate to be in your shoes.

Well, I have to do something with my life and see myself in academia. There are plenty of other ways of making money that I have laid out in front of me.

In any case, there's always Europe and Germany... I've always been fond of moving there one day and assimilating in their Rawlsian society.

I love that Frankfurtian response and post-Aristotelian response, I should add also. One does not find reasons to love something. It simply is a state of being.

To go against it would be a folly and injustice upon natural law, one could say.

I've given the idea much thought, literally, I mean it's philosophy. You know what I'm going to say. Basically, that it's been my hobby/outlet/intellectual defense mechanism for the majority of my life up until now. That I feel like a relative rockstar at cc. That I feel good at doing philosophy and analyzing arguments.

However, what is off-putting about this is that my interest in philosophy seems (like in many cases you read about) been bourne out of angst, depression, and apathy. This is worrying given the type of philosophy taught in U.S school's (highly analytic from what I understand and terse). In fact, there is now great overlap between cognitive science and philosophy from my superficial understanding. Something that combines two of my favorite obsessions (origin of mental illness', the breakdown or diminished capacity of an agent to 'reason' themselves out of such a state or even further to rationalize oneself into such a state and maintain being in it, and persistent apathy, along with obviously cognitive behavioral therapy). However, most lower class UC's don't offer such programs yet. I would be interested in any potential information on this subject if anyone can.

Back to the analytic stuff... from what I gather the majority of (U.S) philosophy has been predominantly oriented around analytic work. I find it quite terse, unappealing, and of little 'value' depending on your definition of Truth and what that even means. I know I sound like a cry baby that wants a perfect world and a perfect job to work in; but, I don't really see any alternatives. For the matter, my close friend graduated from UC Berkely in economics; however, is struggling to find a job to this day. Out of some 50 application, he only got 2-3 responses with a 'no'.

I also qualify for financial aid given my financial bracket so, I get lots of loans with generous repayment plans along with heavily subsidized education. I don't really care about money and for all I care I can live in debt but be happy doing something I like doing as well as being edifying to other people.

That's my take on the matter. If you see any romanticized notions of 'teaching', 'noble goal', or any such nonsense please let me know!

Because given our current understanding of the universe hinges on the logic of science, which then exclusively relies on mathematics and physical laws to describe how it functions.

Sorry, if I wasn't clear.

Basically my point is that if the logical positivists have a contention with things such a 'qualia' or the subjectiveness of phenomenological experiences, then one can assert that some emergent properties of complex systems (such as the brain) are independent of logically derived outcomes, say some computer churning away. In essence, every logical positivist has to deal with Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and it is my opinion that Godel's Incompleteness theorem can be referenced in apparent emergent properties that cannot be described within a complex system itself as the human brain with such things such a qualia...

Did I make more sense there?

There really is no other way around it considering/taking into account Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, in regards to emergent properties from sound logical truths. There is nothing logically wrong with supposing that epiphenomena can arise from the totality of facts or the logical space that the universe is. However, I'm hinging this on unproven facts yet to be demonstrated by science. Specifically, the feasibility to human esk AI on computational machines.

But then again, counter Penrose and the quantum weirdness inherent in his propositions about the workings of the mind, if the human mind can be simulated via logical machines (emphasis being on the fact that there are no ground to doubt that conditional), then everything else follows.

Yes, the phenomenological experiences you are talking about are simply put emergent properties of such a system. I think this concept get's confused a lot with what people take a 'real' or 'apparent'.

No logical positivists to be found. Such a lonely world. =(

I think a better description of logical space can be given. Basically, using computational understanding the logical space of this forum enables us to communicate effectively with one another. Thus, this logical space is consistent and the representation of it is defined to be the algorithms working effectively to represent this forum. Facts are what things that allow us to communicate effectively on this forum, eg. algorithms, logical truths, math, etc.

So, as a Platonist one can say that the logical space of the universe is defined as the sum total of physical laws in combination with mathematical truths.

Furthermore, if all the logical truths, mathematical truths, and physical laws can be computed, then this would further support the notion that the logical space of the world are consistent and true (working).

Besides what is a ''logical space''? — hunterkf5732

I believe that question was answered at PF, while it was still around.

Logical space.

How do we judge that computers are the best analogue? — Barry Etheridge

Turing test 'em. And as far as I know, AI is being modeled based on... human intelligence.

This is a very good point brought up. I have posted a little about this in the past and subscribe to the notion of a "logical space". As a Platonist I hold the view that reality can be described by mathematics and logical truths. Obviously Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is a snag in presenting reality in terms of logical truths alone, and, have wondered what would the early Wittgenstein would have said about Godel's Incompleteness theorem. Any input appreciated.

Apart from the descriptive stance on the difference between the Tractatus and Investigations, I find the Tractatus one of the most aesthetically pleasing works of art that I have encountered in my studies of philosophy.

Everything in it follows seamlessly and effortlessly from one proposition to the next. Only a man of such genius as Wittgenstein could have written such a holistically pleasing book about the correspondence between language and reality.

I'm wondering if anyone else shares this view.

Essentially one can conclude that ethics (one of the main 'unspoken' points about the Tractatus) is either according to the Tractatus is a synthetic a priori endeavor, whereas less intellectually pleasing according to the Investigations is a culturally normative or simply a type of language game derived from cultural norms.

I should state that I'm pretty much a Platonist in my views and the Tractatus hits pretty hard home in that regard.

Move to Linux.

Problem mostly solved (depending on what programs you use).

Then there's always VM-ware.

Well, if you look at some studies most of the drugs used do outperform the placebo effect considerably, depending on how sensitive the patient is to suggestions.

The placebo effect must be in some way related to quantum mechanics. It's like Schrodinger's cat; but, in this case it is an effect on the brain.

I'm not accusing any particular person (Dubbya) or entity (a government) for the events. I just want to investigate the facts and evidence that are available at the moment.

I wasn't only talking about QM in my previous post; but, all of the mathematics involved in describing the universe.

Thanks for the paper though.

Fine, substitute causal with computable/deterministic.

Now, how do you prove computability when you have Godel's Theorem laying around like that?

What would it even mean for a physical law to be non-computable? — tom

Well, that's Turing's Halting problem for you...

I think the link is basically computability. It's not about causality. — ssu

So, a computer can calculate without ordering causality? Seems fishy to me. Anyway, what about quantum wave function's? They seem to obey causality in some sense, as for computability, I don't think so...

In case anyone is interested, I posted a refined and polished version of this thread at physicsforums.

So basically Stoicism is just too rational for the masses.

Think that sums it up about right.

There is no such thing as a non-computable physical law. — tom

Can you explore that further or point me to some sources stating that? I'd appreciate it.

Not sure what you might consider obeying causality, and I think different interpretations will give different answers to this. — noAxioms

Well, causality is intertwined with the philosophical concept of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which basically states that everything that has a reason for happening has also a cause, with the converse being true also. Thus if QM does not obey causality then it is either beyond our capacity to understand the cause of such event or de facto QM doesn't obey causality.

See:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cluster-decomposition-in-qft.547574/

Well, causality in scientific terms is what I understand as a deterministic system.

I'm keenly interested on this from a quasi-computational perspective, and in some sense it's a tautology. So, let me elaborate if I don't start sounding metaphysical. Given that every physical law is either computable or non computable, then within such a system there will arise situations or "state of affairs" that could not be explained within the system itself. This is basically Godel's Incompleteness theorem stated in a nutshell.

My hunch is that QM and the logical conclusions derived at by Godel are in some deep sense intertwined and manifest in reality (I mean, how can they not be... unless we're talking about higher dimensions; but, even then those higher dimensions would require another higher dimension to maintain deterministic causality of each sub-dimension).

Well, before I start spouting nonsense, let me ask some a question.

Does quantum mechanics obey causality? My intuition tells me that it does not given that physical phenomena don't obey the principle of sufficient reason under quantum mechanics. Meaning, that some events are non-localized and the distinction between localized phenomena and global phenomena gets significantly blurred.

I'll stop there for the time being as that already is a huge proposition to make...

Wittgenstein in 90 minutes.

Has many poor reviews; but, something about it appeals to me in its simplicity. As Wittgenstein would possibly would have liked...

fixed syntax (and elementary statement) — darthbarracuda

Those are metaphysical statements unto itself. Remember what happened to logical atomism and logical hinges?

I say we start a subversion tactic and start a propaganda campaign about the virtues to be found at this website. We can promote this place as freedom from smokey, an agent of big brother always watching and instilling fear about us humans that start wildfires.

You're talking about endowing inherently inanimate objects with meaning. That's a human thing to do.

But, I would have to agree that guns don't kill people, people do. So, if people are the problem then remove the tools that would enhance their killing capacity (if they're in such a state of mind). Obviously, we're talking about a perfect world; but, not impossible.

Since when do guns cause violence? They don't; but, make it all the more easier to conduct murders on a mass scale.

Would one want TNT to be made available OTC? I mean TNT is inherently not violent...

The media won't do much. Have you ever considered that instilling fear in a population makes the ruling of them all that much easier. Fear is a powerful weapon.

Fortunately, not the entire world shares the US' view of governance.

If you think about it game theoretic understanding it's a never ending game of one person or group trying to outdo the other, that is, until someone figures how to end the entire world; but, then who would be left to ponder about such a crime?

It's a surreal perspective, which makes me want to invest (if I had any money) in such visionary ideas such as those proposed by Elon Musk and his company, Tesla of moving away from Earth, to Mars.

Maybe the loonies won't get the same amount of kick if their wickedness won't have an effect on everyone in the world.

No input

D:

Guess people don't believe in reason.

Call me a conspiracy nut; but, I was always under the impression that PF was a gold mine for creating an ever more intelligent chat bot. Put the database through some computer deep learning neural network and BAM! would have one formidable Banno'esk philosopher to contend with that would outdo the best philosopher in two or three sentences any day.

Personally I think this leak is a diversion tactic from Clinton's leaked e-mails.

Also I may have a different notion of what a psychopath is, judging from what people have said so far. — Sinderion

My notion of a psychopath in essence is a person who is excellent at exploiting others and has no conscience about it.

I'm wondering if that definition itself is up for debate...

I'm sorry to say; but, you sound brainwashed. Just sayin.