I would love the hear — Harry Hindu
Words are like the variables in a computer program. They need to be defined for some function to use them properly. If they aren't defined then the function will produce an error. This is the problem that I see occur most in philosophy - where the terms themselves aren't properly defined to do any work with, or that the function references the wrong part of the array if the variable/word has multiple definitions. A word can have an array of definitions and if you confuse which one you are working with, then you will get an error. — Harry Hindu
When do you have a sculpture? It seems that "sculpture" needs to be defined in order to know whether you've made one or not. If not, the the term is meaningless. I could call the way I slapped my mash potatoes on a plate a "sculpture". Picking my nose could qualify as "doing philosophy" if we aren't agreeing on what philosophy is and not agreeing is good. Is not agreeing a good thing or a bad thing when it comes to defining something?The difference between computer programming and philosophy is like the difference between making a table and making a sculpture: if you've gone wrong your code will produce an error and your table won't stand up right, but in philosophy and sculpture you never get that: it's harder to tell. In philosophy, there's no agreement as to what the proper objects, settings, and parameters should be in the first place. Philosophy is the practice of trying to work that out. — jamalrob
If A is on B then B is under A
X is on drugs
Drugs is under X. — A Seagull
You're confusing the symbol with its meaning. The "on" in the second statement doesn't mean the same as the "on" in your first, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow. It's not really about the symbols, but what the symbols mean.
— Harry Hindu
Quite so, but when you apply 'mending' to logic or words you lose the rigour of the logic and it becomes indistinguishable form non-logic. — A Seagull
A word can have an array of definitions and if you confuse which one you are working with, then you will get an error. — Harry Hindu
If it were exact, there would be no bugs or glitches.This exactitude in communication between a computer and its coder is missing in philosophy because of the obvious reason that human language has more going on with the words and also with the way they're employed. — TheMadFool
All to say, to apply the coding analog to philosophy, the first and supremely important question may be: what is the end objective of human life? — Frank Pray
Other programmers would agree with Frank, in that you program to solve problems, not to place limits on thinking, but to provide a means of solving virtually any problem by simulating with code. Variables allow you to define your own meanings, and produce your own conditions and ontologies, but they are only useful if they simulate the real world in some way.Programming doesn't help you to think, it helps you to put limitations on thought. To set bounderies. — emancipate
Daily conversations usually don't include talk about "consciousness", "what it is like to be a bat", "direct vs. indirect realism", "metaphysics", and the other terms we use so often on this forum, so it generally isn't a problem like it is here, in the context of questioning the fundamentals of what we know. I think some of us come to this forum to escape the social games and roles that we play using words the way we do in our everyday lives. We take a break from being fake so that we can be real on these forums. Brown-nosing your boss can only be done so much before you begin to question your own integrity.Taking this linguistic dilemma out of the laboratory and into the streets, I'm wondering if you have any "seat of the pants" tactics to use in daily conversation that helps the participants to come to common terms. Being pedantical with your lover is not usually the first best approach. — Frank Pray
I think the problem with some philosophers that question the use of logic to solve problems is that they like keeping things mysterious. Ambiguous term use is a means of keeping logic from attempting to solve the problem. If you can never define what it is you are talking about and are evasive and contradictory, then it seems to me that you like having the problem more than having a solution. — Harry Hindu
I don't really care much to equate programming with philosophical thinking. At most it can only map to a logical modality of thought. In programming you create the world entirely and the only thrown errors are the ones which you explicitly check for. Programming doesn't help you to think, it helps you to put limitations on thought. To set bounderies. Programming is all rules and no pathos. Yet philosophy is brimming over with affect (yes even the analytical tradition and the so called logical positivism). — emancipate
The problem is not that some philosophers keep things ambiguous, but that some believe ambiguity can be eliminated. It is OK that there is still some fuzzyness around the edges!
Logic is just a tool. Useful, yes. But certainly it is only one aspect of thought. — emancipate
If philosophers don't accurately model the world with their words, then whatever conclusions they reach won't be very useful either. — Harry Hindu
Part of the process of creating a computer program is the use of variables. Variables are symbols that stand for some quantity or some other string of symbols, or an array of other variables. Words are like the variables in a computer program. — Harry Hindu
it seems to me that you do philosophy in much the way a programmer would program if they only used variables - it doesn't work. — Banno
Programming is about automating the solution to a problem. — Harry Hindu
What I find strange is the assertion that ambiguities can't be eliminated which seems to imply no ambiguity of me being wrong in claiming that they can, and should be for proper thinking. — Harry Hindu
How exactly is "misguided" not the same as "wrong"? You say that it's "harsh", but if you're trying to spare my feelings, my feelings, and you trying to spare them, have nothing to do with what I said being wrong or right."Wrong" is a bit harsh; misguided, perhaps — Banno
A curriculum in philosophy for children should simply be a course in critical thinking, which a computer coding course could be a choice because coding teaches critical thinking.On occasions, I teach kids. I've several times been involved in setting up and running philosophy for children. It's never long before I start to question the wisdom of such a curriculum. So much of philosophy is bad or clumsy.
I also teach coding, and have found it a much more direct, effective way of teaching "thinking" - especially sits such as code.org, which comfortably straddle the concrete /abstract divide for eight year olds by using games. — Banno
I don't recall ever saying that programmers only use variables to solve problems, or that making sure words are clearly defined solves all philosophical problems. I think what I have shown is that this is part of the process, yet a necessary part, just as avoiding appealing to emotion is a necessary part of solving problems. All the rules are necessary and are dependent on the other rules to be followed in order to solve the problem. If I wrote a program that only showed a profit for a company because I wanted to spare the CEO's feelings, then that company wouldn't be a company for very long.But following through on the analogy above, it seems to me that you do philosophy in much the way a programmer would program if they only used variables - it doesn't work. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.