Personally speaking I think of 'Philosophy' as essentially meaning "ways of thinking about ..." rather than "love of knowledge," which is too question begging for me. — I like sushi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_philosophy
Another characterization of philosophy sometimes found in the literature is that, at least in principle, it does not take any facts for granted and allows any presupposition to be questioned, including its own methods.[7][11] This is reflected in the fact that philosophy has no solid foundations to build on since whatever foundations one philosopher accepts may be questioned by another.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Another definition characterizes philosophy as thinking about thinking to emphasize its self-critical, reflective nature.
Overgaard, Søren; Gilbert, Paul; Burwood, Stephen (2013). "What Is Philosophy?". An Introduction to Metaphilosophy. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-19341-2.
Your project, as far as I understand it, is to develop a machine that can tell the difference between philosophical sentences/statements and other things. I've pointed out that a definition of philosophy may be required for the project, what you describe does not provide it, but rather depends on it.All of this originally came up as a remark that the definition for"philosophy" does not need to be computable any more than the definition for "dog" needs to be. — Tarskian
The person in charge of the project to enable machines to identify behavioural and health problems in dogs may well know what they are doing. But they are not developing a definition of "dog".You may simply have to assume that the promotor of this project knows what he is doing. I don't know anything about dog behaviour, but I would just assume that the project owner does. Since someone else at the Ministry of Health is also willing to pay for the project owner's mistakes, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. — Tarskian
Well, of course there's a lot of literature and a lot of enthusiasm. Computing is very fashionable. And delegating philosophy to computers might save a lot of wasted time - or be a lot of wasted time. I agree that it is entirely appropriate that the possible applications of computing should be thoroughly explored. But books that you so kindly list for us don't seem likely to provide a definition of philosophy.Hence, concerning your question, "How is this the relevant to philosophy in any way?", there is your answer, and it is called, "Computational philosophy". It is actually a gigantic subdiscipline. — Tarskian
But they are not developing a definition of "dog". — Ludwig V
# Load the Haar cascade for face detection face_cascade = cv2.CascadeClassifier(cv2.data.haarcascades + 'haarcascade_frontalface_default.xml') # Read the input image img = cv2.imread(filename) # Convert the image to grayscale gray = cv2.cvtColor(img, cv2.COLOR_BGR2GRAY) # Perform face detection faces = face_cascade.detectMultiScale(gray, scaleFactor=1.1, minNeighbors=4, minSize=(20, 20)) # Draw rectangles around the detected faces for (x, y, w, h) in faces: cv2.rectangle(img, (x, y), (x+w, y+h), (255, 0, 0), 2)
Since the technique developed by Paul Viola and Michael Jones in 2001, Haar features and Haar cascades have revolutionized object detection.
Haar features are extracted from rectangular areas in an image. The feature’s value is based on the pixel intensities. Usually, it is calculated using a sliding window, and the area within the window is partitioned into two or more rectangular areas. Haar feature is the difference in the sum of pixel intensities between these areas.
It is believed that an object’s presence will distort the variation of pixel intensity. By checking the pixel intensity between neighboring rectangular areas, you should be able to notice a difference. Hence it is indicative of the object’s presence.
The key idea behind Haar cascade is that only a small number of pixels among the entire image is related to the object in concern. Therefore, it is essential to discard the irrelevant part of the image as quickly as possible.
before I start criticizing them — Ludwig V
One example for the computability of the term "dog": — Tarskian
In fact, go ahead and feed ChatGPT a bunch of texts, it will tell you which is philosophy and which is not. — Lionino
Sorry, I put my point badly. The definition is being developed by the people, and applied by the machine. So whatever your philosophical machine can do, it is not defining philosophy, but applying a definition of philosophy to the tedious task of distinguishing philosophy texts from other kinds of text.For example, in the following article, they develop a definition for the human face. It is contained in the configuration file haarcascade_frontalface_default.xml . It allows them to do the folllowing: — Tarskian
That can happen. So it seems a good idea, before embarking on any criticism, to confirm that one's speculations or assumptions are correct or not. No?It is only by misinterpreting the text, by assuming that the other person is saying something absurd rather than something obvious, fueled by the desire for polemics, that we then enable criticism in something otherwise uncontroversial. — Lionino
Do you never find that something you thought was evidently correct, isn't?Some things are not up to be criticised because they are evidently correct. ..... In Italy they would just acquiesce and carry on with the conversation, — Lionino
Perhaps things are not the same in Italy and when you disagree, you say so more plainly. — Ludwig V
Do you never find that something you thought was evidently correct, isn't? — Ludwig V
think you must mean that it is a Greek word. — Ludwig V
Well, it is not self-evident to me that a word can only ever belong to the language it originally belonged to. — Ludwig V
I think it is true of all languages and it is certainly true of English that many words are imported from other languages — Ludwig V
but I'm not aware that any significant philosophical issues hang on the distinction, so I'm not inclined to worry about it. — Ludwig V
Of course, it doesn't.Language doesn't think about itself. — creativesoul
Changing the definition of common words is not metaphilosophy. — Lionino
And stop crying. — Lionino
There is no definition for the term philosophy. — Tarskian
The word philosophy doesn't have to be computable any more than the word 'dog' does. — Lionino
One example for the computability of the term "dog": — Tarskian
Second, the deep learning used to detect dogs can be used to detect philosophical speech, without your distortion of the word. — Lionino
If you ask ChatGPT about face detection, it will advise you to try OpenCV. — Tarskian
I am several orders better than you at insulting. I just don't do it. I'd rather explore new ideas instead of seeking conflict. — Tarskian
and might as well be wrong for next models. — Lionino
He uses computability of 'dog' with deep learning as an example. — Lionino
me poking holes in your nonsensical slop — Lionino
even though by your own admission you are jobless in Southeast Asia — Lionino
you frequently accuse me of being unemployed with zero evidence — Lionino
Speaking of insults, you frequently accuse me of being unemployed with zero evidence, — Lionino
Someone who never does anything else besides criticizing others, will inevitably have serious problems hanging on to a job. — Tarskian
In the meanwhile, it is funny moderators will leave such a post with clownish vitriol and no substance up but erase my post recommending a clearly insane person to seek medication. — Lionino
https://github.com/opencog/link-grammar
The CMU Link Grammar natural language parser
The Link Grammar Parser exhibits the linguistic (natural language) structure of English, Thai, Russian, Arabic, Persian and limited subsets of a half-dozen other languages. This structure is a graph of typed links (edges) between the words in a sentence.
One could say the crisis is still going on, as we don't know whether ZFC is free of contradictions (and perhaps never will). — Lionino
I suppose it is, especially among foundations mathematicians. But I would not say it remains a crisis within the broader scope of the profession. Mostly a curiosity. — jgill
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics
This led, near the end of the 19th century, to a series of paradoxical mathematical results that challenged the general confidence in reliability and truth of mathematical results. This has been called the foundational crisis of mathematics.
The resolution of this crisis involved the rise of a new mathematical discipline called mathematical logic that includes set theory, model theory, proof theory, computability and computational complexity theory, and more recently, several parts of computer science.
Not sure if mathematical logic is just a curiosity — Tarskian
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.