Philosophy 101

[astr0creep]

I have a headache.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

In before DIVISION BY ZERO.

 

LOL I love that error

[Gorgon]

Its like asking if black is a colour, yes and no.

 

 

 

And in the less important department, while quoting and other php features now work for me, every time I use an apostrophe firefox spawns a seach window instead

Edited February 13, 2007 by Gorgon

[astr0creep]

Its like asking if black is a colour, yes and no.

 

 

 

And in the less important department, while quoting and other php features now work for me, every time I use an apostrophe firefox spawns a seach window instead

 

But is there something in the search window or just... nothing?

[Dark_Raven]

Philosophy sucks.

[DeathScepter]

philsosphy can be one of two things.

 

 

 

 

bull****

 

 

or

 

 

wisdom

 

 

 

 

 

I do believe that it is a blend of both.

[Rosbjerg]

I've always thought that philosophy was too focused on the interpretations of words and ideas.. It becomes a bit anal when you discuss endlessly the precise meaning of the word "exsistence", but then I started reading some more - and suddenly I realized that philosophy helps the other branhces of science with definitions and helps with homogenization and interpretations of difficult concepts, that are otherwise difficult to explain.

I now view ph like the foundation (and not just historically) on which other sciences build their theories and ideas.

[Gorth]

Oldie but goodie... I remember it from when it was young :cool:

 

Evolution of the

System Administrator

 

Given that there is a lot of discussion about whether or not our LAN really does have a System Administrator, and given that no empirical evidence of the existence or non-existence of the System Administrator is exact, I thought it would be helpful to have a frank and open discussion about the issues surrounding the concept.

 

Here are some popular arguments:

 

Argument from Design

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

One looks at a simple computer, and sees evidence of intelligent design.

One looks at a Sun Sparc 20 and... um... well... Okay, One looks at a DEC Alpha and sees evidence of intelligent design.

It is therefore likely that something created them.

One looks at the network and sees evidence of intelligent design.

It is therefore likely that something created it. That something is the System Administrator.

 

Counter-argument:

 

If you think the network implies intelligent design, you haven't seen *our* network.

Even assuming this proves the existence of a System Administrator, there's no evidence the System Administrator is intelligent.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

First Causes Argument

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

When my computer comes on, it is because I turned it on. My computer cannot turn itself on.

When I turn my computer on and connect to the network, the network is already there waiting for me.

I know I did not activate the network.

Therefore, something must have caused the network to exist.

That something could be the Router, but then what installed the Router?

That something must be the System Administrator.

 

Counter-argument:

 

So what caused the System Administrator?

Still doesn't prove the System Administrator is intelligent.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Argument from Popularity

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Almost everyone believes that the System Administrator exists. Those who don't believe He exists are in the minority.

Many respected people claim to have received email from Him.

In almost any company since the dawn of the Computer Age, there has been some form of System Administrator myth.

Given the universality of the myths, it is unlikely that such myths are based on truth.

 

Counter-argument:

 

Most users are clueless morons who need to believe in the Great Benevolent Super-User, and that He protects and watches over their data.

So who's to say it's the System Admin that HR claims to have hired? Why not Brian Kernighan or Cliff Stoll, or Zeus, or Thor or any other such mythical creature?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Argument from Authority

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Management insists that the System Administrator exists.

Specifically:

a. HR insists that they hired Him

b. Accounting claims to have PO's signed by Him

c. MIS has the The Big Book of Documentation, written by Him or His disciples.

 

Counter-argument:

 

Since when has Management known what they were doing?

Using the Big Book of Documentation as proof that the BBoD was written by the System Administrator is circular. It could be a fabrication.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Cartesian Argument

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No user can create a more Super account than he himself possesses.

No user can grant greater system privileges than he himself possesses.

All users have heard of the root account, and that the root account is omnipotent and possesses all privileges.

Since the concept of the root account is greater than the accounts possessed by the users, the users cannot have created the concept of the root account. Therefore the concept of the root account must come from something that possesses those privileges.

There is an entry for 'root' in /etc/passwd.

The root account can only have been created by the Super User, the System Administrator.

 

Counter-argument:

 

Statement 1 is a dubious premise.

The existence of the root account is not proof that anyone ever logs into that account.

Still doesn't prove that the System Admin is intelligent.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Ontological Proof

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Given: The property of existence is more Super than the property of non-existence.

The SysAdmin is defined as "a user, than which no more Super User can be conceived"

No matter how great a Super User you can conceive which possesses the property of non-existence, you can then add the property of existence and make the Super User even more Super.

Therefore, the System Administrator exists.

 

Counter-argument:

 

Rests on a dubious definition of what is and is not Super.

The concept of a Super User is nowhere near analogous to the Super User itself. I can conceive of something, but that's only the concept of it, not the thing itself.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Spinozist Argument

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The System Administrator is defined as the most perfect user possible.

The property of necessary existence means that anything which possesses it must necessarily exist.

If existence is better than non-existence (see the ontological proof), then necessary existence is better still.

Any perfect user must possess the property of necessary existence.

Therefore the System Administrator must necessarily exist.

However:

 

Being perfect, the System Administrator cannot make mistakes, delete the wrong account, trash the root directory, mess up a tape load, etc.

Being perfect, the System Administrator can not be capable of goal-directed action, because such action would imply that the network is somehow less than perfect in its current state.

Therefore, the System Administrator is really more of a force of nature within the system.

Arguably, then the System Administrator *is* the system itself.

 

Counter-argument:

 

None, since the System Administrator has been defined to the point where it is a totally useless concept, there's no point in arguing.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

At least this resolves one of the major issues: the Spinozist argument proves that *if* the System Administrator does exist, it cannot be intelligent.

August '96

 

Who said philosophy wasn't useful?

[metadigital]

I've always thought that philosophy was too focused on the interpretations of words and ideas.. It becomes a bit anal when you discuss endlessly the precise meaning of the word "existence", but then I started reading some more - and suddenly I realized that philosophy helps the other branches of science with definitions and helps with homogenization and interpretations of difficult concepts, that are otherwise difficult to explain.

I now view ph like the foundation (and not just historically) on which other sciences build their theories and ideas.

That's the latest, philological trend of philosophy (Bertrand Russell et alia).

 

I recently finished a book by a prominent neurosurgeon, who has made some revolutionary insights into the development of language (his book is subtitled The Co-evolution of Language and the Human Brain.)

 

First, he defined three different types of cognition; iconic, indexical and symbolic:

Icons are mediated by a similarity between sign and object, indices are mediated by some physical or temporal connection between sign and object, and symbols are mediated by some formal or merely agreed-upon link irrespective of any physcial characteristics of either sign or object. These three forms of reference reflect a classic philosophical trichotomy of possible modes of associative relationship: a) similarity, b) contiguity or correlation, and c) law, causality, or convention.

...

When we say something is "iconic" of something else we usually mean there is a resemblance that we notice. Landscapes, portraits and pictures of all kinds are iconic in what they depict. When we say something is an "index" we mean that it is somehow causally linked to something else, or associated with it in space or time. A thermometer indicates the temperature of water, a weathervane indicates the direction of the wind, and a disagreeable odor might indicate the presence of a skunk. Most forms of animal communication have this quality, from pheremonal odors (that indicate an animal's physiological state or proximity) to alarm calls (that indicate the presence of a dangerous predator). Finally, when we say something is a "symbol," we mean there is some social convention, tacit agreement, or explicit code which establishes the relationship that links one thing to another. A wedding ring symbolizes a marital agreement; the typographical letter "e" symbolizes a particular sound used in words (or sometimes, as in English, what should be done to other sounds); and taken together, the words of this sentence symbolize a particular idea or set of ideas.

 

No particular objects are intrinsically icons, indices, or symbols. They are interpreted to be so, depending on waht is produced in response. In simple terms, the differences between iconic, indexical, and symbolic relationships derive from regarding things either with respect to their form, their correlations with other things, or their involvement in systems of conventional relationships.

But the really interesting stuff is at the end of the book:

Chapter Fourteen

To Be or Not to Be: What is the Difference?

Throughout the history of philosophy one question above all others has constantly occupied center stage. What is the nature of consciousness? Unfortunately, terms like consciousness, mind, thought, and idea have many conflicting meanings, and this question is often confounded with a number of other related philosophical questions about thought, reason, agency, and the existence of an immortal soul. Is consciousness one thing? Is is epiphenomenol? Does consciousness require agency (or free will)? Are nonhuman species conscious? Are there different types or levels of consciousness? Is self-consciousness an essential ingredient of all consciousness? Is reason an essential ingredient in all consciousness? Can consciousness only be experienced by living organisms? The absence of answers to such questions attests to the deep confusions that still surround the nature of consciousness. Though the subjective perspective from which each of us views the world is still a mystery we ultimately hope to address by these questions it seems difficult to determine where to begin the investigation because we are not even sure what we mean by the questions.

 

...

 

In contemporary discussions of the relationships between brain process and consciousness, three general problems are often treated separately. The first is often called "the binding problem" and refers to the problem of how the separate activities of millions of brain structures produce a unified subjective experience of self. The second is less often given an explicit name, but is sometimes referred to as "the grounding problem." It is the the problem of explaining how our thoughts and words are guaranteed a correspondence with reality. Much of this book has been concerned with explaining the second problem. The third is often confused with the first two, but also has its own special difficulties. This is the problem of "Agency"

[Pidesco]

You might want to check out this guy's books. Especially Descartes' Error.

[Tale]

In purely philosophical terms before you define nothing, you have to define something.

 

So define it.

This is a case of confusing symbols for the thing they represent.

[Pidesco]

In purely philosophical terms before you define nothing, you have to define something.

 

So define it.

This is a case of confusing symbols for the thing they represent.

 

Yes, and so is a lot of the philosophy that has been done over the centuries.

 

 

Talk about a late reply...

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I've only read the first page and already I'm going

[metadigital]

You might want to check out this guy's books. Especially Descartes' Error.

Thanks, it indeed looks interesting. (Even if he is a bizarro foreigner. *spit* )

 

Nearly finished Bertrand's ego trip.

[Xard]

Ooh... I must get that book. Although from wiki he really didn't discard Descartes' theory, just proved that it can't be proved empirically.

 

Good, neurobiological atheistic standpoint, can't argue with that. However, that also requires that you don't have spirit/soul/ or anything like that. Which existence (of course) is douptable and outside of natural sciences.

 

Damasio approaches subject from scientifical view.

 

Not that I'm Descartian (or whatever the word is) but I think "Cogito ergo sum" is in someways truth.

 

I believe in soul, but in not very simplistic ways. This interesting little article is part of my foundation and view on subjet called "soul". Not only, not even nearly, but one of those.

 

If term wouldn't be so lame, I would say that T.S Elliot wrote what is ultimate truth, no matter how brightly artificial light of science shines.

 

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Xard

[metadigital]

Scientific American's April 2007 article by Bernd Heinrich and Thomas Bugnyar seems to demonstrate that ravens have a symbolic brain. This is remarkable if only because (at least in the early edition that I read) Deacon makes the point that the human brain is unique in this regard.

 

Further, the raven should have the ability to develop language-like skills, and may indeed already have some sort of register. They certainly would be better suited, prima facie, to learning language than, say, the higher primates (Kanzi being a notable exception). This would have exciting possibilities for the study of linguistic theory.

[Gorth]

Further, the raven should have the ability to develop language-like skills, and may indeed already have some sort of register.

Any Scandinavian child should be able to tell you that Odin has two ravens that keep an eye on the world and whispers in his ear what is happening. It has been known for more than a millennia that ravens could talk

[Walsingham]

I've always regarded philosophers the same way I do rowers. They're clearly doing something I can't but the question remains WHY they are doing it. This is why we have psychotherapists.

[Rosbjerg]

Any Scandinavian child should be able to tell you that Odin has two ravens that keep an eye on the world and whispers in his ear what is happening. It has been known for more than a millennia that ravens could talk

 

Hugin and Munin.. meaning "thought" and (the) "memory"

Hugin comes from "at komme i hu" - "to have in ones thoughts / to have in ones mind" and Munin "han som mindes" - "He who remembers"

 

Just thought I would add my two cents.