[Serious Phil] Wittgenstein Slides
jpolanik at nc.rr.com
Sun Jun 3 08:53:56 CDT 2012
>Eray Ozkural wrote:
>>to somebody who does know enough neuroscience and computational
>>learning theory, it should be obvious that machine learning and human
>>learning are pretty much the same kind of mechanism. there isn't any
>>fundamental difference. in fact, there are many machine learning
>>algorithms that are based on the operation of the brain, and in case
>>you are not aware, there are even whole brain simulation projects. so
>>saying they are not grammatically equivalent is just sophistry and
>>rhetoric, something a person who doesn't understand the science might
>>say, and i think in that slide a certain amount of ignorance about
>>computers is present, sorry to tell you about that, but being a
>>linguistic philosopher doesn't mean you understand every conceptual
>>distinction. i don't think you understand the distinction between
>>computers and humans, actually, there are many differences between a
>>computer and a human (surprise?), but "the ability to learn" isn't one
>Wittgenstein talks about seeing aspects and the connections that go on
>when humans go through a "wow moment" (getting it). He talks about
>heirarchies in states of comprehension, such as when a person can
>exercise connoisseur judgment. Really, this whole area is concerned
>with philosophy of insight (what insight is).
>I don't need to accept your way of talking about it, so long as others
>who know the same things can validly speak of it differently.
>What you and Stuart fail to understand in all of this, is that you are
>not really offering any information in this debate. All that you are
>Stuart are doing is offering an ASPECT SIGHT. That's it. You are
>offering what is, in effect, a connoisseur judgment, but you don't even
I suspect that both Eray and Stuart each 'know' (ie believe) that they
have a connoisseur's judgment as to the perspective to take regarding a
certain range of questions.
>What you are saying is that if we should adopt a picture of account
>about our minds at is computational or machine-oriented (or what not).
>All that I am trying to tell you back is that other pictures of account
>still exist, as do other ways of speaking about the same information.
not all perspectives reflect a connoisseur's judgment; some are just
crank opinions. how effective rational argument may be at weeding out
the latter is open to debate; but, it remains desirable to make the
>Wittgensteinians don't want anything more than for you to see the
>limitations of your own prejudice. If you could only see that you
>merely champion an aspect-sight, the whole thing could be quieted.
what would be quieted?
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
More information about the Philscimind