GENIUS FORUMS

When I was back there in seminary school... opps, wrong persona.

Whilst whiling away my time as an undergrad, we had to read two basic texts on the philosophy of science: Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," and Karl Popper's "Conjecture and Refutation," which seemed pretty sufficient at the time. However, I was into computer science (the only science that needs to put "science" in it's name, and is still is to be considered a science, or so they say), which meant that I was fairly familiar with Godel, Wittgenstein and Chomsky (Russell, for that matter), so the language angle had been covered elsewhere.

I'm curious what they're using now, anything new? The apparent rise of scientific materialism is still quite galling to me, especially since most of the scientists who edxpound its viture have never read any philosophy text, much less one on science. How is that possible?

In any event, Godel put the whole matter to rest with his incompletness theorem where any consistent axiomatic system of sufficient power to define the natural numbers contains within itself propositions that cannot be proved within the system itself. Therein arises the problem of infinite regress that seems to relate specifically to problems with self-referential statements.

Materialists have fought like agrrieved pigs ever since trying to distance neurobiological explanations of conciousness from this apparently intractable problem. That is the point where I graduated, and since then I have concentrated on making money to the mortal neglect of my soul.

I probably will read Minsky's "Society of the Mind," simply because I read "Godel, Escher & Bach," but I'm curious whether Kuhn's very straightforward, and readable text is still used. As for Popper, what a damned relief after reading literally 1,600 years worth of obscure prose to encounter a philosopher who spoke what he meant.

windhawk wrote:
In any event, Godel put the whole matter to rest with his incompletness theorem where any consistent axiomatic system of sufficient power to define the natural numbers contains within itself propositions that cannot be proved within the system itself. Therein arises the problem of infinite regress that seems to relate specifically to problems with self-referential statements.

I don't think one should extent Godel's work much further than applying it to those axiomatic systems defining natural numbers. Because his evidence can just as well be used to imply a Platonic world of absolutes (a 'real' mathematical universe underlying our math) or a higher more abstract system of philosophy above any general formal system of philosophy. The only thing it really implies is that "provability is a weaker notion than truth" (Hofstadter).

While infinite regress also doesn't necessarily mean an infinite string in a sequential sense. For all practical purposes (like impacts on our lives) it might as well behave like a Laplace transformation: that there's a real definable limit when an "infinite regress" is introduced, perhaps an absolute like identity, provable to the larger context of mind, but not within a lower order formal system.

windhawk writes:

I probably will read Minsky's "Society of the Mind," simply because I read "Godel, Escher & Bach," but I'm curious whether Kuhn's very straightforward, and readable text is still used.

windhawk, Kuhn is on an already-established syllabus in a humanties program I adjunct once a year at a small liberal arts school, but it is there as a signature moment in the history of science; an important paradigm shift (to use his very words) (and the program is built of books like this - you know, the 'great books' sort of thing). I imagine his book shares space on other syllabi for this same reason - important for the philosophy of science in a history-of kind of sense. I imagine there are other text darlings used now by the current philo/science academicians busy promoting their own work.

(I am having to go fast here rather than luxuriously thoughtful, so pardon the abruptness when I say:) With all due respects, returning to school to earn a PhD in Philo at your age is what they call a vanity degree. Unless you intend to teach (and this is the only excuse for any philo accreditation, in my estimation), you are really just collecting some substantial letters to place after your name. At 55(?), you know perfectly well how to study philosophy, and even the current literature of the current darlings is all over the net. I can hear the pride in your voice that you shall accomplish this at this point in your life, and I suppose that's innocuous enough. But I can promise you that PhD work will not broaden your horizons, but demand of you a "specialty" - one of those long, dark halls the fellows walk down into increasing myopia. You sound intelligent, so you could be even more intelligent about this accomplishment and accomplish it on your own. Or really, bypass the dead-end of "accomplishment" altogether.

Again, I do apologize for the abruptness and haste. (school just started at the big uni and I am presently quite slammed with it. later to all . . . . )

A thought experiment. Suppose that the axiomatic systems that seem to be incomplete were transfixed as physical entities (that is, they take up space, and presumably endure through time; this is not entierly too wierd given the current state of neurobiology where thoughts do take up space, and seem to endure through time).

Whilst true that the disputed propositions can be proved in a suitable meta-system, that extended-system itself will suffer from the same instances of unprovable issues. This would imply that the Universe has necessarily to be infinite (and expanding), or it will contain physically-incomplete propositions...

Now, I understand the relutance of folks to extend Godel in this manner, but it seems to imply to me that certain types of thought are Necessarily transcendant. That is, that analytic word-games about the impossiility of metaphysics impose an apriori epistomological constraint, which extends not only to mathematics, but to the nature and structure of the Universe itself.

I would dispute the possibility of this.

And, yes; it could be said that getting a degree in Philosophy at my age is a form of vanity; but I have been an obediant Civil-servant for the last 30 years, lived frugally and saved enough cash to retire early, buy a sailboat to live on, and finance my educational foray into a jungle (academia) that seems hell-bent on dimishing the commonlly understood nature of Man.

To hell with that (the materialists), and besides, the proposed thought experiment above is mine. I think in philosophical terms, always; but to risk my very nature on a trivial error, or to retreat (completly) into medatative silence Does seem vain to me.

Besides, think of it, a few classes a year; living, perhaps, on a sailboat within commuting distance of a respected school of philosophy. Write the occasional paper; study the philosophy of physcology as it applies to sailing, and very possibly, take a tax write-off for the entire boaty-thing. Seems positively, entrepunerial to me.

One more point, although I do have my doubts about therapy, I have seen stupendous things happen to autistic children on a sailboat, the Phd and a 100-ton masters licience will allow me to take 6 or fewer paying passengers out with me. You know, "Sure, I'll take a chicken as payment for taking your lost-child to sea..."

Things are not always as they seem.