/lit/ - Literature

>>19452876
>Monkeys! Can you believe it?

>>18835208
>Anonymous 08/12/21(Thu)12:13:21 No.18835208>>18835925>>18834591(OP)
>>What did you learn that wasn't already obvious?
>
>Logical positivism: The idea that if a statement can't be verified even in principle then it doesn't matter whether you take it to be true or false. This principle is correct but is rejected by philosophers probably for political reasons (it was popular in the USSR). They gave stupid arguments against it, e.g., is this principle itself verifiable? This is like asking whether Euclid's axiomatic geometry can prove its own axioms.
>
>Positivism dispenses of most philosophical questions people ask, e.g., does time go backward or forward? is my red the same as your red? do p-zombies exist?
>
>Formal logic / mathematical foundations: This became an extremely deep area of contemporary math, and it's where set theory and homotopy type theory come from. It was mostly developed by mathematicians, but some philosophers, like Russell or Kripke, also contributed to it.
>
>Modern cog-sci ideas: These include predictive processing, the extended mind (Andy Clark is a prominent philosopher working on these), and macrocognition, i.e., collective minds (Bryce Huebner wrote a good book on this). These all sprang out of the 1980s, when philosophers were inspired by Everett's many-world interpretation of quantum mechanics and understood its relationship to consciousness. Some philosophers writing on this topic were Daniel Dennett and Derek Parfit, although Douglas Hofstadter IMO made the most contributions (but he's a cog-sci guy).
>
>Superrationality and acausal decision theories: This concept is due to Hofstadter but is a contribution to philosophy. It's a way of formulating a precise form of religious ethics within the context of game theory. It was extended to asymmetric games by Ron Maimon and reformulated with computers by Gary L. Drescher in his book "Good and Real". The Lesswrong people are into this today and formulated a variety of decision theories that play correctly in situations like Newcomb's Paradox.

>having sex with a woman of 17 years, 364 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes

YOU SICK FUCK!!!!!!!