/lit/ - Literature

So Newton wasn't the last of the magicians after all.

/sci/ btfo

He also believed that the mind was non-algorithmic and that intuitive insight could never be replicated in machines. This is a natural consequence of his incompleteness theorems, because it implies that the human mind can apprehend truths which are not derivable through axiomatic rule following. This has implications for artificial general intelligence, as it is not clear how even machine learning systems can transcend axiomatic derivation rules.

>>18039804
Based metaphysician

>>18039804
>>18039836
>>18039702
Yeah I'm thinking based.

>>18039836
are you studying Computer Science or something? I vaguely recall reading some insightful and well-informed post by someone who studies Computer Science in a Godel thread last year

>>18039804
>the onthological argument again
Yawn. Read Kant

>>18040209
Not an argument. Kant also never had access to modal logic. His entire "refutation" was based on primitive syllogisms.

>>18039804
this just ontology with /soimath/ added

>>18040225
>/soimath/
What does this mean?

>>18040225
modal logic is the opposite of soimath

>>18040215
Modal or not, the ontological argument still begs the question, as Kant affirmed.

>>18040040
I'm a bit of a philosophy aficionado, particularly in the interested computational theory of mind. Gödel is a big boogeyman in the field.

>>18039702
>>There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.).
>all problems

>>18039702
Let's see
>The world is rational.
No, or at least not all fundamental principles of reality.
>Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).
Vague statement, but I agree.
>There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.).
No.
>There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
Perhaps.
>The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
I agree, but I believe in reincarnation/rebirth rather than afterlife.
>There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.
Open to debate.
>The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
Useless Eurocentrism.
>Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
No.
>Formal rights comprise a real science.
No.
>Materialism is false.
To a degree.
>The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
Meaningless.
>Concepts have an objective existence.
Meaningless.
>There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
No.
>Religions are, for the most part, bad-- but religion is not.
Religion is good for keeping the masses in line. For the mentally advanced there are other domains.

>>18040905
>useless
>meaningless

>>18040905
>No, or at least not all fundamental principles of reality.
this

>>18039804
>analytics