The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
An amusing misrepresentation. Philosophy of science is at a rather more abstract level like: what is the relation of theory to evidence? what is the exact nature of "cause" as it is used in science? Can the problem of induction be solved? What is science, is it a generic discipline or a series of loosely related disciplines? Can teleological concepts be used in a restrained manner in biology without compromising the non-teleological nature of modern science? etc.
And this is exactly what I've been talking about.
This is not the work of philosophers. This is the work of scientists.
One the greatest revelations of the last five hundred years was the invention of the experiment. "Science" prior to this consisted of philosophy - reasoning your way to how the world worked. That left us with profound insights such as how an object two times the weight of another one falls twice as fast.
As scientist doesn't bother describing all this in useless treatises, however. Why would he? He is motivated by finding out more about how the world works, not engage in intellectual masturbation.
So instead the philosophers move in... Put some fancy words around, give the methods some new labels, and all of a sudden they think they invented it.
Why do you think that the limitations of a human mind can suddenly unravel the secrets of the universe?
Why do you think that philosophy can provide us with incorrigible knowledge of the nature of the universe?
I didn't say that it could, I said that part of the philosophy of science was finding rational grounds for belief in scientific method.
Observation of the world around us.
Observation of what" Sense data? Real events? Neural firings?
Induction is only possible with faith in the real world... [/QUOTE]
Nope. Another howler: one can be a phenomenalist and believe in induction.
Absolutely, when anyone tries to predict the future it relies on faith -- scientist or philosopher -- it doesn't matter.
Then if you believe this I don't see how you have any rational grounds for any of your scientific beliefs - so next time we find you having a go at someone over theirs you will be damned a sophist or a hypocrite.
In fact the problem of induction is not the major difficulty it seems to be, at least in my view. I suspect that the solution is to realise that our notion of time is part of theory and that supposing otherwise tends to skew our notion of what counts as evidence in favour of immediate sense data or some other hypostasised notion of evidence. I plan to work on this in the future as I think that it is worth trying to solve it. After all no one thought that anyone would solve the problem of Fermat's last theorem, but it happened. Merely saying, "That can't be solved, so who cares." is a betrayal of the values that are fundamental to any academic discipline and represent the worst form of intellectual laziness or cowardice.
Unlike you I suspend judgement on the question of whether it is possible for human beings to have real knowledge or not. I don't think that question has been satisfactorily answered one way or the other hence the best thing to do is suspend judgement. I certainly am reluctant to endorse your dogmatic scepticism.
People who are interested in finding grounds for human knowledge, rather than taking everything on faith (which is a lame solution) are interested in solving the problem of induction. Some people are just interested in knowledge for its own sake. These include scientists, philosophers, and all sorts of others. It includes me; I like knowing. If there is a solution to be had, it will be a conceptual one which will be arrived at by philosophical reasoning, for there is simply no alternative.
What's really at issue here is that you don't understand what philosophers do - witness the growing number of howlers you have committed in this thread. Despite what you say philosophers and scientists seem to work quite well together in many situations - I know I have seen it - and cognitive science involves philosophical questions and methods. These are indisputable facts. The fact that you don't seem to like or find any use for philosophical method doesn't mean that no one else does, and you have failed to come up with any argument that doesn't rest on a misunderstanding that proves that it is useless.
In fact, "that's just some bull**** that philosophers talk about", strikes me as one of the worst reasons ever offered in refutation by anyone. Most of your answers are mere variations on this tedious theme.
This is not the work of philosophers. This is the work of scientists.
Yeah right. How can the scientific method be the justification of believing that the scientific method works. Classic question begging behaviour.
One the greatest revelations of the last five hundred years was the invention of the experiment. "Science" prior to this consisted of philosophy - reasoning your way to how the world worked. That left us with profound insights such as how an object two times the weight of another one falls twice as fast.
And what does that have to do with what goes on in contemporary philosophy - absolutely nothing.
As scientist doesn't bother describing all this in useless treatises, however. Why would he? He is motivated by finding out more about how the world works, not engage in intellectual masturbation. So instead the philosophers move in... Put some fancy words around, give the methods some new labels, and all of a sudden they think they invented it.
Bah.
Get real. And cognitive scientists don't go on about this in useless treatises do they? Please don't try and bring up rationalist metaphysics as a characterisation of contemporary philosophy - it has been out of favour for a very long time now.
Originally posted by Tuberski
How is it that this stupid thread has lasted this long?
Will you guys get to the end? I want to see who wins.
ACK!
I doubt there will be any acknowledged victory for either side. Especially since only one side seems to be aware of what goes on in philosophy these days - and that's mine. The other side seems to rely on antiquated conceptions of the discipline.
I would disagree with this, none of the people studying AI have ever consulted or worked with a philosopher...
C'mon, Asher, a cursory glance through the American Association for Artificial Intelligence popped up:
quote:
CV FOR AARON SLOMAN
BSc Mathematics and Physics 1st class, Cape Town, 1956, DPhil in philosophy, Oxford 1962
Rhodes Scholar at Balliol College Oxford 1957-1960, Senior Scholar at St Antony's College 1960-62. GEC Professorial Fellow 1984-6. Elected Fellow of the American Association for AI in 1991. Elected honorary life Fellow of AISB in 1997. Elected Fellow of ECCAI in 1999. Regularly invited as keynote speaker at seminars, international conferences and workshops.
Taught philosophy at Hull then Sussex University for several years, but decided around 1970 that AI provided the best context for studying many old philosophical problems. Did battle with McCarthy and Hayes at IJCAI in 1971 (paper on non-logical representations reprinted in AI Journal 1971). After a year learning about AI in Edinburgh in 1972-3 as SRC senior visiting fellow returned to Sussex and later helped to found the School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, and wrote an influential book ``The Computer Revolution in Philosophy'' (1978).
Continued working on philosophy, on the architecture of visual systems, and tools for teaching and research in AI. Managed the development of Poplog, a sophisticated multi-language AI development environment (sold by ISL for several years, but now available free of charge, though still used in commercial products, e.g. Clementine.)
After 27 years at Sussex wanted a change. In 1991 moved to the School of Computer Science in the University of Birmingham, where he also collaborates with members of the School of Psychology. Still working on AI tools (e.g. the SIM_AGENT toolkit), hybrid architectures for intelligent agents, the evolution of consciousness, architectural support for motivation and emotions, issues concerned with representation, mathematical thinking, vision, and related philosophical problems in AI and computing.
And while I am at it, why can you not admit that there are some non-empirical proofs - proofs in geometry being one sort. Philosophical arguments are closer in character to these than what you are talking about.
I doubt there will be any acknowledged victory for either side. Especially since only one side seems to be aware of what goes on in philosophy these days - and that's mine. The other side seems to rely on antiquated conceptions of the discipline.
I know that, just a bit of sarcasm, they have that in philosophy don't they?
ACK!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!
Originally posted by Frogger
Isn't that what's called mathematics? The study of formal systems...
Yep, but mathematics doesn't deal formally with non-mathematical concepts like belief, meaning, reference, intention or desire. Or with trying to make ethical theories consistent or with trying to make the concept of cause consistent without generating ridiculous counterexamples ("cause" - now there's a word that people use without thinking).
Having said that, for various reasons I am uncomfortable with the a priorising of philosophy.
Tweet
ACK!
Comment