Base64 encoded problem + Leibniz & Kant

Justin Walsh jwalsh at bigpond.net.au
Thu Oct 11 22:27:03 UTC 2001


Hi!
I'm a beginner too.
Someone said " for every person there is a philosopher"
Another  said     "Politics is war by other means"
    If true then      "Marketing is Politics by other means".
   If true then      "Philosophy is Marketing by other means".
   If Inheritance is true then Dialectic, Arguement, Disputation ie War is
the First Principle.
Circular arguement? What is wrong with my logic? Given that it is
technically correct of course.
All the above is what People, (Rational creatures, with Desires and Designs)
do.
Computers know nothing of such things they just slavishly do what we assign
to them.
Like guns, computers do not make mistakes. We make mistakes, like with the
above logic.
To be safe. Do thoroughly:
Concept,  then  Logic,  then Physical.       Not reversed.      Not start
with Logic.
Otherwise we end up in fruitless circular disputes. (see squeak-dev)
Perhaps Philosophy, like Reason, is a victim of it's own miss-employment.
It is impossible to Hack oneself out of a  problem by technical refugee-ism.
Attachment shows one persons solution to the "Problem in General".
Back to basics!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans N. Beck" <HNBeck at t-online.de>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 4:25 AM
Subject: RE: Base64 encoded problem + Leibniz & Kant


> Hi,
> >
> > Next, as to Kant and Leibniz and their relevance to computing, and for
> > those on the list who have a serious interest in philosophy
> > who are also
> > not afraid of reading mathematical logic and related stuff:
> >
> > First, Leibniz spelled his last name "Leibniz" (and not "Leibnitz",
> > "Liebnitz" etc.), while Kant ought to have spelled his last
> > name like his
> > Scottish ancestors Cant (just like the correct spelling of
> > Freud ought to
> > have been Fraud: "nomen est omen").
> >
> > Those who care to see whether the Monadology has much to do
> > with computing
> > ought to consult my
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~maartens/phi_leibniz/monadology3A.html.
> >
> > You'll find the general answer is: NO. (But philosophically it's quite
> > interesting.)
> >
>
> I do not agree. Why ? I'm a philosophy beginner, but as far I remember
> the monadology, it is - in its basic ideas - related to computing. But
> not to computing today, but to computing some decades later....
>
> > Most philosophy is NOT really relevant to computing, and most
> > philosophers
> > are not really good at anything mathematical. Those who care to read
> > philosophical stuff that IS (remotely) relevant should check out
> >
>
> Why ? And what means philosophy ? Do you mean the Arestoteles'
> Metaphysik,
> the scholastische Schule, Husserl, Nietzsche, Positivismus, Hermeneutik
> ???
> As far as the word  "philosophy" for itself can mean, as the intention
> to detect the
> rules in world, so the constuct a computer model to simulate the world
> can be
> philosophy, too. You may right, that Rousseau has a little bit to do
> with
> computing........but a exactly analyis should be done.
>
> And Decartes a bad mathematician ?? I'm not sure.
>
> I should read the books below that I understand what you mean with your
> statement.
>
> > - Bertrand Russell: "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy"
> > - Wolfgang Stegmueller: "Probleme und Resultaten der
> > Wissenschaftstheorie
> > und Analytischen Philosophie
> > - Mario Bunge: "Treatise on Basic Philosophy"
> > - F. Muller: "Structures for Everyone"
> >
>
> Greetings
>
>
> hans
>
> (hope on further dialetic....)
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.url
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 154 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20011012/ee67c9c0/KantsCritiqueofPureReason.obj


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list