| Random list |
[25. Sep 2011|12:48] |
My favorite philosophical films:
* Dogville (Justice vs. compassion)
* Groundhog's Day (What is the mening of living a good life? Is enlightment possible? I.e. issues related to reincarnation, but without mysticism)
* Being John Malkovitch (What could it be like to be inside the mind of an other?)
* Matrix (How real is reality?)
* Dead Poet Society (What to do with your life?)
Shorlist:
(either don't like these as movies AS much as the previous ones, or the philosophical issue is not central / expressed strongly enough)
* A.I. and Blade Runner (What does it mean to be human?)
* Fight Club (True self vs. how society perceives you, and other issues as well)
* Avatar (Technological vs. natural society)
* Inception (Reality vs. what is constructed by the mind)
* von Trier's Idiots (Is normality overrated?)
* von Trier's Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark (The limits of self-sacrifice)
EDIT: Totally forgot and very relevant: Bullets over Broadway (What is more valuable - an [ordinary] human life or a great work of art?). And other Woody Allen movies as well, boring as they are. |
|
|
| |
[7. Sep 2011|19:19] |
Philosophy and Theoretical Computer Science, Fall 2011 - Skota Āronsona kurss MIT, paldies ![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif) artis. Interesanti, patiešām interesanti - beidzot kāds ir ņēmis un centies apkopot CS un filozofijai kopīgās tēmas. (Bet computational neuroscience un mind uploading iztrūkst, uzkrītoši iztrūkst!)
Runājot par šo, izskatās pēc Muldera (tiem, kas zin) vienmēr piesauktā "evolūcijas matemātiskā modeļa", ne?
***
..un vēl par datorikas tēmu, ja kāds vēl nav redzējis: Two chatbots talking to each other, smieklīgi un nedaudz biedējoši. |
|
|
| And this, kids, is why formalization of ethics is never going to work |
[23. Aug 2011|20:50] |
In practice formal logic is not much use, because despite some progress in the last 150 years we're still only able to formalize a small percentage of statements. We may never do that much better, for the same reason 1980s-style "knowledge representation" could never have worked; many statements may have no representation more concise than a huge, analog brain state.
(Paul Graham, How to Do Philosophy) |
|
|
| Interesants fakts |
[18. Aug 2011|17:19] |
Smadzenēs saglabājamais informācijas apjoms ir ar teorētisku augšējo robežu. Pēc tam sākas atkārtošanās, gribi negribi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound:An average human brain has a weight of 1.5 kg and a volume of 1260 cm3. The energy (E = m·c2) will be 1.34813·10^17 J and if the brain is approximate to a sphere then the radius (V = 4·π·r3/3) will be 6.70030·10−2 m.
The Bekenstein bound (I ≤ (2·π·r·E)/(ħ·c·ln 2)) will be 2.58991·1042 bit and represent the maximum information needed to perfectly recreate the average human brain down to the quantum level. This implies that the number of different states (Ω=2I) of the human brain (and of the mind if physicalism is true) is at most 107.79640·1041.
Kaut gan, manuprāt, jebkurā filozofiskā analīzē, kura balstītos uz šo, būtu jāņem vērā arī informācija no pārējā ķermeņa un apkārtējās vides. Dinamiska sistēma tomēr (I mean, "tagadne ir ilūzija, tā nepastāv - tā ir bezgalīgi plāna naža asmens").
Assuming physicalism is true, of course. |
|
|
| |
[6. Jul 2011|18:07] |
Patiesībā jau sen esmu zaudējis cerību saprast pasauli pat ar filozofijas palīdzību. Vienam prātiņam tas ir pārāk neiespējams uzdevums. Ja kādreiz mēģinu domāt, tad tikai gadījumos, kad tas liekas gluži vienkārši interesanti. |
|
|