ntoll.org

I just found this video about open-mindedness, evidence based argument and common mistakes made when “moving between” thoughts in a discussion:

I like its succinct presentation of what I was up to when I read for my philosophy degree: arguing a position and revising in the light of evidence.

I get a real buzz from this sort of thing, whether it be in a debate, writing an essay or when reading well written philosophy. I try to engage with an argument by poking holes in it – and I love how good authors / debaters will poke back.

Unfortunately, there is an abundance of spaghetti philosophy: like spaghetti code in software engineering it is badly presented, too complex, opaque and not quite fit for purpose.

This video is a great example of what good philosophy should be: well presented, no more complex than it needs to be, inviting scrutiny and encouraging the audience to engage and to think.

Read the full article...

“In such cases, the existence of the institution enables individuals or groups of individuals to impose on objects functions that the objects cannot perform in virtue of their physical structure alone, but only in virtue of the collective recognition of the object as having a certain status, and with that status, a special function.”

Rationality in Action by John Searle

Pass it on:

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open it to page 56.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don’t dig for your favorite book, the cool book, or the intellectual one: pick the CLOSEST.

(The book was next to my computer because it’s what I’m reading on the train at the moment when going into work. Oh, and I promise to be better at updating this blog from now on.)

Read the full article...

Engaging in philosophical analysis is an essential (and difficult) activity for shedding light on those aspects of a problem that do not obviously fall within the realm of software engineering. This is especially true when trying to understand concepts such as “meaning”, “understanding” and “thinking”.

This article is a demonstration of philosophical analysis by engaging with two chat-bot related problems. The first concerns the question “can machines think?” and the second examines “meaning”.

Read the full article...

When I explain my plans for the month of November to my friends, family and (soon-to-be-former) colleagues they inevitably comment on how I’ll (not) find the time to do all the tasks I have set myself to a standard that I will be happy with.

However, in my favour:

• I always set myself unrealistic work-loads and high targets.
• I understand that I do so because I know how to be lazy.

In this article I explain why these are positive character traits.

Read the full article...