Do the aims of philosophy include creating algorithms to the way we conduct ourselves? And algorithms in reasoning it?
The state of law today does generally put its philosophy toward: "You will be allright if and only if . . . "
So I think as rules increase and the reasons for them do, we are saying to the populace that we want an algorithm to follow. Our “selves” bloom in between those algorithms where self expression is welcome. I don’t think that’s so bad. You?
“Philosophical question”
V
(Use intelligence?) → No → Quit argument
V Yes
(Any evidence/science?) → No → Quit argument
V Yes
(Isolate valid points?) → No → Quit argument
V Yes
(Weigh and compare?) → No → Quit argument
V Yes
(Posit theories) → No → Quit argument
V Yes
(Compare theories) → No → Quit argument
V Yes
(Evolve theories) → No → Quit argument
Dan,
Is genetic programming essentially math?
The computer analogy of hardwired and softwired conditions of thought is our current paradigm. No doubt it will change as we change. In the sense that it now applies, yes, algorythms are the nets we use to catch meaningful infomation.
thezeus18,
That’s good to know. Is math, then, the constant among our variables? Or is it merely our take from our current mental perspective? (See Popper on the fallibility of scientific paradigms.)