= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
lukeprog comments on Philosophy that can be "taken seriously by computer scientists" - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (15)
Yup. This is why I was so surprised in January 2011 that Less Wrong had never before mentioned formal philosophy, which is the branch of philosophy most relevant to the open research problems of Friendly AI. See, for example, Self-Reference and the Acyclity of Rational Choice or Reasoning with Bounded Resources and Assigning Probabilities to Arithmetical Statements.
Thanks for the links. I just read those two papers and they don't seem to be saying anything new to me :-(
In your linked piece, you were talking about formal epistemology. Here you say "formal philosophy." Is that a typo, or do you think that formal epistemology exhausts formal philosophy? (I would hope not the latter, since lots of formal work gets done in philosophy outside epistemology!)
Formal epistemology is a subfield within formal philosophy, probably the largest.
Larger than logic? Hmm ... maybe you're thinking about "formal philosophy" in a way that I am unfamiliar with.