COMMON PROBLEM, WHY ‘PHILOSOPHY IS OVER’ While in intellectual history we positi

COMMON PROBLEM, WHY ‘PHILOSOPHY IS OVER’
While in intellectual history we position philosophy as the bridge between religion and science, given the failure of philosophy in the 20th as set theory came to an end, and we developed an understanding of language and programming, every claim and frame used in Philosophy is somewhere between pre-science and pseudoscience.

IOW: REligion is cheap and easy enough for children. Philosophy is a bit more costly but accessible to young adults. But one studies philosophy because like history and literature, it can be gradually accumulated while maintaining sensibility over time. While studying the four sciences: math, computation, simulation, physics, genetics, cognitive science, language/grammars, economics, and law are each challenging fields that don’t provide the comfort of the pretense of understanding while we’re accumulating knowledge. They do however prevent overconfidence and anchoring as does philosophy – particularly literary philosophy in Plato (Vs empirical as in Aristotle/Epicurus).

1) We have legs (Noun). But we must organize them in motion to run (Verb). Does running exist? Or is running a potential that we bring into existence by enabling the process of running?

2) We have a brain (noun). That brain operates as long as we are alive (verb). (well… most of us do anyway 😉 ) That brain continuously, unceasingly, without ever stopping, processes stimuli from the nervous system (noun) and if anything requires mental or bodily action (verb) activates our awareness (verb) first and consciousness (verb) second in rapid sequence via the thalamus (noun). And because all actions are calculated in parallel with all instinct, intuition, consideration, and decision, those actions are released either involuntarily(via interrupt) or voluntarily (via consciousness).

3) So we have a brain, and we are capable of unaware, aware, unconscious, and conscious cognitive and physical actions. So while material states (nouns) persist over time, material processes (verbs), do not persist over time, but are potentials brought into temporary existence with actions in time.

4) All of these processes are material (physical). They are not always introspectable (internally observable). But they are all scientifically explainable – yes even Qualia (idiosyncratic experience under marginal indifference.)

5) That is the only ‘duality’. Noun vs Verb. And philosophy was a failure for two causal reasons. a) words(ideals) vs actions(reals), b) all statements are promissory c) the demand for testifiability, d) the failure to understand the holes in grammar (too many to list here), e) the verb to-be or in other languages its implication f) the failure in particular of the hole in grammar exemplified by “the liar’s paradox that isn’t”: the demand for satisfaction of continuous recursive disambiguation. (this is the most important one).

6) And while understanding the brain was previously difficult at present, we can explain pretty much everything in the brain at an operational level, simply because it turns out the brain does one thing with a very small number of rules and a whole LOT of neurons, axons, dendrites, synapses, organized into mini-columns, columns, subregions, and regions that produces what we discovered in computer science: about the same exact framework as a 3d game. In other words, the only possible means of building a computer world model turns out to be the only possible means of producing a real-world model. And we even know where each bit of that geometry is produced, and hierarchically organized by competition into an episodic moment, that if generates any novelty is recursively activated until the network producing it it preserved in memory.

Reality programs the brain. The rest of it is just the number of nerves that reach the brain from each body part, and the brainstem’s desire for homeostasis and the brain’s effort to provide it.

Cheers
-Curt Doolittle