RSS
 

Arquivo para September, 2019

The Machine Learning

30 Sep

Trend Even from the 21st century artificial intelligence was in a great crisis, could do a lot of logical reasoning, treat and rationalize equations, make inferences, but the volume of “human” data was small, the emergence of the Web and the adhesion of billions. of people enabled a new scenario: Big Data, a large amount of human data.

This large and complex data can be processed with large-scale accurate results, so that it can be processed by machine so that the machine “learns” trends, this (not by) machine learning is called “Machine Learning”.

With this it is possible to identify opportunities and avoid mistakes such as insisting on “logical” discourses but out of trend, it is not a question of going into fashion, but rather identifying it to correct it or propose other alternatives, and that is the opportunities Real.

Big data identifies data patterns, creates and analyzes the connections between them, and makes the execution of a given also smarter, whether or not it can rely on human supervision. In these two types, supervised and unsupervised, machine “learning” will always be essential, in supervised there is human interaction controlling the input and output of data and thus directly interfering with machine training, while in unsupervised algorithms use deep learning to handle and solve complex tasks without human intervention.

An important algorithm for semantic searches was made by a GitHut team: Hamel Husain. Ho-Hsiang Wu and Tiferet Gazit, and two Microsoft researchers: Miltiadis Allamanis and Marc Brockschmidt, who assess the state of evolution of semantic search algorithms and even make the code available through the GitHub site.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.09436v1.pdf

 

Perfectionism and true righteousness

27 Sep

Idealism has created a form of humanism and “rights and duties” that have little or nothing to do with Being and true human needs and concerns.
According to novelist Anne Larnott (translated to Portuguese only Word for word): “Perfectionism is a form of cold and bad idealism, while messes are the artist’s true friend”, I think she meant what appears to be an imperfection or a “Mess” as she wrote, but that’s only human.
Three factors can lead to perfectionism becoming a “borderline” syndrome, as psychologists call it, making the distinction or quality of the Other unacceptable, but also making “human” or “normal” pathological defects that can lead to despair, and, perhaps worst of all, the still little realized that is contempt for the Other, especially for the humblest people, for vanity and pride.
Other aspects such as communication, harmony in order to have the environments around us more integrated with our Being, the adoption of a spirituality (it has become dangerous because religiosity has also acquired pathologies, care must be taken) and what should be future of humanity, but there are already signs, that is the sharing of resources and talents in order to produce self-sustaining and healthy goods and consumption.
There are several currents that can help from the point of view of ‘elaboration of thought’, one of the serious shortcomings of idealism has been to separate practical from theoretical, and the reinvention of dialectic (in Hegel in particular) has badly solved this problem, phenomenology has reinvented hermeneutics to return to the “thing itself” and to take back the “Lebenswelt” (Husserl), the philosophy of life.
The three parables in the 16th chapter of Luke, misunderstood and read, are not one work that makes the connection between them, namely that of the returning son (called the prodigal son), that of the unfaithful steward (called dishonest or clever). and the one that complements the three, which is the death of Lazarus, the poor man who lived from the leftover table of the rich man who, when dying, goes to his father’s bosom, while the rich man goes to the “region of the dead, in the midst of torment”. (Lc 16.23).
They are complementary and point out three essential aspects: the son who is in his father’s house, does not accept the returning brother, the unfaithful steward cannot be faithful in a short while (this is not perfectionism, but training for honesty) and finally this parable of the rich and Lazarus, who shows that he is in “hell” not the one who has little or nothing, but the rich.
It makes us think, and there should be a connection between the three, for contextualization and a non-fundamentalist reading of the bible, to love the “imperfect” brother who returns or apologizes, to be faithful in the “little” and to love and respect the poor and humbleness, it seems. simple, for some theologians not.

 
 

The foundations of the idea concept

26 Sep

Following Sloterdijk’s reasoning, in which the fundamentals must be thought and in function of them one can return to the principle and preconception of each thought, one can revise idea with the Greek “eidos”.

For Aristoteles there were universal principles, not as Kant later thought, but from the idea of ​​the one (tó hen), what is (tó on) and the genres (animals, plants, living beings), while essence (eidos) does not. would be a universal, but something common (koinos) to multiple things, there is therefore not in Aristotle the idealistic dualism, but the separation between universals and essence.

In Plato this dualism is accentuated, the sensible world and the world of ideas (still in the sense of eidos, essence), this separation will be troublesome to the modern idealists, who will unite it, but without a necessary philosophical reflection. the dichotomy subject and object never reunited as a being.

Ontology, and the method of philosophical hermeneutics, is an attempt to bring these fields together, although they remain distinct and under tension, but with possibilities of clarification beyond the classical separation.

Gadamer in his work matter “Truth and Method” vol. II, picks it up like this: “Hermeneutics is the art of understanding. It seems especially difficult to understand the problems of hermeneutics, at least as unclear concepts of science, criticism, and reflection dominate the discussion.

And this is because we live in an age where science is increasingly dominating nature and governing the management of human coexistence, and this pride of our civilization, which relentlessly corrects the lack of success and constantly produces new tasks of scientific inquiry, where once again progress, planning, and damage removal are grounded, develops the power of true blindness. ”(Gadamer, 1996: 292).

Gadamer after explaining that the return to Being proposed by Heidegger is a return to the hermeneutic method, which was neither to develop a theory of the sciences of the spirit (as idealism did, and the German in particular) nor to propose a critique of historical reason, as Dilthey did, and which Gadamer will clarify in his book “The Question of Historical Consciousness” to say that it is not even historical romanticism.

Its ultimate goal is expressed by stating: “what I did was put dialogue at the center of hermeneutics” (Gadamer, 1996, p. 27), but its dialogue is neither idealism (would be absurd) nor any form of philosophical blindness, it is precisely the rescue of philosophical hermeneutics.

Therefore, their dialogue is neither idealistic dogmatism, but nowadays theory has become ahistorical dogmatism, but rather the identification of preconceptions, from which it is possible to merge horizons as well as to accept worldview distinctions.

Gadamer, Hans Georg. Verdad y Metodo (Truth and method) v. II. Salamanca: Sigueme, 1996.2v.

 

Because idealism is bad

25 Sep

Like many criticisms that use idealism, they may seem exaggerated, or those that fall into the purely “theoretical” field, such as those that practice without foundation, or often empirical, but not quite, there are serious human diseases.

One of them is individual (in the plural, there is more than one type, eg, or group), criticized by the idealists, as it is not caught in the bud, not reprehensible, as in Popper and already commented on posts from previous weeks, but Sloterdijk is clearer: “Enlightenment, which strives to replace and objectify the saber, the silence, or the physiognomic world.

The price of objectivity is the loss of proximity” (Sloterijk, 2012, p. 200), despite a discourse on individualism, the idealist does not deviate from it, there is no proximity.

Distance exists because we are separate from objects, it is easy to argue the object “to itself”, it seems neutral or little “human”, but the damage or harm is caused by any object that is inherent to the subject that invokes or uses, or that it is inseparable from “physiognomic” objectivity.

The author says what kind of wisdom it produces, that which is linked to empiricism as it has historically happened, says Sloterdijk: “or love of wisdom inevitably to its objects and attenuates a coldness of purely objective saber.

A science that annihilates [or tries] in the last vestiges of philosophy under the guise of a lens also breaks the last strands of the sense of closeness and intimacy that bind things (idem), is easier to understand by insistent discourse against “objects”, and not a form of production, use and consumption.

But there are also opposing discourses, intimacy or intimidation, which manifest themselves here: “as an atmosphere, a moral-psychological vibration that does not find our civilization” (ibid.), Says the simple pronunciation of this word leads people to think of records, moods, and experiences, and is said to “aim in a mirror.”

There is a point not addressed by Sloterdijk that I also identify with idealism, comes from Parmenides and Plato’s World of Ideas, is the beyond the mirror, the perfectionism that is taken to extremes in our time, beyond the inherent narcissism, perfectionism leads the hype in the treatment of objects, food and consumer goods, and worst of all, there is no shortage of “reality shows” to propel these psychopathies.

On the other hand, Sloterdijk will say that the cynicism arising from this current thinking is also the one that leads us to see how ‘unhappy modern consciousness faces itself,’ I say, collapsing ever near nihilism.

While speaking of difference (we have already stated the preference for distinction), “the knowledge of the cynics belonging to the lords class (Herrenzynikers) rests on a false superiority” (Sloterdijk, 2012, p. 203), springs from a “false smile, ”suggest“ empathy, ”and other ways of concealing the appeal to ignorance, hypocrisy, and the reversal of real feeling.

This is beyond the malaise of civilization, says Sloterdijk, and invokes the offensive of Diogenes’ kynikê (cynical in archaic Greek) who, by proposing to “merge the coin again”, made the proposal to change sides definitively and provide to the powerful a philosophy of resourcefulness (see the picture of Goya “you will not find it” quoted by the author), of accepting dishonesty.

Nothing more contemporary than Diogenes, the Cynic, and the search “during the day” with a flashlight to find the honest man, cynicism reigns, there is little honesty in various environments, looking for it would be crazy, says the cynic.

Sloterdijk, P. (2012) Crítica da Razão Cínica * Critique of Cynical Reason). Brazil, São Paulo: Estação Liberdade.

 

(Português) Percepção, imagens e psicopoder

24 Sep

Sorry, this entry is only available in Brazilian Portuguese.

 

The unspiritualized asceticism

23 Sep

Not a phrase of any theologian, not even of a religious person, is the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, who besides being one of the most read and controversial of our time, had and has had enormous influence on Byung Chull Han, author well known for many works, but perhaps his main work is “The Society of Tiredness,” Sloterdijk coined “despiritualized asceticism.
It is in his book “You can change your life” not yet published in Portuguese, besides a well done sentence, after all he also works immunology, a life of exercises, which is one of the characteristics of modern man, I do not have a spiritual exercise If you do it systematically and consciously, you indulge in “exercises” to find immunology.
I also found, I was actually expecting this because it is a consequence of his thinking, a worldview, in an interview and not in books, I read his sentence: “Ancient philosophy did not place the accent on the rationality of the world, but on the need to conduct a life regulated according to cosmic prescriptions of being: his concern was above all ethical “.
He hoped because his book “Critic of Cynic Reason” is blunt and even difficult.
He explains in this interview his main concept which is the anthropotechnique: “the beginning of my book, I spoke mainly of repetitions”.
The critical point in the history of civilization is, in my view, represented by the emergence of explicit exercises: the human being, as such, lives in repetition and gives form and content to his life through a more or less conscious ritualism, made up of exercises. repetitive”, so ritualism is part of human life, but spirituality is not.
Sloterdijk’s “spirituality” is not imbued with religiosity, since it is increasingly linked to financial, political and even ideological appeals, the true form of change that the world, and man himself needs, is one capable of revalue life, the Being itself and depends on an inner action.
Says Sloterdijk in the interview, contrary to the categorical imperative upon which the current idealistic asceses move: “The imperative that I propose is, on the contrary, a transforming imperative: human beings sensitive to their appeal should start working on themselves”.
To live is to prepare oneself, to transform oneself, to access the status of the wise, to respond to the vertical tension that requires modifying one’s existence”.
The emptying of Being, a project of contemporary idealism is empty of spirituality, its appeals to ethics, go through the construction of power, what Foucault called biopower, and what Chull Han, Sloterdijk’s disciple says, has now moved to psycho-power, a form of “control” by an excess of bad information in the idealistic sense.

 

Worldview and paradigm shift

21 Sep

Dualism leads to an incorrect view of the separation of body and mind, theory and practice, and consequently matter and soul, although this remains for many in the “department” of religion, it happens to correspond exactly to a worldview, which separated subject from object.

This was the discourse of modernity, that of Heraclitus in pre-Socratic times, in the idea of ​​the fogist (fire substance) and that everything changes, but Aristotle’s “De anima” is the culmination of his natural theory, but a first study of the psyche, and this duality is not justifiable.

Popper was right to return to Parmenides’ primary idealism and say that this view of cosmology, not ontology, would last until 1900, but from Democritus’s atomism and that only with Maxwell’s entropy and now the new view of the quantum universe From the dark energies and masses another vision begins to spring, but the worldview is present and already behind.

Even the double track that plagued Popper, which in our view was only surpassed by the analysis of Thomas Kuhn’s “scientific revolutions,” but Popper’s point is beyond conceptualizing normal science, one that goes “by additions” and conjectures a In the form of change he will defend the idea that Parmenides was not an ontological, but a cosmologist.

And so, the limits of modern idealism are a misinterpretation of the Greek eidos, where thoughts give voice to the soul, or the mind, to those who deny this very metaphysical human essence.

The reason for the opposition to materialism of modernity is not due to idealistic separation, but to the false interpretation of eidos that would not give rise to the soul, but only to knowledge as experience and observation of the world, which from the pre-Socrates is already opposed to This view, which is naive, has neither an ontology nor a cosmology, Popper calls it the “Baconian myth.”

Thus modern materialism does not emerge as a current that merely gives dualism a dichotomy, a tension between subject and object, mind and body, nature and culture, as Bruno Latour proposed in “We were never modern,” the essence of materialist discourse is not. medieval realism, the ‘thing in itself’ of phenomenology, but the ‘unreachable goal’, empiricism as a support, and the scientific and cultural crisis of our time.

One of the most complicated texts for exegesis and biblical fundamentalism is the passage from the administrator who will be dismissed in the parable in Luke 16: 1-13, (moralists will call it dishonest only and fundamentalists smart problem), when in fact the problem is dualism. Knowing that he was about to be fired for squandering his boss’s money, the administrator begins to reflect Luke 16: 3-4: “You will take my administration away.

What am I going to do? To dig, I have no strength; to beg, I’m ashamed. Ah! I already know what to do so that someone will welcome me to your house when I get removed from the administration” and decides to give the boss’s debtors a discount. The boss praises him saying he was clever, and this confuses the biblists, but there is no confusion because this was the way the administrator was always clever, even at the time of resignation, he is consistent retains his posture, and although dismissed the boss praised the “dishonest administrator,” says the biblical text.

He was consistent, but right after it says: “You cannot serve two masters, you will love one and hate the other”, we must follow principles ALWAYS, be faithful in little to be faithful in enough, is the training that we make us who we are.

 

 

Worldview and dualism

19 Sep

What is commendable in Popper’s argument about Parmenides is problematic in Heraclitus’s reading, although it highlights points of this thought that are not in the conventional reading of Heraclitus: “I understand the traditional interpretation of Heraclitus philosophy reexposed here is no longer accepted. for all…. ”(Popper, 2014, p. 12), but raises important points.

One is the vision of change, which will make Popper build his own theory, knows that in the view of modern science Thomas Kuhn that points to the moments of paradigmatic change in scientific theories, and this has cosmological influence that Popper does not see.

Popper states: “The problem of change… has led Heraclitus to a theory that (partly anticipating Parmenides) distinguishes between reality and appearance” (page 13) and quotes it verbatim: “The real nature of things loves to hide itself.

An unseen harmony is stronger than the apparent… but in fact (and to God) they are the same” (POPPER, 2014, p. 13). The positive point of his view is that he realizes that it was to see as we have already pointed out in the previous post, that in refuting nascent empiricism, we saw in the theory of the earth as a drum, this gave rise to a view of the atomists, and Democritus in particular who “interpreted they said that it was refuted by experience, since motion exists ”(pages 14 and 15), and they concluded that atoms and vacuum existed.

Thus, “atomists came to a theory of change – a theory that dominated scientific thought until 1900.

It is the theory that all change, and especially qualitative change, must be explained by the special movement of immutable bits of matter – by atoms that move in a vacuum ”(Popper, 2014, p. 15), and will correctly say this changed because of Maxwell under Faraday’s influence, and this was important for neologicism.

This is where Popper starts from, so much so that he refutes the theory that only Kuhn thought of when the theory of science changed, and also proves the influence of the Vienna circle on Popper’s thought, even if it was only an influence and not a pertinence. He will say that his point of view “clashes with the ideas of some English and German experts alike, with the ideas expressed by Kirk and Raven in their book The Pre-Socratic Philosophers” (Popper, 2014, p. 15) and this will be his contribution a rereading of the pre-Socrates in the light of cosmology, yet his conclusions to science less so.

One of his conclusions is that “there is no cosmogony [..] in Heraclitus” (p. 16) and is based on vision (even though imaginary, hence cosmogony and not cosmology), “Fire is a form archetypal matter, ”is reading Kirk and Raven, and says that all matter“ is a process, ”which is precisely what Kirk and Raven deny in Heraclitus.

By the end of the Middle Ages it is known that fire was composed of an essential matter that would be the “fogisto” and it is known to be combustion matter, so not only Kirk and Raven are wrong, but also Popper, because a A-story reading of Heraclitus leads to misconception. Just as saying that there is no cosmogony in Heraclitus is too heavy, but Popper’s rereading helps to see the dualism present in pre-Socratic in general, and in Parmenides in particular, and his rereading that there is no ontology in it will do, also a rereading of Xenophanes, with a “stranger” who is also right.

 

 

Idealism: back to the pre-Socratic

18 Sep

Karl Popper knew, the Vienna circle knew, and Husserl knew that to discuss the contemporary crisis it was necessary to return to idealism, the great foundation of contemporary Enlightenment, but Popper’s thesis goes deeper than we should return to the pre-Socrates.

Both Wittgenstein and Popper are known to have their connections with the Vienna Circle questioned, as a thought, but as an influence they certainly brought the questioning root of logical positivism in general, and of conventional Kantism in particular, a critique of idealism and enlightenment. resulting from it due to the detected crisis of science.

Both speak of a return to cosmology, although Popper claims “the Tractatus was a cosmological (albeit crude) treatise and because his theory of knowledge was closely linked to cosmology” (Popper, 2014, p. 2), rather than linguistic philosophy, as many of Wittgenstein’s readers suppose, clippings are always complicated.

He will explain that “specialization may be a temptation for the scientist… for the philosopher, it is a sin” (idem), but unfortunately it has happened, philosophy is now a “department” as if the other sciences did not do it implicitly (or explicitly by bad practices) his theories.

Ironic with the Baconian spirit, he was the first in modern science to appeal to empiricist “practice,” and Popper claims all science (I would say almost every thought except the refusal to think that it is more serious): “every science starts from the observation and then, slowly and cautiously, moves towards the theory ”(Popper, 2014, p. 3), the curious thing is that they use Popper himself to affirm this, poor reading, the mediocracy of“ illiteracy ”. secondary”.

His thesis is that rationality departed from Tales of Mileno and the Ionian school, and quotes it verbatim from the fragment [15]: “that the earth is sustained by water upon which it moves like a boat. If we say there is an earthquake, the earth is being shaken by the movement of the water ”(Popper, p. 4), amazed rationalism was born along with earth moving.

Compatible with the Baconian myth, Popper states in the following passage: “The purpose of the Baconian myth is to explain why scientific statements are true, indicating that observation is the“ true origin ”of our scientific knowledge” (idem), of course, he questions. This and its purpose is to unveil the idealistic building from antiquity.

Who is going to question Tales’s idea is Anaximander in suggesting the earth as a drum, but supported by nothing, in Popper’s quote from the fragment [A 11]: “… it is supported by nothing, but remains stationary because it is equally distant of all other things.

Its shape is […] like that of a drum […]. We walk on one of its plant surfaces, while the other is on the opposite side. ”(Cit. POPPER, 2014, p. 4).

It states shortly afterwards “it made possible Aristarchus and Copernicus’ theories.” (Idem), but her idea was bold because it was about seeing the Earth freely suspended in the middle of space, and perhaps by observation, there were oceans of all ages.

On the other hand, Tales’s idea seemed natural. It is from there and from Xenophanes that Popper will build the cosmology of Parmenides, his disciple, where immutable reality, the immobile Earth is presented as a kind of logical proof (Popper, 2014, p. 14), where his idea will come from. from the one, from the undivided from a single premise, “that which is not is not,” where nothing, that which is not, does not exist. In this world full of Parmenides, there is no room for movement, this is its cosmology, which is what we refer to from the preface, when Popper stated that there is no ontology in it.

POPPER, K. O Mundo de Parmênides: ensaios sobre o iluminismo pré-socrático (The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment), trad. Roberto Leal Ferreira, São Paulo UNESP editor, 2014.

 

Idealisms and science

17 Sep

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were marked by scientific, technical achievements due to the Industrial Revolution, with a world-wide expanding and flourishing trade, which gave rise to confidence that humanity seemed to flourish and history ruled by Reason, as the Enlightenment alike triumph.

With few dissonant voices, Kierkegaard first and then Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, the rest seemed to flow in a full and satisfying turn, the colonies were not spoken, and the Arab and Eastern world seemed to submit to the Western order, but there was something to disturb the colonial struggles. and the danger of war, which would see its outbreak in the 19th century. The science that seemed to do so much had an Achilles heel, had not yet solved the problem of social disputes, not only that which subjected workers and colonies, but especially the trade wars and disputes that came to subject the defeated.

It was the exacerbation of nationalism, which now returns, the trade war between nations, now between the US and China, but also between Iran and Saudi Arabia, that made the first to be called war of war, with 10 million dead. Amid the two wars emerged the Vienna Circle, neopositivism and neologicism, among several other names a prominent scientific name was Karl Popper, among others, such as Godel, Carnap, Hans Kelsen and Moritz Schlick.

In the scientific field besides Husserl who criticizes the method, Popper will also propose that the positivist inductive method presented itself to science as a volatile knowledge, which could not guarantee anything about the constancy of observed facts, and it is not possible to affirm that any assumption is the truth. with absolute precision, what Heisenberg physics already said.

But his return to Parmenides is more essential, where idealism began, and there is its ontological root: ‘being is’ and ‘non-being is not’, there is no contradiction or third hypothesis.

By stating in the previous post the return to root, it will not be in its heyday of German idealism, or even Hegel’s sacralization, Marx will say that there are new against old Hegelians, but in the origin we will find something essence to the idealism and enlightenment described by Karl Popper .

In the book “The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment” (Popper, 2014) that we find several pearls of idealistic foundations, the first in the preface by editor Arne Friemuth Petersen, he states that he gave the lecture quoting “To be or not Of Hamlet, to which Popper himself interrupted, stating more or less this:

“You see, Parmenides was neither a language analyst nor an ontologist, but a cosmologist. Your “Being” has nothing to do with ontology. ”(Popper, XIII, 2014).

I was also amazed to read this right from the preface to the book that speaks of the worldview at the origin of idealism and also of the Enlightenment, not only in Parmenides, but according to Popper himself also in Xenophanes cosmology and Parmenides epistemology (page XV). , which comes to clarify a non-rational origin, as one might suppose, he will propose that Heraclitus (everything changes) and Parmenides (nothing changes) “were reconciled and combined in modern science” (p. XX), and thus faces of it. currency.

In the notes of the Brazilian post-impression, fragments found after printing, there are several notes by Popper, the seventh that says: “Historical hypothesis: Tales is the inventor of the rational discussion method”, new surprise, but the Enlightenment was born there. back.

POPPER, K. O Mundo de Parmênides: ensaios sobre o iluminismo pré-socrático (The World of Parmenides: Essays on Pre-Socratic Enlightenment), trad. Roberto Leal Ferreira, São Paulo UNESP editor, 2014.