I've known people on this site who have posted right in the middle of a lecture or at work, but considering your top secret work, it's probably a good idea to not do that, haha. By the way, how's work going so far?
Just wanted to say real quick that I've been wanting to post on your recent posts. (Like, wow, you've been posting a lot for yourself lately! :D) But I don't want to get caught at work.... xDDDD
Well, the thing with Godel's incompleteness thoerems is that some sentences can be shown to be true, but can't be proved. Basically, the rules of logic in certain formal systems aren't complete, thus we can construct some sentence, or formula, that the rules can't explain. They "go beyond our formal thinking", as it were. And here, as I'm sure Godel would agree, we have to think creatively or intuitively to see that something is true, and maybe if we "look" long enough at the things we're studying, we can gradually build up our knowledge. That said, he would say that some things, despite all our formal systems, can't be proved by those systems. We just recognize intuitively that something is true.
So, something is missing from certain of our formal logics; they can't explain certain things. If by "solutions" you mean something like proof systems, then yes, our solutions will be incomplete as well.
Personally, I'm not sure how compatible philosophy and neuroscience are. I don't equate them, but it seems like Kenichiro's work is influenced by the philosophy, while his actual methods and practices belong to neuroscience. I think both can interact with one another, but the findings of either have to be carefully studied before making a decision that one supports the other.
But here too, I think philosophy can be an asset. In philosophy, we often deal with blocked exits, and our task is to see what can we learn from those situations: Can we unblock them, and if so how can we do it? Are we stuck there, and can't go any further? Perhaps, philosophy can take us only so far, then we have to search for other options.
The story was very interesting,the writing was so detailed and liked to give it some thought.About the reserch it remind me of the gedels theroem about "Demonstrating something suficiently complex that can't be proved or refuted".We tend to try and explain everithing and sometimes find a blocked exit in our own logic.To say that the logic behind it may have problems also states the solution may have.And what if it's not that the logic is not wrong but incomplete....well then the solution will be incomplete as well.
So,is the field of filosophy and neuroscience compelte(stating as singular because you integrated both sistems)?
Are they even compatible?
Yes and so ,demosntrating something sometimes will send us into a bloqued exit.
So rushing the result will take us again to the forgotten question.
Angel
Last edited by AngelBest Dream at 11:48:46 PM CDT on August 4, 2011.
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 08/05/11 | Reply
@twilight samurai:
I've known people on this site who have posted right in the middle of a lecture or at work, but considering your top secret work, it's probably a good idea to not do that, haha. By the way, how's work going so far?
twilight samurai
Redeemed (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 08/05/11 | Reply
Just wanted to say real quick that I've been wanting to post on your recent posts. (Like, wow, you've been posting a lot for yourself lately! :D) But I don't want to get caught at work.... xDDDD
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 08/05/11 | Reply
Well, the thing with Godel's incompleteness thoerems is that some sentences can be shown to be true, but can't be proved. Basically, the rules of logic in certain formal systems aren't complete, thus we can construct some sentence, or formula, that the rules can't explain. They "go beyond our formal thinking", as it were. And here, as I'm sure Godel would agree, we have to think creatively or intuitively to see that something is true, and maybe if we "look" long enough at the things we're studying, we can gradually build up our knowledge. That said, he would say that some things, despite all our formal systems, can't be proved by those systems. We just recognize intuitively that something is true.
So, something is missing from certain of our formal logics; they can't explain certain things. If by "solutions" you mean something like proof systems, then yes, our solutions will be incomplete as well.
Personally, I'm not sure how compatible philosophy and neuroscience are. I don't equate them, but it seems like Kenichiro's work is influenced by the philosophy, while his actual methods and practices belong to neuroscience. I think both can interact with one another, but the findings of either have to be carefully studied before making a decision that one supports the other.
But here too, I think philosophy can be an asset. In philosophy, we often deal with blocked exits, and our task is to see what can we learn from those situations: Can we unblock them, and if so how can we do it? Are we stuck there, and can't go any further? Perhaps, philosophy can take us only so far, then we have to search for other options.
AngelBest Dream
Holy Knight (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 08/04/11 | Reply
The story was very interesting,the writing was so detailed and liked to give it some thought.About the reserch it remind me of the gedels theroem about "Demonstrating something suficiently complex that can't be proved or refuted".We tend to try and explain everithing and sometimes find a blocked exit in our own logic.To say that the logic behind it may have problems also states the solution may have.And what if it's not that the logic is not wrong but incomplete....well then the solution will be incomplete as well.
So,is the field of filosophy and neuroscience compelte(stating as singular because you integrated both sistems)?
Are they even compatible?
Yes and so ,demosntrating something sometimes will send us into a bloqued exit.
So rushing the result will take us again to the forgotten question.
Angel
Last edited by AngelBest Dream at 11:48:46 PM CDT on August 4, 2011.