This monotonicity stuff "saved" me during undergrad. In circuit theory, we do quick checks if our calculations are right by checking the effects of current, voltage, etc., of component being asked if one *increases or decreases* the voltage, resistance, etc. of a component.
Probably. I'm just starting the video right now, but I know that consistency is hard. It does not come free. I would not be surprised of functionalism is inconsistent.
Charles Sanders Peirce & Richard Rorty made a good case that we do not need positions about consciousness. To center philosophy on consciousness is a choice. It is a choice you've made, but I have not. I have no position on consciousness. Positions on consciousness all seem interminably complex.@@GrothenDitQue
Isn’t this basically something that’s covered in Linear Logic? For example, if the soup of the day is tomato soup or minestrone, then both of them are potential soups of the day. Similarly, if you have the option to choose avocado for an extra dollar, and you have the option to choose fries for an extra dollar, then you can choose fries or avocado for an extra dollar.
This is a very interesting talk. I would be interested how such a logic could line up with other current developments (e.g. hyper dimensional computing [Kanerva, Plate]). On slide 72 it should be logistic regression, not logarithmic regression I guess?
