Current Reads: What is Everyone Reading?

[chaz wyman]

The Wheelz on the buz go round and round.

Its brill init.

[philofra]

Having recently gone to St. Petersburg and to a cemetery there were many of Russia's great thinkers reside I began wondering what produced these people. Subsequently I came across Isaiah Berlin's book "Russian Thinkers". It seems that Russian intellectuals were born of German Romanticism. In their youth Russians were encouraged to go to Germany for education rather than France. France was considered too revolutionary in though and a bad influence. But as it turns out Germany was more revolutionary in thought.

[Aetixintro]

Not to forget the PN issue with its Russian thinkers theme...

[sergeev_s]

I like many books from Reslib.com library, especially "A logical journey. From Goedel to philosophy".

[Skinhead]

I've just started Stephen Hawking & Leonard Mlodinow's "The Grand Design". It's fairly easy, bedtime reading, so far appears pitched at a fairly broad audience. The perspective appears to be atheistic, although if that's so, the title is provocative. In fact, the first page is even more provocative:
"How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? .... Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly Physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge."
There's a certain irony that, having killed God, some scientists are now killing Philosophy. I'm a scientist too, and I have a sneaking suspicion that some Physicists could do with more education in philosophy!

[Theleman]

The Zohar Set 23 Volumes from Kabbalah Centre

Volume 1 Prologue

[Dalek Prime]

I'm working my way backwards as a programmer, back up to Principia Mathematica.

[Dalek Prime]

The Zohar Set 23 Volumes from Kabbalah Centre

Volume 1 Prologue

Oh right. The Ben Stiller version is great.... Zohan?... Shit, wrong again. Actually, I couldn't bear watching it. Never mind.

[surreptitious57]

The Big Picture On The Origins Of Life Meaning And The Universe Itself : Sean Carroll

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The Zohar Set 23 Volumes from Kabbalah Centre

Volume 1 Prologue

Oh right. The Ben Stiller version is great.... Zohan?... Shit, wrong again. Actually, I couldn't bear watching it. Never mind.

[anonymous66]

From Bacteria to Bach and Back Again by Daniel Dennett

[FlashDangerpants]

jdfksghfsdjkhgfksh.JPG (31.7 KiB) Viewed 352 times

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529815/ ... 0reference.

Blurb.....
Two prominent thinkers argue for the possibility of a theory of concepts that takes reference to be concepts' sole semantic property.

In cognitive science, conceptual content is frequently understood as the “meaning” of a mental representation. This position raises largely empirical questions about what concepts are, what form they take in mental processes, and how they connect to the world they are about. In Minds without Meaning, Jerry Fodor and Zenon Pylyshyn review some of the proposals put forward to answer these questions and find that none of them is remotely defensible.

Fodor and Pylyshyn determine that all of these proposals share a commitment to a two-factor theory of conceptual content, which holds that the content of a concept consists of its sense together with its reference. Fodor and Pylyshyn argue instead that there is no conclusive case against the possibility of a theory of concepts that takes reference as their sole semantic property. Such a theory, if correct, would provide for the naturalistic account of content that cognitive science lacks—and badly needs. Fodor and Pylyshyn offer a sketch of how this theory might be developed into an account of perceptual reference that is broadly compatible with empirical findings and with the view that the mental processes effecting perceptual reference are largely preconceptual, modular, and encapsulated.

[Skepdick]

jdfksghfsdjkhgfksh.JPG
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529815/ ... 0reference.

Blurb.....
Two prominent thinkers argue for the possibility of a theory of concepts that takes reference to be concepts' sole semantic property.

In cognitive science, conceptual content is frequently understood as the “meaning” of a mental representation. This position raises largely empirical questions about what concepts are, what form they take in mental processes, and how they connect to the world they are about. In Minds without Meaning, Jerry Fodor and Zenon Pylyshyn review some of the proposals put forward to answer these questions and find that none of them is remotely defensible.

Fodor and Pylyshyn determine that all of these proposals share a commitment to a two-factor theory of conceptual content, which holds that the content of a concept consists of its sense together with its reference. Fodor and Pylyshyn argue instead that there is no conclusive case against the possibility of a theory of concepts that takes reference as their sole semantic property. Such a theory, if correct, would provide for the naturalistic account of content that cognitive science lacks—and badly needs. Fodor and Pylyshyn offer a sketch of how this theory might be developed into an account of perceptual reference that is broadly compatible with empirical findings and with the view that the mental processes effecting perceptual reference are largely preconceptual, modular, and encapsulated.

Aaaaaaand we are back to mirror-theory of knowledge.

Do you need one concept per unique referent; or can you group referents together?

[alexpipushev]

reading Ray Dalio's "Principles," which, in my humble opinion, ranks among the top three most tedious books I've encountered

this was a part of my commitment for Dubai’s Entrepreneurial Business Books Club next session

the book is boring, have a lack of real examples and life stories, a lot hype around his private hedge fund

basically, I’m surprised about hype around this book in certain circles

[zoey]

I'm a few pages through Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish. I was captivated towards his works after reading the power-knowledge relation theory. Foucault has been one of those writers who changed the way I think and question. He has an inverted alternate angle to the daily events that happen around us which we consider normal and abnormal. Discipline and Punish is a work that throws light into why societies slowly shifted from public and exhibitionary punishment to behind the doors style of a treatment. As with most of his works, it questions the state and societal psyche.
Also, I'm reading Isabel Wilkerson's Caste. Wilkerson does a wonderful job of comparing societies and opressive structures across the world and maps a similar pattern in these societies be it the racial inequality in the United States or the race-based caste system in India or the rapid formation of ethno-religious castes in Nazi Germany. It's an excellent work - must read.