Johnny Logic

Arthur and Me

The following is an excerpt from an exchange between Arthur (Russian PhD student in Computer Science and Control Systems at BMSTU) and me.

Hello, John!
First, I would like to discuss the following. One can easily notice that one's consciousness is usually attracted by information sources. How can that be explained (in philosophical terms)?

Regards,
Arthur.
-----------------------------------
Hello Arthur,

You ask:
> one's consciousness is usually attracted by
> information sources. How can
> that be explained (in philosophical terms)?

Good question, though I am not sure if my answer will be philosophical or scientific. There are many (not necessarily mutually exclusive) ways that this question can be addressed: evolutionarily and psychologically, for instance.

Evolutionarily, attention to information sources is quite adaptive, particularly in creatures that have complex social environments. For example, faces are rich sources of information (for humans). Being able to pay attention to this information is essential for survival in (tracking threats, detecting potential mates). People who cannot do this well (autistics) are profoundly handicapped and are at a disadvantage, evolutionarily speaking.

Psychologically, information sources are [Sic: may be] characterized by surprisal (this is a Bayesian term)-- that is novelty, newness, being contrary to expectation. The more surprising (less likely), the more information is involved. There are some pretty well documented mechanisms for attention in the brain, both at the neural (e.g. pattern selection in the auditory cortex) and motor-neural levels (e.g. tracking loud sounds). There is also evidence that this capability is hard-wired in humans from birth. For instance, we track moving, changing objects and faces from birth.

You can probably see connections between these levels of explanation. I hope I am answering the question you asked!

Cheers,
John

Linkage

While scuffling with some fundies I came across these:

Skeptic's Annotated Bible

The Jury Is In: The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"

Here are some of my favorite grim short stories online:

‘A Rose for Emily’, William Faulkner

‘A Good Man Is Hard To Find’, Flannery O’Connor

Computational Semiotics?

From Semiotica on tribes.net:

Computation as a way to understand semiotics

Not many people really get semiotics, and that is unfortunate. It's a beautifully simple and elegant philosophy. But I think one of the big problems holding back comprehension is all the bickering about terminology. Charles Peirce was notoriously bad about this, inventing cumbersome new words constantly and using them inconsistently. The problem continues to persist to this day. People get lost in all the "rheme" and "dicent" gibberish, and miss out on the fundamental strength and beauty of semiotics.

Computational semiotics lets us put all this aside, in the same way that building a machine ends all argument about what the machine is and what it's good for. A piece of software is always a formal logical construct of some kind, and the source code describes it precisely. So a big interest of mine is to apply semiotics to software engineering.

In this light, the problem becomes: What do you need to know in order to build a software implementation of semiotic knowledge representation? This is something that some very bright bulbs are working on, and I have my own ideas that I'd like to get into later.

But for now, if you are interested and want to get introduced to this world, I have to recommend a fantastic book by John Sowa called "Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations." Sowa is an excellent encyclopedist of the development of formal logic and semiotics, and his book presents it all in a very non-scary, approachable way. It's intellectually stimulating without being tedious or jargon-laden. Very cool book.

Details here:

www.jfsowa.com/krbook/

....

Just to get the ball rolling, here's a starter kit of assertions:

- a sign is any thought, concept, idea or sensed experience
- signs are monads (embody no internal relational function), dyads (embody a relation of two other signs), or triads (embody a sign related to another sign via a third sign)
- relations more complex than triadic can be reduced to networks of triads, dyads or monads without destroying meaning
- Sign production occurs when any signs are related or when any monads are sensed
- When two or three signs can be related to produce meaning, a new sign embodying that relation is made. This is sign emergence
- Sign emergence is fractal: self-similar at any scale

Gecko

Re: Computation as a way to understand semiotics

I agree that a computational approach to semiotics may divest semiotics of its jargon-laden, speculative philosophy. Also, I agree that "Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations" is a hell of a good book.

A few quibbles:

Why refer to semiotic systems as being “fractal ”, when “compositional ”is probably more accurate descriptor. Fractal objects are recursively constructed and they exhibit levels of self-similarity. I can see the recursive construction, but what similarity is there between atomic signs and molecular signs, other than their being signs? A mathematically proscribed sameness would be helpful.

What exactly is a sign? Is it relationally established, or is it a metaphysical, determinant object? The use of ‘sign ’seems so general at times that vacuity threatens.

A great deal of work on reference, meaning, interpretation and translation has taken place in the analytic tradition apart from the semiotics of Saussure, Eco, Barthes, etc. Frege, Russell, Tarski, Carnap, Quine, Davidson, and others have all made interesting contributions that remain (largely) unsynthesized with semiotics. Additionally, the works of Chomsky, Shannon, Turing, Davis and other information theorists and theory of computation luminaries, have not been (to my admittedly limited knowledge) effectively incorporated into semiotics. To sum it up, what does semiotics have to offer these other intellectual traditions that work on the same issues?

These questions may sound unsympathetic, but they are not meant to be. I have a genuine interest in semiotics, but cannot yet see its contributions.

I posted on the 22nd-- no response yet.

Why Biologists Tend Not to Vote Republican

Over at Pharyngula P.Z. Myers has written a provocative post on why biology departments are decidedly left-leaning. He has already attracted the Obligatory Right-wing Nut.

Looming Geekhood

My Geek cred just took a leap today. I have joined tribes.net and have been messing around on my computer all day. Also, I installed Firefox (a fine web browser) and configured extensions that, effectively, make Firefox my News Aggregator, notebook, and mail app. Even without the extensions, Firefox is worth using-- it is flexible, stable, and intuitive. Highly recommended.

Self-Centered

Look at these fine testimonials written for me on Friendster:

From Otis:
Okay here's the deal with John. He is simply the most curious person you will ever meet. And I mean that in at least two accepted meanings of that word. He is curious about the theories and facts that wander around making the universe and he's a tad eccentric. He is a tough minded rationalist and that can lead people to think of him as being a robot. And they are right, but not in the way they think.

From Josh Grahek:
My archnemesis. But a great friend nonetheless. I bow to his mastery of the realms of abstract philosophizin' and logic. Good taste in women, but must be brought around on the value of scotch. Has another good library (the ones that I can read at least...)

From Otis:
John is hopelessly uncool. He did, however, marry well. He has a terrifying intelligence, but he is a man to be trusted.

From Josh Fitzwater:
Once upon a time, I met a guy creating his own D and D world. Then he went college and learned more about math than me. Now I'm scared, and jealous

From Joseph:
when the revolution comes, he will be charged to lead the voltaire league.

And you thought Friendster was only for finding dates.

Philosophical Illness

Symptoms
No end to inquiry
No consensus
Uselessness
Feelings of Profundity Without Accompanying Applicability
Gulfs of Mutual Incomprehension
Confusion
Disorientation

Diseases (Causes)
Reification/Essentialism: Taking every substantive to have an accompanying substance.
Hidden Guiding Pictures/Assumptions: A picture of the subject, often left unarticulated, that guides thinking.
Transcendental Urges: “things must be this way, because I cannot possibly imagine them otherwise” (a.k.a. argument from poverty of imagination)
Ill posed problems:
a) Contradictory from the start, thus nothing will satisfy the question.
b) infinite number of incompatible answers possible
Non-sequiter answers: answers that don’t quite address the problem posed.
Psuedo-problems: Problems generated by questionable assumptions

Treatments
What would count as an adequate answer to this question?
What does this question presume about the subject matter?
What motivates the question? How does it come up?
Have you generated the problem by making questionable assumptions?
What, if any, consequences outside of philosophy follow from your answers?
Is your conclusion in your assumptions?
Might there be other ways of thinking about x?

Place Holder

In lieu of new content here are some amusing news items:
Amazonian Politics
I suspected this
West Virginia has nothing more important to legislate?

And here is a philosophical in-joke I received from William Rapaport a while back:

I have a drawing of the word "cat" metamorphosing into a picture of a cat, which I drew on a doctoral student's dissertation as a(humorous) "counterexample" to the claim that a word like "cat" doesn't look like a cat.

Congratulations Newlyweds!

As several friends and accountancies have noted, San Francisco is holding same-sex marriages by the hundreds. Now to overturn the 2000 initiative that established that California only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman. There is certainly more work to do.

Congratulations newlyweds!

By the way, has anyone heard anything remotely like a good argument against same-sex marriage?

Josh's 15 Minutes

That's right folks, Josh 'Slack Bastard' Grahek has made it into the paper:

Josh Grahek of Sonora stood upwind at a distance, close enough that the smoke from his cigar still wafted over the anti-tobacco activists. He carried a cardboard sign reading, "You have too much free time."

Happy Valentine's Day Josh.

UPDATE: Bastard made the New York Times

A Short Critique of Conceptual Analysis

I must admit some disingenuousness about my post on Blockheads and Other Brutes. The method employed there, namely, conceptual analysis, is, in my opinion, highly problematic. Conceptual analysis is the philosophical process of refining our notions about things to clarify relationships, possibilities, necessities and impossibilities. Philosophy is littered with thought experiments meant to provide grist for conceptual analysis: Twin Earth, The Veil of Ignorance, Plato’s Cave, Descartes’ Demon, Swampman, Blockhead…

Those with knowledge of formal systems will recognize the formal terms being bandied about without grounding in any explicit formal system. If we take seriously claims about modal properties (necessity, possibility and impossibility), formally, they are proven by showing, relative to a set of axioms (and rules of inference), a statement produces a contradiction if denied, may be constructed, and simply implies a contradiction, respectively. “Relative to a set of axioms (and rules of inference)” is an important part of that formulation and is, often to all appearances, forgotten by philosophers. For example, some philosophers claim that zombies are possible. Possible under the scope of which assumptions? Many things may seem possible without the relevant constraints. How would one demonstrate possibility, rather than asserting it? Surely the argument must be better than:

1. In our world, there are conscious experiences.
2. There is a logically possible world physically identical to ours, in which the positive facts about consciousness in our world do not hold.
3. Therefore, facts about consciousness are further facts about our world, over and above the physical facts.
4. So, materialism is false. (from Chalmers, The Conscious Mind 1996)

The metaphysical certainty of the conclusion is, I think, radically out of proportion with the strength of the argument. Premise 1 is taken to be simple, whereas it is not (i.e. there are lots of hidden premises). There is an implicit adoption of realism regarding intentional properties. Premise 2 is intractably confirmed; we do not have access to a complete characterization of the physical world, nor could we (in the lifetime of our universe) explore the theorems of such a characterization to prove that facts about consciousness are not implied. Of course, Chalmers goes on to try and back his claims, but there is a deeper problem with his methodology that goes beyond this particular issue.

It is presumed that we should evaluate this argument by parsing ‘consciousness’, ‘physical’, ‘logical possibility’, etc. thus establishing necessary and sufficient conditions for their employ by appeal to our intuitions. Where we differ in intuition, further parsing takes place and so on. Rarely do we back away and ask does the initial question make sense? Does it contain a mistake? Why are we asking the question? Even more rare is the questioning of philosophical methods. What do we gain by finding the necessary and sufficient conditions for x? Do we really think we are capturing the essence of the thing? Why should we suppose that any particular definition is essential? How would we know if we had the right one?

The certainty with which many philosophers speak is stunning considering the unreliability of philosophical methods. This is not to say that philosophy aught to be abandoned, or that philosophers should simply shut-up. Rather, a bit of concern over the kinds of questions they ask and methods they employ would be helpful.

Wanted List

Substantive content (Musings on Physical Church-Turing Thesis, A Critique of Conceptual Analysis, The Culture of Fear and more) will come later. For now, books I desperately want:

An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms, Melanie Mitchell
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Rudolf Carnap
Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, Wojciech H. Zurek (editor)
Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge, Deborah G. Mayo
Reality Rules 2, the Frontier, John Casti
The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudo Problems of Philosophy, Rudolf Carnap
The Logical Syntax of Language, Rudolf Carnap
The Mathematical Theory of Information, Jan Kahre
Representations, Targets, and Attitudes, Robert Cummins

StudentX Update

Update on This is Not What I Signed Up For: Studentx has, according to the News of Record, been placed in jail last Tuesday:

7:25 p.m., Sonora — Joel William Matkin, 52, 19000 block of Middle Camp Road, Twain Harte, booked on a felony parole hold after arrest on the 400 block of Greenley Road. No details were available. He remained held without bail this morning.

Whew.

Movies To Add Luster To Lack

Some great movies (with rough, largely meaningless, grades) to help my friends through this lackluster movie season:

Spellbound (A): The most tense you will ever be over the spelling of ‘darjeeling’.
Stevie (A-): A difficult to watch, but startlingly sincere documentary about the director’s ex-little brother (from the Big Brother program).
American Splendor (A): This has a sweet jazz soundtrack, a comic motif and the misanthropic, glum gus Harvey Pekar. What’s not to love?
The Office: First Season (A): Funny as hell and, as anyone who deals with management knows, painfully true.
Ridicule (B+): Re-released on DVD, this French film has fine wit, as well as a humane heart.
Lost in Translation (A): Murray's best performance, funny and melancholy.
Startup.com (B): A compelling portrait of the hype and subsequent disillusionment experienced by the .com generation of entrepreneurs.

Culture Jamming

A while ago I made reference to culture jamming without much explanation. Culture Jamming is the practice of challenging, countering, or critiquing popular culture by co-opting its images, language, and methods. Appropriately, the term ‘jamming’ is borrowed from radio culture, meaning to borrow or block signals. There is no universal philosophical doctrine culture jammers abide by, but there are a handful of interesting ideas floating around.

First, the failure of rational argumentation to win the minds of the public:

Once upon a time, the "Evils of the Establishment" were subject to rational critique by academics and revolutionaries. Most people still function under this rationalist model: "Change will come if enough people understand the problem rationally and intellectually." Without at all dismissing the importance of rationality and intellect, I would argue that these tools are no longer themselves adequate. Specifically, in the struggle to debrief people on the poisonous symbolic system called "The Media", the rules have been changed…"Culture Jamming" sticks where rational discourse slides off.

Second, the need to liberate and humanize media:

WE HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE in what we are seeing, hearing and reading: too much infotainment and not enough news; too many outlets telling the same stories; too much commercialism and too much hype. Every day, this commercial information system distorts our view of the world.

Third, the practice of meme-hacking to inspire social change:

It is, simply, the viral introduction of radical ideas. It is viral in that it uses the enemy's own resources to replicate iteself -- corporate logos, marketing psychology, clean typography, "adspeak". It is radical because--ideally--the message, once deciphered, causes damage to blind belief. Fake ads, fake newspaper articles, parodies, pastiche. The best CJ [culture jamming] is totally unexpected, surprising, shocking in its implications.

Fourth, the need to cultivate skepticism in the populace:

“I think there's a brand of immunizing deception that helps us to expose and correct the lies we tell ourselves and the webs of falsehood that make up our societies. Harmless fibs can remind us that we've dropped our guard and let the Big Lies in.”

Interview

1 - Leave a comment, saying you want to be interviewed.
2 - I will respond; I'll ask you five questions.
3 - You'll update your journal with my five questions, and your five answers.
4 - You'll include this explanation.
5 - You'll ask other people five questions when they want to be interviewed.

My interviewer was the indomitable Otis Anderson.

1. Philosophy? Why?

Because, I lack marketable skills, but can bullshit with the best of them. Joking aside, I cannot not (lovely double negation action) think about philosophy, even when I am doing science. Perhaps it is a congenital defect. Philosophy is my excuse to talk about and question anything. Also, the prospect of being paid for kicking around ideas and sharing my enthusiasm for understanding with students (or at least trying to) is charming.

2. What would you change about your life if you could?

I am a pretty content fellow. I wouldn’t change anything major, but I could do without a few things—financial desperation, my nephew waking me every night at 3:00 AM and bellicose, son-thrashing students.

3. What fills you with passionate hatred?

Nazis. Nazi’s and Republicans. No. I have, dare I say, an even temperament. I am simply not given to strong hatred. However, a few things would push me to it e.g. someone threatening loved ones.

4. What do you covet?

My preciousss! Well, really, advanced mathematical skills, more talent for humorous writing, tenure and book deals.

5. What is the first thing to your mind in the morning[?]

My wife (she has a nasty cold right now, poor dear)…and then my much obsessed-over blog.

More Updates and Papers

I have updated my personal pages (links above) and added more papers:

* The Calculus of Logic, George Boole
* Notes on Sketch of the Analytical Engine, by Ada Lovelace

Intelligent [sic] Design

I posted the following on ephilosopher.com:

All,

So, once again intelligent design (ID) rears its ugly head. OK, one last time...

There are many misconceptions bandied about in these sorts of debates. First, to abolish them:

1) What Evolution is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

2) Evolution is a fact:
That organisms have changed over time is incontrovertible to all but the most entrenched dogmatists. Even ID theorists concede that there is microevolution. The real debate occurs with macroevolution. Evidence of macroevolution is plentiful too. (See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)

3) Natural Selection:
The most agreed upon mechanism for evolution. This occurs wherever there are replicators with variation and differential survival. The theory of natural selection has flourished in the past fifty years due to its synthesis with game theory (that’s cutting an interesting story too short, but in the interest of time...). Sexual selection, kin selection, and inclusive fitness have all made natural selection more robust. (See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)

Intelligent Design theory is both bad science and bad philosophy, for several reasons. But before the debate continues, let’s consider how not to argue:

Unqualified probability arguments: “Based on my many assumptions (usu. ignoring constraints set by physics, chemistry, the presence of prior structures) the probability of that happening is astronomical” Probability assignments are only as good as our understanding of the constraints involved.

Raise the bar until it cannot be cleared: “Well, you may have shown x, but what about y. Well, you may have shown y, but what about z. Well,…” This is quite common. If you are at the outset against a theory you can just engage in an endless series of skeptical questions.

Change the subject: “OK, so there are chemicals that replicate, so what. What about the universes laws that allow them to replicate, where did they come from…” If one front is not working your way, you can always open-up another one.

Shift the burden of proof: “Never mind the plausibility or evidence of my theory, what about yours?” Always keep the other guy on the defensive.

Appeal to pity: “I am oppressed by the scientific community because I have different ideas. I am fighting the orthodoxy, man.” “Why can’t you let people believe what they want to, you bully.” Appeal to a conspiracy against your ideas. Accuse the other guy of being mean for wanting to settle the issue one way or another.

Appeal to relativity/harmlessness: “Well, you can’t really prove any one of these theories, so lets be friends” Accepting a draw—particularly, if the other team is scoring points.

If we can agree on the points about argumentation above, then perhaps we can debate this on an even field.

And, for the record, I have read the following relevant books and papers:

Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden
Stephen J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb
Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box
William Dembski, The Design Inference
Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science
And many technical papers, reviews and articles on evolution, the origin of life, intelligent design theory, etc.

Next, I'll address the arguments aired here.

Apologies for the untidiness of the post and namedropping. The former is due to lack of proper editing, while the latter was preemptive.

I have argued about ID so many times on different forums to little effect, yet I cannot resist destroying the same old sloppy non-arguments when I see them. Perhaps when I am older/more tired/wiser, I will stop. For now, once more into the breach!

Spamming, Scamming

Earlier, I made comments about (notorious) Nigerian scam-mail. Not to be outdone by Nigeria, here is some (allegedly) South African scammail:

Attn:

I am Dr. Collins Mbeki, Director of Project, South Africa Ministry of Mining & Natural Resources. I am making this contact with you based on the committee's need for an individual/company who is willing to assist us with a solution to a money transfer. First and foremost apologized using this medium to reach you for a transaction/business of this magnitude, but this is due to Confidentiality and prompt access reposed on this medium.

In unfolding this proposal, I want to count on you, as a respected and honest person to handle this transaction with sincerity, trust and confidentiality. I have decided to seek a confidential co-operation with you in the execution of the deal described Here under for the benefit of all parties and hope you will keep it as a top secret because of the nature of this transaction. Within the Ministry of Mining and Natural resources where I work as Director of Project Implementation and with the co-operation of four other top officials, we have in our possession as overdue payment bills totaling Fourteen Million, Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US$14,500,000.) which we want to transfer abroad with the assistance and cooperation of a foreign company/individual to receive the said fund on our behalf or a reliable foreign non-company account to receive such funds.

More so, we are handicapped in the circumstances, as the South Africa Civil Service Code of Conduct does not allow us to operate offshore account hence your importance in the whole transaction. This amount $14.5m represents the balance of the total contract value executed on behalf of my Department by a foreign contracting firm, which we the officials over-invoiced deliberately. Though the actual contract cost have been paid to the original contractor, leaving the balance in the tune of the said amount which we have in principles gotten approval to remit by Key tested Telegraphic Transfer (K.T.T) to any foreign bank account you will provide by filing in an application through the Ministry of Justice here in South Africa for the transfer of rights and privileges of the former contractor to you. I have the authority of my partners involved to propose that should you be willing to assist us in the transaction, your share of the sum will be 20% of the$14.5 million, 70% for us and 5% for taxation and miscellaneous expenses and while balance 5% will go to charity organisation.

The business itself is 100%safe, on your part provided you treat it with utmost secrecy and confidentiality. Also your area of specialization is not a hindrance to the successful execution of this transaction. I have reposed my confidence in you and hope that you will not disappoint me.

Endeavor to contact me immediately through my e-mail to confirm whether or not you are interested in this deal. If you are not, it will enable me scout for another foreign partners to carryout this deal.

I want to assure you that my partners and myself are in a position to make the payment of this claim possible provided you can give us a very strong Assurance and guarantee that our share will be secured and please, remember to treat this matter very confidential, because we will not comprehend with any form of exposure as we are still in active Government Service. Once again, remember that time is of great essence in this transaction wait in anticipation of your fullest co-operation.

Yours faithfully,

Dr.Collins Mbeki.

Who would think this credible? I guess some have to bite for these attempts to be worthwhile.

This is Not What I Signed-Up For

I was a bit flustered when I wrote this for the campus police, but I think it gets the point across:

On February 3, 2004 at 12:00, an appointment was scheduled for English 1A tutoring session between studentx and me. The purpose of the session was to review, edit and approve his essay.

Upon the start of the session, studentx was confrontational. I asked if I could read his paper aloud to get a feel for his language. While reading it, I made minor mistakes (e.g. replacing ‘as’ with ‘and’) that he answered with load, abrupt correction. When I asked him questions about his paper, he ridiculed me.

I grew increasingly uncomfortable with studentx’s hostile attitude, but I did not confront him. I made efforts to defuse the situation by being patient and trying to be friendly. His agitation got worse as the session continued. Soon, another student interjected, asking studentx to calm down and “be nice”. At first he ignored her, and then he told her to “butt out”. He then remarked that the session was over and that he wanted a stamp [for approval]. I asked if I had done anything to offend him and he replied that he was only at the center because he had to be. A fellow tutor stepped in and asked if there was a problem. Studentx dismissed him and gathered his things to leave.

His behavior was irrational (e.g. acting as if I were attacking him bodily by correcting his spelling), childlike (e.g. retorting with “so what” and “that’s your problem” when his behavior was challenged) and aggressive (e.g. leaning forward and insulting me). While he did not directly threaten me, he was abusive in the extreme.

I felt threatened by his actions and feel that his presence on campus is, at best, disruptive and, at worst, a danger to students, faculty and personnel.

Later, I was informed that he had been in prison for nearly beating his 14-year-old son to death.

More Papers

* Steps Toward a Constructive Nominalism, by Nelson Goodman and W. V. Quine
* The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics, byAlfred Tarski
* The Monadology, by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
* The Method of Mathematics, by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
* Two Dogmas of Empiricism, Willard Van Orman Quine
* On formally undecidable propositions of Principia Mathematica and related systems I, Kurt Godel (umlautless here; edited and abridged in pdf. format)

Overhaul

This is a whopper of an update for the Computational Philosophy site. changed the layouts, removed the forum, added a glossary (Warning: largish file 208KB; ouch, my wrists!), removed some other extraneous stuff, edited some content and am working on more onsite papers.

The new content will include:
*Mathematical Problems, by David Hilbert,
*Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, by Ludwig Wittgenstein, (Largish File: 146KB)
*On Denoting and Vagueness by Bertrand Russell
*Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology, by Rudolf Carnap
*The Need for Abstract Entities, by Alonzo Church
*What the Tortoise Said to Achilles, by Lewis Carroll
*Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? by Edmund L. Gettier
and, er, more.

NOTE: I will gladly take down any of these papers or books if such is requested by a legitimate party (that means you Luciano).