``Neural computing'' is a research field based on perceiving the human brain as an information system. This system reads its input continuously via the different senses, encodes data into various biophysical variables such as membrane potentials or neural firing rates, stores information using different kinds of memories (e.g., short-term memory, long-term memory, associative memory), performs some operations called ``computation'', and outputs onto various channels, including motor control commands, decisions, thoughts, and feelings. We show a natural model of neural computing that (...) gives rise to hyper-computation. Rigorous mathematical analysis is applied, explicating our model's exact computational power and how it changes with the change of parameters. Our analog neural network allows for supra-Turing power while keeping track of computational constraints, and thus embeds a possible answer to the superiority of the biological intelligence within the framework of classical computer science. We further propose it as standard in the field of analog computation, functioning in a role similar to that of the universal Turing machine in digital computation. In particular an analog of the Church-Turing thesis of digital computation is stated where the neural network takes place of the Turing machine. (shrink)

Modern insan eleştiriyi, neredeyse hava kadar, su kadar yaşamsal saymaktadır. Daha iyi bir dünyada yaşama isteği, verili olanlarla yetinmemeyi, gelenekleri, yerleşik değerleri sorgulamayı beraberinde getirmektedir. Felsefi eleştiri, sadece belli bir görüşe itiraz etmekle sınırlı bir tutum değildir; o aynı zamanda kendi dayanaklarının sağlamlığı ile de ilgilidir. Bilimlerde sıklıkla karşılaşılan yapıcı ya da olumlu eleştiri, başta felsefe olmak üzere sosyal bilimlerde yıkıcı bir niteliğe bürünmektedir. Felsefi eleştirinin yıkıcılığının nihilizmle sonuçlanmaması için bu eleştiri türünün de yapıcı bir nitelikle donatılması gerekir. Bu (...) çalışmada felsefi eleştirinin normları olabileceği öne sürülmektedir. Bu normlardan en bilinen ve kabul gören üç ilke tespit edilerek bu ilkelerin felsefi eleştirinin temellendirilmesinde oynadıkları rolün gösterilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Böylelikle felsefenin de tıpkı bilimler gibi siyasal iktidarların hizmetinde olmak yerine, gerçeğin peşinden gidebileceğinin olası olduğu gösterilecektir. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Nietzsche, Philosophy and the Arts ed. by Salim Kemal, Ivan Gaskell, and Daniel W. ConwayHans SeigfriedSalim Kemal, Ivan Gaskell, and Daniel W. Conway, editors. Nietzsche, Philosophy and the Arts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Pp. xv + 351. Cloth, $69.95.The editors contend that much contemporary reflection on the relationship between philosophy and art has been shaped by Nietzsche’s “experiments with an ‘aesthetic politics’ and a politization of aesthetics.” (...) For this reason, all contributions examine Nietzsche’s aesthetic account of the origins and ends of philosophy and the transformative power of aesthetic activity in social and personal life. They concentrate on his idea of a strictly aesthetic justification of existence. The editors argue that Nietzsche, more [End Page 686] than other philosophers, understood “art as the basic transformative impulse known to human experience,” that he replaced the traditional theoretical justification of existence with an exclusively aesthetic justification, and that he not only theorized about art, but also had artistic aspirations, and that this “dual relationship to art” accounts for his continued influence. They hope that this collection will “set out the ground for future debate” of these matters.The volume is well organized. Grouped in three parts, four essays discuss basic aspects of Nietzsche’s idea of art as a transformative power, three his understanding of particular arts and the influence of his ideas on them, and five the connection between the transformative power of art and the values that guide our transactions in social and political matters. In Part One, E. Behler, M. Nussbaum, A. Del Caro, and R. Havas discuss the power of art in ironic distancing in passion, “Dionysian rapture,” and the justification of existence. In Part Two, S. Bann explores Nietzsche’s ideas about historical consciousness and representation in French romanticism, T. W. White examines the connection between Utopian vision and genuine truth in Klimt’s “Beethoven Frieze,” and J. Carvalho discusses “improvising without memory” in jazz as an illustration of Nietzsche’s Dionysian model for self-transformation. In Part Three, F. Jenkins compares and contrasts moral and aesthetic self-formation, H. Staten reconstructs “the common matrix of aristocratic-authoritarian and democratic-liberationist tendencies in Nietzsche’s writings,” S. Kemal develops some implications of the final rejection of the “artists’ metaphysics” that Nietzsche still defended in his annus mirabilis (1886), D. W. Conway scrutinizes the political and aesthetic roles philosophers could and should play, and C. Crawford reviews some physiological processes involved in aesthetic transformation in the arts of dance, song, laughter, etc.Although the importance of Nietzsche in the discussion of art in our culture cannot be overestimated, one might want to quarrel with the editors’ claim that there are no other philosophers who believed as strongly as did Nietzsche that art was “the basic transformative impulse” in human experience. The same view was carefully developed by Dewey in Art as Experience and expanded in many other contributions to cover almost all areas of experience. But Nietzsche’s view of art and his idea that all human efforts need a strictly aesthetic justification still belong to the very best we have, and they deserve further discussion more than anything else in his writings.While these essays go a long way toward explaining the transformative power of art and aesthetic justification, they ultimately do not make clear what precisely Nietzsche’s reasons were for insisting that the meaning of existence can be justified only aesthetically and not conceptually, or why he thought that human experience is a process of transfiguration, or transformation, and not one of representation or conformation. It might help to review the reasons Nietzsche initially gave for abandoning the belief that existence can be transparently organized by the received “mechanism of concepts, judgments, and inferences,” and why he rejected the principle of sufficient reason as the basis of knowledge and dismissed the idea of “correct perception.” His description of experience as the “aesthetic operation”—Verhalten, not Verhältnis, as translated—of tentatively transferring things into a delicately woven web of changing human needs and interests does not mean that Nietzsche abandoned the conceptualization of experience. [End Page 687] Rather, it shows why we must recognize conceptualization as an... (shrink)

La corrélation entre l’éthique de la responsabilité de Jonas d’une part et les hypothèses théo-goniques ou -logiques de sa philosophie de la vie d’autre part, implique-t-elle une dépendance de la première vis-à-vis des secondes? C’est cette dépendance qui est interrogée dans le remarquable recueil co-édité en 2010 par Hava-Tirosh Samuelson et Christian Wiese The Legacy of Hans Jonas. Si ce volume interroge surtout l’inspiration théologique juive de Jonas, William R. LaFleur a bien vu dans sa...

Gazali'nin hayatını 1095 yılında geçirdiğini söylediği krize göre üç döneme ayırmamız mümkündür. Kriz öncesi dönem, kriz dönemi (1095) ve kriz sonrası dönem. Bu dönemlerde akla ve felsefeye bakışı değişmiştir dolayısıyla felsefî ilimlerden sayılan matematik ilmine bakışı da değişmiştir. Gazali kriz öncesi ve kriz dönemlerinde aklı eleştirmekle birlikte çok sistematik bir eleştiri yaptığı söylenemez. Gazali bu dönemde felsefe yorumlarında 'felsefi/bilimsel aklı" din açısından zararlı görmemektedir hatta zaman zaman olumlu yanlarından bahsetmektedir. Makasıdu’l Felasife ve Tehafütü’l Felasife ‘de akılla ilgili mevzulara değinmiş, bazı (...) felsefî ilimlerin dinle alakalı olmadığını, din açısından fayda veya zarar vermediğini ifade etmiş ama temelde felsefi aklın “sadece dini (metafizik) konulara” yetmeyeceği kanaatine varmıştır. Fakat bu dönemde o, felsefeyi 'dinileştirme' çabasının bir sonucu olarak akıl eleştirisiyle karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Aklın, felsefenin ve felsefî ilimlerin (mantık, astronomi, fizik… vb.) kökenini Kur’an’a dayandırmış ve filozofların bütün bu ilimlerin ‘tümellerini’ dinden öğrendiklerini iddia etmiştir. Böylece Gazali, akılla bir teoloji kurmanın mümkün olmadığını ispatlayarak yani dini ‘akla uygun hale getirme’ girişimlerinin önüne geçerek ‘aklı ve bütün aklî ilimleri dine uygun hale’ getirmek için vahye ve mistik tecrübeye dayalı yeni bir sistem kurmuştur. Dinî akıl, vahyi anlar ve uygular. Kriz sonrası dönemde bütün felsefî sistemleri dinî ve mistik/gnostik bir düşünce etrafında yorumlayan Gazali'de akıl tamamen dinileşmektedir. Avam ilimleri seviyesine indirdiği felsefî (tıp, astronomi, kimya, biyoloji, mantık, matematik vs.) ve dinî ilimleri (kelam, fıkıh ve tefsir) mistik bir zihniyetle yeniden ele alır. Felsefî ilimlerin esası dinîdir ve insanlar bu ilimleri peygamberlerden öğrenmiştir. Kelam ilmi, aklî bir ilim değil, dini bir ilimdir, kelamı kullanarak akli hükümler vermekten vazgeçip sadece dini ve uhrevi hükümler vermesi sağlanmalıdır. Fıkıh ilmi de aklî bir ilim değil dini bir ilimdir ve fıkıh alimleri sadece ahiretle ilgili hüküm verilmelidir. Bunlardan daha üstün olan ise havas ilimleridir. Havas ilmi Gazali'ye göre gnostik tasavvuf öğretisidir. Dünyevî akıl insanı yanılttığı ve ona güvenilmez olduğu için akıl yerine peygamberin vahyi gelmelidir ve ondan sonra vahye benzerliği dolayısıyla "velinin ilhamı" yer almalıdır. Bu ise ilk başta dini anlaması için gerekli olan ‘dinî akıl” ve daha sonra ruh, aşk ve nur yoluyla elde edilmektedir. (shrink)

Our understanding and praxis of spiritual formation is only as sound as our theology of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, there is a common shortcoming that leaves our theology of the Spirit less than fully capable of rendering an adequate account of the Holy Spirit's agency in transforming a person into the likeness of Christ. Theology of the Holy Spirit commonly emphasizes victorious and genteel themes while failing to articulate adequately that the Spirit is a direct agent in transformative suffering. Some (...) of the Comforter's most important sanctifying work is exceedingly discomforting. This article focuses on these less palatable aspects of the Spirit's work in an attempt to tell a fuller story about the Spirit. By adding often-neglected dimensions and textures to our theology of the third Person, we are more capable of articulating the full range of the Spirit's role in formation. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Tiny Person, Big ImpactT.S. MoranI met J on a Tuesday, the second day of my new job as the pediatric oncology social worker. Five days later, he died.Although J was 8 months old, he seemed tiny, like a preemie. When I saw him, he was snuggled into the shoulder of the attending physician. It was evident that one of his diagnoses was failure to thrive. He also had what (...) was thought to be a low-grade glioma of the optic pathway, and despite months of treatment, he was declining. It was clear that the team cared for J very much. They visited him, held him, played with him, and sang lullabies to him in Spanish. I was so impressed by their compassion.J had spent about half of his short life at the hospital. He was born prematurely to a young mother, herself in foster care. His mother had numerous obstacles preventing her from visiting often and it did not seem that she bonded well with him. J's mother stated that her boyfriend discouraged her from visiting. She did not have transportation and declined offers of hospital-funded Uber rides. She had little prenatal care or education about becoming a mother.J's mother seemed guarded in her interactions; hesitant to reveal anything that might show her vulnerability. The team was frustrated as it seemed she was not receptive to their efforts. The team was also concerned that she did not fully understand J's condition due to her poor health literacy, despite the use of a certified language interpreter. Still, when she did visit, she was kind and caring and stated that she did not want her foster mother involved in providing J's care.Part of my job was to help prepare the family for discharge to home. I had been speaking to their caseworker from Child Protective Services. She was a strong advocate for both mother and baby. After several meetings with the team that included J's mother and the caseworker, J's mother accepted his prognosis. She was willing to provide care at home with hospice support. She came to the unit several times that week to receive training about his care needs. The hospice nursing visit was scheduled, and J and his mother left the hospital on a Friday.The caseworker called on Monday to tell us that J had passed away peacefully on Sunday. The reaction on the unit was palpable. New residents and seasoned chiefs were teary-eyed and sighing. To some, it seemed like a relief. Given the team's extraordinary care and concern shown to this family, I was not surprised by their emotions.What surprised me was my level of grief. I had spent the 12 years prior serving adult hospice patients; I understood end-of-life care and death's eventuality. I thought I was well prepared. This experience was different from my past. I was able to cope with an adult patient's passing without much distress, accepting that most adults had lived a full life.I felt grief for the team who had invested in J, and for his short life filled with illness and pain. I felt grief for his mother, who had experienced a horrific childhood, had lost her innocence too young, and had been robbed of the opportunity to experience joyful parenting. [End Page 82]The chief recognized the team's need for support and quickly organized a "debriefing." A lot of the team participated, even those who only had brief contact with J. Everyone had a chance to reflect on their experience in caring for this child. Because of my hospice training, I was included. I validated their loss, their efforts, and their love for J. I provided basic grief education, enumerating their possible reactions of sadness, anger, frustration, fatigue, confusion, or numbness, and this helped me to feel like I also contributed to his care. I encouraged self-care—from taking time off, to lingering over an extra cup of tea, to speaking about their experience with me or another social worker.When I spoke about my feelings to my coworkers, they were understanding and acknowledged... (shrink)

The antithesis of nature and freedom is the central idea of Kant's philosophy. It is the direct expression of its postulated division of all existing things into the world of phenomena, which in their sum-total constitute nature, and its original foundation—the world of things in themselves, which lie beyond the categorial determinations of nature. Necessity and causal relations, like space and time, apply only to the world of phenomena; the world of things in themselves is free of these determinations and, (...) therefore, constitutes the realm of freedom—freedom from the intractable laws of nature. Thus, Kant, on the one hand, proves the unconditional subsumption of phenomena under the laws of nature, under the strictest determinism, and, on the other, insists just as decisively that freedom is the first, pretemporal link in the cause-and-effect chain of events. True, the existence of this original freedom is unprovable; it is unknowable, supersensible, and transcendent. But if we agree that there are not only phenomena but also things in themselves, then the conclusion about freedom is fully justified. If, on the other hand, we reject the existence of things in themselves, then we deny at the same time any possibility of freedom, for there are no exceptions in natural determinism. (shrink)

Confucian Values and Popular Zen: Sekimon Shingaku in Eighteenth-Century Japan. Janine Anderson Sawada. Univerity of Hawaii Press, Honolulu 1993. xi, 256 pp. $30.

The article examines wittgenstein's theory of quantification as it appears in the "tractatus". it is argued that wittgenstein advances a theory of quantification and a theory of generality where most contemporary writers on the subject hold a single theory of quantification incorporating both quantification proper and generality. having established this it is shown that wittgenstein theory of quantification is truth functional and not substitutional as recent authors have suggested.