Skip to main content

Kevin Karn

New York University, Computer Science, Alumnus

Followers

248

Following

38

Public Views

Academic background: BA, Mathematics, University of Colorado, 1984; MS, Computer Science, NYU, 1988

Interests: History/philosophy of math, theory of definitions, computation/information theory, semiotics, documentality, languages (Japanese, Biblical Hebrew), anti-essentialism, universals, philosophy of mind, the self, logic and narrative structure of dreams, theology, Aristotle, George Berkeley, J. S. Mill, Gottlob Frege, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Richard Rorty, Jean Baudrillard

less

InterestsView All (10)

Uploads

Papers by Kevin Karn

Summary of Frege's "The Thought"

Summary of Frege's "The Thought" with remarks on connections to Platonism, Meinong, and Berkeley

Mathematically rigorous systems in which 2+2=5: Analogies with non-Euclidean geometry

In early August 2020, a controversy erupted on Twitter regarding the validity of 2+2=5. A central... more In early August 2020, a controversy erupted on Twitter regarding the validity of 2+2=5. A central figure in the dispute was James Lindsay, a math Ph.D. and critic of woke ideology, but many others weighed in, including Timothy Gowers, an elite mathematician and winner of the Fields Medal. The purpose of this note is to show, as briefly as possible, that rigorous (albeit non-empirical) mathematical systems with irregular "truths" like 2+2=5 exist, and thereby rebut Lindsay's claim that 2+2=4 is a necessary truth. Analogies are drawn with the case of non-Euclidean geometry.

The Definist Fallacy: Winning 21st-Century Political Battles by Orwellian Redefinition of Words

Winning arguments by insisting on definitions (the definist fallacy, persuasive definition) is a ... more Winning arguments by insisting on definitions (the definist fallacy, persuasive definition) is a powerful and increasingly popular tactic in the 21st century. Yet this tactic is rarely highlighted or explicitly analyzed. If there is no agreement on what a word X means, there is no objectively "right" answer to questions involving X, and the debate can be gamed by insisting on, popularizing, or enforcing a definition that yields one's preferred outcome. Semantic conflicts like this ("quibbles over the definition of words") are often thought to be trivial or pointless, but in fact are a key leverage point for exerting political power. Because these conflicts are inherently impossible to settle with facts and logic, they can only be settled through non-rational tactics (propaganda, peer pressure, outrage, deplatforming, ridicule, legal coercion, and so forth). In recent years, there has been an upsurge in activism aimed at changing definitions due (at least in part) to the hothouse environment of social media and constant engagement. Like other memes, redefinitions can go viral, and rapidly change word meanings/usage among the public. This becomes a formidable, Orwellian lever of power: Given the ability to change word usage, one can square any circle, win any argument. How far can this process go? Like O'Brien in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, I conclude there are no in-principle limits; all truths are ultimately social, and even the "hardest" scientific facts can be rendered false by modifying word usage. The ability to square any circle is very alluring, and will surely be overused. This may fragment society into incommensurable Sapir-Whorf language tribes, undermine the foundations of consensus truth, and bring about an Orwellian condition of chronic reality distortion to achieve political aims.

This paper has three sections. Section 1 describes how the definist fallacy works. Section 2 examines how definitional conflict functions in a specific case: arguments over the human/non-human status of the fetus. Section 3 sketches the full scope of definitional disputes in the 21st century, non-rational activism driven by such disputes, acceleration of the definist fallacy by social media, limitations of the technique, and the effects on society of Orwellian engineering of "reality."

Is There a God? — A Semantic Question with No Well-Defined Answer

When we ask "Is there a God?", the question always hinges on the meaning of the word "God," and t... more When we ask "Is there a God?", the question always hinges on the meaning of the word "God," and there are many different definitions/concepts of God. Therefore, disputants can always deploy the "definist fallacy"—insisting on whichever definition best yields their preferred answer. This ensures that the question "Is there a God?" is intrinsically impossible to settle. As a side note, it also shown that "empirical proof of the existence of the Christian God" is inherently impossible (due to infinities in the CG's definition).

An Interpretation of Plato's Indefinite Dyad Based on Binary Numbers

According to Aristotle, Plato derived the natural numbers (the series 1, 2, 3 ...) from two princ... more According to Aristotle, Plato derived the natural numbers (the series 1, 2, 3 ...) from two principles: one and the indefinite dyad. Aristotle's remarks are cryptic, however, and it's not clear how a crucial step of this derivation was carried out. Apparently the indefinite dyad produced the powers of two (numbers of the form 2^n) by starting from 1 and applying the operation of doubling. The question is how Plato used one and the powers of two to generate all natural numbers. This paper suggests binary numbers—known in certain forms since remote antiquity—as a way to fill in the missing step.

Human dignity does not exist: A summation of the arguments

There is no empirical evidence that "dignity" exists as an objectively real entity/property in th... more There is no empirical evidence that "dignity" exists as an objectively real entity/property in the human being. Various attempts have been made to address this problem—to "ground" dignity in properties with uncontroversial reality (e.g., rationality or freedom). This strategy fails for various reasons: many humans lack the candidate properties; the candidate properties do not satisfy the properties of dignity; the candidate properties themselves are dubious, and so forth. Arguments purporting to show the superiority of humans to animals also fail for straightforward scientific and logical reasons. The notion of human supremacy is validated primarily by religion, not science. Our status as the "highest animal" is a narcissistic delusion offering the emotional security of being the center/goal of the universe. As predicted by Durkheim (circa 1898), humans have established a de facto religion in which they themselves are the sacred object. Since human rights are explicitly based on dignity in many legal instruments and charters, dignity's non-existence raises foundational problems. Can we justify respect for human beings without dignity? Various justifications are examined, and while they work well enough under ordinary circumstances, they all have serious flaws. None are capable of recreating the structure of dignity: absolute respect for human beings, and a two-tier hierarchy with humans on top and non-humans on the bottom.

A Short, Technical Argument for the Possibility of Life after Death

Observations by Lucretius and Seneca suggest that "life after death" is the necessary mode of all... more Observations by Lucretius and Seneca suggest that "life after death" is the necessary mode of all life. Since it is possible to pop into existence from death (non-existence) once, the question naturally arises: Can one pop into existence again after living and dying once? Some arguments against this possibility are examined and shown to lack a solid foundation.

Does Software Control Hardware? — Microreductionism and the Mind/Body Distinction

According to the doctrine of microreductionism (MR), the thinking processes of the brain are full... more According to the doctrine of microreductionism (MR), the thinking processes of the brain are fully determined by low-level physico-chemical (PC) processes, so there is nothing for the mind per se to do. But if MR is a general principle, it should apply to a digital computer, and here an interesting question arises. Is the software in a computer controlled by PC processes at the lowest level? That seems implausible. We ordinarily think of software as controlling hardware, not the other way around. This paper examines the question: "Does software control hardware?" by analyzing various information/communication components and mechanisms, and paying close attention to the dividing line between software and hardware. It concludes that software does indeed control hardware through the medium of symbols and signs. This shows how mind (software, data, words) can play an independent causal role in physical reality.

Squalia: Qualia-like Properties of Symbolic Systems

Symbols in symbolic systems have certain properties ("squalia") that exhibit a striking similarit... more Symbols in symbolic systems have certain properties ("squalia") that exhibit a striking similarity to qualia. As a result, identifying squalia in symbolic systems like brains is a promising strategy for finding the neural/physical correlates of qualia. If qualia can be identified with squalia, a number of interesting results follow: 1) Qualia are not epiphenomenal, and are a necessary part of any symbolic system; 2) Their necessity follows due to symbolic, not physical imperatives; 3) Qualia cannot be identified with any specific physical correlates, and do not require physical activity of any kind — indeed, qualia can be associated with neural quiescence and non-activity; 4) Systems which do not incorporate symbols cannot have qualia. This paper also critiques the implicit but common view that qualia are a sort of "aura" or "thought balloon" generated by the activity of neurons.

2+2=4 is Not a Necessary Truth

This paper shows that "2+2=4" is not a necessary truth. The result is achieved constructively, by... more This paper shows that "2+2=4" is not a necessary truth. The result is achieved constructively, by exhibiting a system — as consistent as ordinary arithmetic — in which "2+2=4" is false and "2+2=5" is true. (My more recent paper "Mathematically rigorous systems in which 2+2=5: Analogies with non-Euclidean geometry" discusses this topic further.)

Duality Principles and Modern Hylomorphism

In hylomorphism, matter and form function as duals in the mathematical sense — i.e., in a true st... more In hylomorphism, matter and form function as duals in the mathematical sense — i.e., in a true statement relating matter and form, the two terms can be swapped for each other, and the result will remain true. This principle is exploited to show how mind (form) and body (matter) can form a tight, intrinsic unity, and yet vary independently with neither supervenient on the other. This enables complex interplay of mind and body within the overall monism of the physical.

Jesus as a Weapon of Unconventional War

Pacifistic religion as a technique for undermining the enemy.

An "archaeological dig" uncovering changes in human consciousness over the last 100 years.

Higher Lifeforms: Darwin Meets "God"

An exploration of the idea of higher lifeforms, so complex they are impenetrable to the human mind.

Why Universal Poverty Is the Only Sensible Choice for Humanity

Universal poverty is the only feasible way to achieve the twin imperatives of sustainability and ... more

Imagination, Perception and Artificial Intelligence

A theory of mental images as dynamic structures integrating static "pictures" and actions in comp... more A theory of mental images as dynamic structures integrating static "pictures" and actions in complex networks. Anticipates and develops the "action in perception" theory. Stresses the importance of representing the world from the subjective standpoint of the organism. (Masters Thesis, Computer Science, 1988, NYU)

Summary of Frege's "The Thought"

Summary of Frege's "The Thought" with remarks on connections to Platonism, Meinong, and Berkeley

Mathematically rigorous systems in which 2+2=5: Analogies with non-Euclidean geometry

In early August 2020, a controversy erupted on Twitter regarding the validity of 2+2=5. A central... more In early August 2020, a controversy erupted on Twitter regarding the validity of 2+2=5. A central figure in the dispute was James Lindsay, a math Ph.D. and critic of woke ideology, but many others weighed in, including Timothy Gowers, an elite mathematician and winner of the Fields Medal. The purpose of this note is to show, as briefly as possible, that rigorous (albeit non-empirical) mathematical systems with irregular "truths" like 2+2=5 exist, and thereby rebut Lindsay's claim that 2+2=4 is a necessary truth. Analogies are drawn with the case of non-Euclidean geometry.

The Definist Fallacy: Winning 21st-Century Political Battles by Orwellian Redefinition of Words

Winning arguments by insisting on definitions (the definist fallacy, persuasive definition) is a ... more Winning arguments by insisting on definitions (the definist fallacy, persuasive definition) is a powerful and increasingly popular tactic in the 21st century. Yet this tactic is rarely highlighted or explicitly analyzed. If there is no agreement on what a word X means, there is no objectively "right" answer to questions involving X, and the debate can be gamed by insisting on, popularizing, or enforcing a definition that yields one's preferred outcome. Semantic conflicts like this ("quibbles over the definition of words") are often thought to be trivial or pointless, but in fact are a key leverage point for exerting political power. Because these conflicts are inherently impossible to settle with facts and logic, they can only be settled through non-rational tactics (propaganda, peer pressure, outrage, deplatforming, ridicule, legal coercion, and so forth). In recent years, there has been an upsurge in activism aimed at changing definitions due (at least in part) to the hothouse environment of social media and constant engagement. Like other memes, redefinitions can go viral, and rapidly change word meanings/usage among the public. This becomes a formidable, Orwellian lever of power: Given the ability to change word usage, one can square any circle, win any argument. How far can this process go? Like O'Brien in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, I conclude there are no in-principle limits; all truths are ultimately social, and even the "hardest" scientific facts can be rendered false by modifying word usage. The ability to square any circle is very alluring, and will surely be overused. This may fragment society into incommensurable Sapir-Whorf language tribes, undermine the foundations of consensus truth, and bring about an Orwellian condition of chronic reality distortion to achieve political aims.

This paper has three sections. Section 1 describes how the definist fallacy works. Section 2 examines how definitional conflict functions in a specific case: arguments over the human/non-human status of the fetus. Section 3 sketches the full scope of definitional disputes in the 21st century, non-rational activism driven by such disputes, acceleration of the definist fallacy by social media, limitations of the technique, and the effects on society of Orwellian engineering of "reality."

Is There a God? — A Semantic Question with No Well-Defined Answer

When we ask "Is there a God?", the question always hinges on the meaning of the word "God," and t... more When we ask "Is there a God?", the question always hinges on the meaning of the word "God," and there are many different definitions/concepts of God. Therefore, disputants can always deploy the "definist fallacy"—insisting on whichever definition best yields their preferred answer. This ensures that the question "Is there a God?" is intrinsically impossible to settle. As a side note, it also shown that "empirical proof of the existence of the Christian God" is inherently impossible (due to infinities in the CG's definition).

An Interpretation of Plato's Indefinite Dyad Based on Binary Numbers

According to Aristotle, Plato derived the natural numbers (the series 1, 2, 3 ...) from two princ... more According to Aristotle, Plato derived the natural numbers (the series 1, 2, 3 ...) from two principles: one and the indefinite dyad. Aristotle's remarks are cryptic, however, and it's not clear how a crucial step of this derivation was carried out. Apparently the indefinite dyad produced the powers of two (numbers of the form 2^n) by starting from 1 and applying the operation of doubling. The question is how Plato used one and the powers of two to generate all natural numbers. This paper suggests binary numbers—known in certain forms since remote antiquity—as a way to fill in the missing step.

Human dignity does not exist: A summation of the arguments

There is no empirical evidence that "dignity" exists as an objectively real entity/property in th... more There is no empirical evidence that "dignity" exists as an objectively real entity/property in the human being. Various attempts have been made to address this problem—to "ground" dignity in properties with uncontroversial reality (e.g., rationality or freedom). This strategy fails for various reasons: many humans lack the candidate properties; the candidate properties do not satisfy the properties of dignity; the candidate properties themselves are dubious, and so forth. Arguments purporting to show the superiority of humans to animals also fail for straightforward scientific and logical reasons. The notion of human supremacy is validated primarily by religion, not science. Our status as the "highest animal" is a narcissistic delusion offering the emotional security of being the center/goal of the universe. As predicted by Durkheim (circa 1898), humans have established a de facto religion in which they themselves are the sacred object. Since human rights are explicitly based on dignity in many legal instruments and charters, dignity's non-existence raises foundational problems. Can we justify respect for human beings without dignity? Various justifications are examined, and while they work well enough under ordinary circumstances, they all have serious flaws. None are capable of recreating the structure of dignity: absolute respect for human beings, and a two-tier hierarchy with humans on top and non-humans on the bottom.

A Short, Technical Argument for the Possibility of Life after Death

Observations by Lucretius and Seneca suggest that "life after death" is the necessary mode of all... more Observations by Lucretius and Seneca suggest that "life after death" is the necessary mode of all life. Since it is possible to pop into existence from death (non-existence) once, the question naturally arises: Can one pop into existence again after living and dying once? Some arguments against this possibility are examined and shown to lack a solid foundation.

Does Software Control Hardware? — Microreductionism and the Mind/Body Distinction

According to the doctrine of microreductionism (MR), the thinking processes of the brain are full... more According to the doctrine of microreductionism (MR), the thinking processes of the brain are fully determined by low-level physico-chemical (PC) processes, so there is nothing for the mind per se to do. But if MR is a general principle, it should apply to a digital computer, and here an interesting question arises. Is the software in a computer controlled by PC processes at the lowest level? That seems implausible. We ordinarily think of software as controlling hardware, not the other way around. This paper examines the question: "Does software control hardware?" by analyzing various information/communication components and mechanisms, and paying close attention to the dividing line between software and hardware. It concludes that software does indeed control hardware through the medium of symbols and signs. This shows how mind (software, data, words) can play an independent causal role in physical reality.

Squalia: Qualia-like Properties of Symbolic Systems

Symbols in symbolic systems have certain properties ("squalia") that exhibit a striking similarit... more Symbols in symbolic systems have certain properties ("squalia") that exhibit a striking similarity to qualia. As a result, identifying squalia in symbolic systems like brains is a promising strategy for finding the neural/physical correlates of qualia. If qualia can be identified with squalia, a number of interesting results follow: 1) Qualia are not epiphenomenal, and are a necessary part of any symbolic system; 2) Their necessity follows due to symbolic, not physical imperatives; 3) Qualia cannot be identified with any specific physical correlates, and do not require physical activity of any kind — indeed, qualia can be associated with neural quiescence and non-activity; 4) Systems which do not incorporate symbols cannot have qualia. This paper also critiques the implicit but common view that qualia are a sort of "aura" or "thought balloon" generated by the activity of neurons.

2+2=4 is Not a Necessary Truth

This paper shows that "2+2=4" is not a necessary truth. The result is achieved constructively, by... more This paper shows that "2+2=4" is not a necessary truth. The result is achieved constructively, by exhibiting a system — as consistent as ordinary arithmetic — in which "2+2=4" is false and "2+2=5" is true. (My more recent paper "Mathematically rigorous systems in which 2+2=5: Analogies with non-Euclidean geometry" discusses this topic further.)

Duality Principles and Modern Hylomorphism

In hylomorphism, matter and form function as duals in the mathematical sense — i.e., in a true st... more In hylomorphism, matter and form function as duals in the mathematical sense — i.e., in a true statement relating matter and form, the two terms can be swapped for each other, and the result will remain true. This principle is exploited to show how mind (form) and body (matter) can form a tight, intrinsic unity, and yet vary independently with neither supervenient on the other. This enables complex interplay of mind and body within the overall monism of the physical.

Jesus as a Weapon of Unconventional War

Pacifistic religion as a technique for undermining the enemy.

An "archaeological dig" uncovering changes in human consciousness over the last 100 years.

Higher Lifeforms: Darwin Meets "God"

An exploration of the idea of higher lifeforms, so complex they are impenetrable to the human mind.

Why Universal Poverty Is the Only Sensible Choice for Humanity

Universal poverty is the only feasible way to achieve the twin imperatives of sustainability and ... more

Imagination, Perception and Artificial Intelligence

A theory of mental images as dynamic structures integrating static "pictures" and actions in comp... more A theory of mental images as dynamic structures integrating static "pictures" and actions in complex networks. Anticipates and develops the "action in perception" theory. Stresses the importance of representing the world from the subjective standpoint of the organism. (Masters Thesis, Computer Science, 1988, NYU)