Descartes and a Cryptocurrency

I wrote something brilliant recently that was cut from the piece of which it was a part.

The piece as a whole concerned a certain blockchain named Cartesi and the related token, known as CRTA.

One of the distinctive things about Cartesi is that it allows programmers to do some of their work "off blockchain," that is, in a way that will be opaque to other programmers working on the same system.

Developers of "smart contracts" on Ethereum use "on chain" virtual machines. But developers on Cartesi generally use Linux to create the contracts rather than using blockchain-specific VMs.

So: what about the name?

The term "Cartesi" pays honor to the philosopher Rene Descartes, founder of modern philosophy.

This much was covered in the story that I wrote recently for Breaking Daily News.

What was cut was a bit in which I believe I identified specifically WHY Descartes received this honor. Yes, the nerdish types who invent refinements to Ethereum's blockchain might well recognize Descartes' greatness as a geometer. Other outstanding figures in the history of mathematics have been similarly honored. There is a blockchain named after Cardano, for example -- and Cardano is renowned both as the inventor of the combination lock and as the first mathematician in the west to make systematic use of negative numbers. He even acknowledged the existence of imaginary numbers.

There is no reason not to pay hommage to Cardano for those achievements.

So: why not regard "Cartesi" simply as a similar homage?

Because in doing so we lose sight of a closer connection. Consider "cogito, ergo sum." The Cartesian thought of "I think" is inherently private, even subjective. It is the thought of someone who for all he can tell at this point in his reasonings might be the plaything of an evil demon. There is nothing public about "I think."

The Cartesian "cogito," then, is an offchain computation. Akin to the sidechains of Cartesi.

Aaaaaahhhhhhh.

Comments

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog