Stack Exchange
log in

gardenhead

 Discussion on question by Clumsy cat:…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
gardenhead
Jan 13, 2022 09:23
I think you would have to explain in more detail what you mean by "consistent". Can you give a purported example of a non-consistent theory? We already have theories (ie quantum mechanics) that are indeterminate
 

 Discussion on answer by gnasher729: W…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
gardenhead
Nov 11, 2021 17:18
@J... I think you misunderstood my comment. I was basically agreeing with you. This thought experiment doesn't demonstrate anything, except what Searle's personally thinks. And I was saying that's true of most thought experiments
gardenhead
Nov 11, 2021 17:18
@DavidGudeman Don't all thought experiments beg the question though? Philosopher A assumes a certain outcome that illustrates his view, while philosopher B assumes a different outcome that illustrates his own view. The reason experiments are so useful in science is because we don't know what the outcome will be ahead of time. That's why we run the experiment. An experiment that isn't actually performed can't really tell you anything, other than what the people arguing about them already think - and we don't need a thought experiment for that.
gardenhead
Nov 11, 2021 17:18
@JustSomeOldMan But if the point Searle is arguing is that no program can ever have "semantic understanding" like a human brain, doesn't using such a simple model in his argument undermine that? His argument should use a system that is much closer in complexity to the brain, eg a room with a million men in it, who together can understand chinese, or do some even more complex that. Using one man reduces the complexity of the program to such a point that we wouldn't expect understanding to arise at that level, thus making it a bad analogy
 

 Discussion on question by Bhagwad Jal…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
gardenhead
Sep 23, 2021 14:53
@AmeetSharma Quite obviously this is a flawed analogy. Chess is not equivalent to the brain, and the pieces aren't neurons. There's also not a chess position that corresponds to the action of photosynthesis. It doesn't mean photosynthesis is unexplainable or unphysical
gardenhead
Sep 23, 2021 14:08
@CriglCragl I pretty much agree with you. I'm not taking a hard stance either way here (I don't know!), just pushing back against the idea that there "obviously" is a hard problem.
gardenhead
Sep 23, 2021 08:50
@AmeetSharma I think we went over this, but scientists in general aren't just talking about math. These things really exist. At least that's the position of scientific realism, which you can certainly disagree with, but you can't just assume it's false for your argument. And even if it was "all math", then there's nothing weird(er) about consciousness being "just math" than chairs, or planets, or life being "jut math". Note that I'm not saying I have the answer (nobody does!), but you are making an impossibility claim, which I don't think has sufficient evidence. Why not leave the door open?
gardenhead
Sep 23, 2021 08:50
@AmeetSharma I'm familiar with Chalmers and his arguments. I don't agree with him either, which is why we're having this discussion! I think "strong emergence" is a nonsense concept. I don't see how this is a different "kind" of question, or what that even precisely means, other than the fuzzy notion that it "feels different". In what formal way can you say consciousness is categorically different than explaining temperature, life, photosynthesis, weather, friction, etc? Since you said it's impossible in principle to explain via reductionism
gardenhead
Sep 23, 2021 08:50
@AmeetSharma It's not purely mathematical, but also ontological. Science tells us what exists. Do you deny the existence of atoms? And even if you are, who's to say that consciousness isn't mathematical as well?
gardenhead
Sep 23, 2021 08:50
@AmeetSharma It doesn't matter that temperature is different from consciousness. Of course it is! It's also different from every other phenomenon. Yet they have all so far been explained via physical reductionism. But to answer your question, thermodynamic temperature is a certain property of matter such that 1) heat transfers from the hotter to the colder objects and 2) two bodies brought in contact with each other will reach the same temperature (thermal equilibrium)
gardenhead
Sep 23, 2021 08:50
I am talking about the physical phenomenon of temperature, not the "feeling" of temperature, as that would obviously fall under consciousness and experience. I am merely stating that thermodynamic temperature, which was once thought to have been some sort of "substance", has absolutely been explained via reductionism. A similar thing may eventually happen with consciousness.
gardenhead
Sep 23, 2021 08:50
@BhagwadJalPark No, there isn't, which is my point. People used to think there was some "life essence" that distinguished life from non-life. This was known as vitalism, and is now known to be false. There's no reason to think consciousness is any different. You think there's a clear distinction, but that isn't a given: it seems consciousness is more of a gradient, with lower forms of animal life having lower level consciousnesses. As for being able to explain those phenomenon in terms of particles, that's only obvious in hindsight. At the time they were just as mysterious as consciousness.
gardenhead
Sep 23, 2021 08:50
@AmeetSharma This doesn't answer my question. You would have to demonstrate that it is impossible, in principle, for non-experiential entities (ie the standard model) to give rise to experience. This doesn't seem easy to do. It would be the equivalent of demonstrating that non-living entities can't give rise to living entities (which we already know is false). There are countless examples of emergent phenomenon in nature: temperature, texture, wetness, ant colonies, cells, etc. It seems to be the rule, not the exception.
gardenhead
Sep 23, 2021 08:50
@AmeetSharma Why must there be additional laws? Do you have a proof that this is required? This is analogous to saying that there must be additional "wetness" laws to explain how water is wet, or else reductionism is false.
 

 Discussion on answer by Floris: How c…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
gardenhead
Apr 28, 2021 14:14
@Flater Yeah, I understand what you're saying. But why are you assuming that the butterflies who go splat have already reproduced as much as they are going to? I'm no expert in butterfly reproductive habits, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that only old, infertile butterflies get splattered. Eventually this should lead to natural selection.
gardenhead
Apr 27, 2021 23:47
@Flater What you described is precisely natural selection! The gene pool of the population of butterflies would change, tending towards larger wing sizes. That's one mechanism of evolution.
 

 Discussion on question by Rafael: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
gardenhead
Nov 6, 2020 13:12
Don't feel that you have to win every debate. Let's generously assume for a moment that you are always right in every technical decision (unlikely). If you insist on winning every debate, you will get your way but anger your colleagues, making them bitter. At the end of the day, what would you rather have: a technically perfect codebase, or a pleasant working environment?
 

 Discussion on question by Xophmeister…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
gardenhead
Oct 4, 2020 01:19
I feel like assigning blame here is unhelpful. It's nobody's fault - it's simply an issue of mismatch. That said, everybody on the team should be able to understand the code. Preferably, your boss would set the standards and either hire people who can adhere to those standards or provide appropriate training. If your boss doesn't want to get involved, then as the most senior member, you are probably most suited to either "dumbing down" your code (easy) or bringing your team up to speed (more effort). The option is really up to you.
 

 Discussion on question by Alexandros …

Imported from a comment discussion on english.stackexchange.co...
gardenhead
Aug 20, 2020 02:05
This bio reads like Ayn Rand took an intro to programming course
 

 Discussion on question by Manit Agarw…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
gardenhead
Jul 30, 2020 06:07
I think it's important to recognize that the laws of one theory can be the theorems of another, stronger theory. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity is actually a derived theorem in General Relativity (under some limits / assumptions). Likewise, in classical Thermodynamics the Second Law really was a bona fide law - it was taken as foundational true to the theory - but in statistical mechanics, it is a theorem. Ultimately, any law can be derived from the Standard Model, at least for now.
 

 Discussion on question by hk88: Hirin…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
gardenhead
Jul 27, 2020 03:14
There's absolutely no evidence that having a team of diverse skin colors (and let's be honest, that's what people mean when they talk about a diverse team) brings any tangible benefits to it. It's all hand-wavey, wish-washy stuff about "different background or experiences", with no proof that actually improves the quality or output of the team as a whole.
 

 Discussion on question by Ryan_L: Why…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
gardenhead
Jan 13, 2020 22:29
@saltylight Because atheists (like myself) belief that life does not have intrinsic value. Life can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. If you do not understand this, then I'd like to see how you enjoy a life wracked by pain with no way out.
 

 Discussion on question by gtoques: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
gardenhead
Jul 29, 2019 05:44
"I understand that academia isn't the most "organized" area (unlike the corporate world)" - oh boy are you in for a surprise
 

 Discussion on question by Alexei: How…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
gardenhead
Jan 17, 2018 02:53
Why are you giving an interview question that can easily be looked up? What exactly are you trying to test?
 

 Discussion on question by The Spartan…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
gardenhead
Oct 10, 2017 22:35
I do the exact same thing as well - and sometimes a bit more loudly. I've had a few remarks on it, but honestly I do it so automatically I find it very difficult to stop
 

 Discussion on question by KirynDawn: …

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
gardenhead
Oct 6, 2017 01:18
"Only a programmer." Your boss doesn't realize which one of you is more valuable to the company.
 

 Discussion on question by User6784315…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
gardenhead
Sep 3, 2017 16:57
@ToddWilcox You seem to misunderstand. We absolutely learned programming - it just wan't the entire focus of the course. For example, there were two courses on data structures - one was in SML, the other in C. And with that background, I am now able to learn a new language extremely quickly, and actually analyze its features, as opposed to just learning whatever is hot without any understanding.
gardenhead
Sep 3, 2017 16:57
Well, at my college, there were no courses to teach programming languages. We were taught data structures, algorithms, discrete math, computer systems, etc, but never a course just to learn Java or C. YMMV, apparently.
gardenhead
Sep 3, 2017 16:57
@DavidRicherby CS is not about teaching one programming language after another. In fact, I'm quite surprised that a CS department would even have a class to teach a particular language - I'm guessing it's not and OP just worded it poorly.
gardenhead
Sep 3, 2017 16:57
No CS professor cares about some esoteric programming language "gotcha". He won't know, won't care, and will find it quite annoying.
 

 Discussion on answer by Mike Ounswort…

Imported from a comment discussion on security.stackexchange.c...
gardenhead
Aug 24, 2017 07:56
Shamir's Secret Sharing is used in Vault, a widely-deployed secret management system.
 

 Discussion on answer by RubberDuck: W…

Imported from a comment discussion on softwareengineering.stac...
gardenhead
Jul 27, 2017 13:42
@RubberDuck There is always unspecified behavior in your code - you simply can't test every possible configuration. The only fool-proof method is to prove your code correct by hand, or use some specification language + static analysis. And that ain't gonna happen
2
 

 Discussion on question by Mik378: Fir…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
gardenhead
Nov 19, 2016 06:22
A lot of people are picking on OP suggesting something is wrong with him, like he has terrible people skills or his code is actually unreadable. While that may be possible, I think it's equally likely that he's just really bad at choosing the right company to work at. If so, that's the problem he should correct.
 

 Discussion on answer by Robert Harvey…

Imported from a comment discussion on softwareengineering.stac...
gardenhead
Nov 15, 2016 20:56
By the way, before we had the concept of modules in languages, there was the "design pattern" of splitting your program up over several files and linking them together, which was ad-hoc and error-prone. An iterator is not a design pattern either; it's just an interface / abstract data type.
gardenhead
Nov 15, 2016 20:56
@Jules You're missing the fundamental point, which has already been stated, that there is no useful distinction between a pattern and just "programming". Any definition you have or will come up with can be torn apart.
gardenhead
Nov 15, 2016 13:55
@Jules "a design pattern is an abstract description of a general approach to solving a large class of re-occuring high-level problems". You could easily replace "design pattern" with "programming language" in that definition. There are many high-level language features, e.g. modules.
gardenhead
Nov 15, 2016 13:55
@Jules You're stretching the definition of design pattern though. If you call basically every programming construct a design pattern, then sure, design patterns are still in wide use! But that's not the definition most people think of, nor the one used in GoF.
 

 Discussion on answer by Michael Hampt…

Imported from a comment discussion on programmers.stackexchang...
gardenhead
Apr 12, 2016 14:35
I'm going to accept this answer because it does the best job of answering my original question, although every answer gave good advice and perspective on the topic. I think the fact that everyone has their own complete and independent repo, even if that repo is not the source of truth, makes the best argument for why decentralized version control is much easier to work with.
 

 Discussion on question by user1261710…

Imported from a comment discussion on workplace.stackexchange....
Stephen Bly
Dec 10, 2015 16:32
I don't have an answer, but I know how you feel, I'm in a similar position. I've been reprimanded for asking too many questions (I actually posted a question on this site about it). The people I ask aren't being openly rude to me (usually), but they do just expect me to magically know everything I need to know even though I (like you) have little experience.