Gormisdomai

I posted this. Found this doc while browsing: http://thinkingcomplete.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1

Some of the advice here seems to value just being at university as an experience in of itself. Other bits are tips on how to optimise for graduating quickly or learning loads.

I think I personally lean towards the former. I don't see the rush to get out of uni quickly or learn loads fast - compared to three years as an undergraduate, life is pretty long (on average) and university seems like a pretty important part of growing up that's hard to recreate later on in life.

Took me a while to work out this was upside down compared to what twitter does. Once I figured that out it made a little more sense.

Author of the article frames the conceptual analysis of computability as a "success story of philosophy".

I wonder how many other philosophical problems have been solved by people who are experts in other domains.

This is a good joke, but please don't believe it's actually true.

In application it's based on the false assumption that there are an equal amount of partisans on both sides.

Watching the demo video [1] has me a little confused.

He makes it sound like all your interaction with Ethereum goes through the Coco framework (so permissions are implemented by Coco deciding which contracts you're allowed to see). Is that right?

If so what's the point of using Ethereum at all?

- Who is doing the computation for a smart contract if it's private and only you can see it?

- Is the permissioning managed by a trusted Coco server somewhere? If so, why not also trust that server with storing the information about your supply chain?

[1] http://aka.ms/cocodemo

You are doing good philosophy here. Though: I'd be careful to move from the fact that Lucas' argument comes down to a personal opinion to the fact that all philosophy comes down to personal opinions.

I assume you already know about the concept of "commitment" in Philosophy, but I'll explain it briefly here in case anyone else comes across this comment.

Sometimes while you can't show that a fact is categorically false (given some available evidence), you can show that people who believe that fact are committed to believing other facts. In this case Lucas' own argument has committed him to the "personal opinion" that an inconsistent machine cannot be an adequate representation of mind. But his belief isn't entirely unfalsifiable. If new evidence makes him give up this belief (e.g. a rise of paraconsistent logics) he'll have to give up his original belief along with it.

One of the best things you can support, whether you agree with Bill Gates, or with OP, is investment in making primary education as good as is absolutely possible. The result is:

1) people are smarter and more mature even if they don't go to college 2) people who do go to college are already ready to do great work

If, like OP, you seriously want people to effectively graduate at age 13 you need to put a lot of work into primary education first. I admit, if like Gates, you just want more competent graduates, then it is probably going to be more nuanced.

Is there a chance it was on purpose. To give the music a particular sound?

Reposting this thought from the other discussion[0]:

>Third, use the phrase “disagree and commit.” This phrase will save a lot of time. If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there’s no consensus, it’s helpful to say, “Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?” By the time you’re at this point, no one can know the answer for sure, and you’ll probably get a quick yes.

This sounds really powerful but also like it might be open to abuse (for example degenerating into passive agressiveness/half commitment). Does anyone use something similar in their own workplace? Does it work?

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14103818

>Third, use the phrase “disagree and commit.” This phrase will save a lot of time. If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there’s no consensus, it’s helpful to say, “Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?” By the time you’re at this point, no one can know the answer for sure, and you’ll probably get a quick yes.

This sounds really powerful but also like it might be open to abuse. Does anyone use something similar in their own workplace?

Why not just uninstall your internet browser on your main user account?

Have you tried Google Keep? If not I would definitely recommend it vs built in notes apps.

I have tried this and it works great for me. Here are two extra things I now do:

Keep two or three parallel lists for different kind of internet use (e.g. research, message a friend, check for news about x, buy y).

Keep writing tools nearby always, even if it's just a pen and a scrap of paper in your pocket.

In CPR here is what Kant says about Hume:

"David Hume, who among all philosophers came closest to this problem, still did not conceive of it anywhere near determinately enough and in its universality ... believing himself to have brought out that such an a priori proposition is entirely impossible, and according to his inferences everything that we call metaphysics would come down to a mere delusion of an alleged insight of reason into that which has in fact merely been borrowed from experience and from habit has taken on the appearance of necessity."

The "problem" Kant is referring to is how metaphysics can be possible in spite of what Hume proved. Kant says in the same breath, that this is the central problem of the critique - so i guess you can nearly say that it's written almost entirely as a response to Hume.

Here are some example programs:

http://lpsdemo.interprolog.com/example/lpsExamples.swinb

I've always thought that someone armed with an efficiently implemented Logic Programming Language could sweep through the first few rounds of competitions like Google Code Jam.

If you're interested in the philsiophical implications of being "semi conscious" check out section 3 of http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html

This is the (one of the) difference(s) between property and substance dualism.

You can claim that mental properties and physical properties interact without claiming that they are ontologically the same thing, or that one supervenes on (i.e. is just a result of the behaviour of) the other.

There are ways around the problem of interaction for substance dualists too, but they often rely on ad hoc interventions like God guaranteeing that the two worlds always match up (occasionalism).

Kant student here. Find below some relevant Kant for the unitiatied. Note that Kant interpretations are everywhere and that no two scholars are alike, but I've tried to list the less controversial stuff.

Look at a thing on your desk. You are having a sensation of light and colour. Kant calls this raw pixel level sense data "sensibility".

Now as well as just seeing pixels you can distinguish the thing you are looking at as an individual object, with certain dimensions and in a certain location. Kant calls this processed spatiotemporal data "intuition".

Now you may also recognise the object you are looking at as being "a stapler" and you may recognise it as being on your desk and as belonging to your friend who's lent it to you. Kant calls this abstract data "concept" (also called "idea" as in the OP).

Now. If you're doing Science then you'd better have intuitions corresponding with all your concepts otherwise you're just making stuff up without actually looking at the world. But unfortunately there's a limit to how much we can observe in the world and we are greedy so we start coming up with judgements about concepts that do not correspond to any intuitions. E.g. "The universe is a simulation". In the Critique of Pure reason the central question is how any such judgements can be true (hint we think that some are true: Pythagoras's theorem is a judgement about all triangles, and so we think it is true for some triangles we have never seen). If you think this is a worthwhile question you might like to read Kant.

A Kantian reply to the blog post linked above would be that if the universe is a simulation then we can't even be sure that the laws of mathematics or geometry hold outside of it, because these laws are added by our brains when we turn "sensibility" into "intuition".

If it seems silly to you that the laws of mathematics or geometry might be all in our heads, then you are what Kant calls a "Transcendental Realist". If it seems natural to you that the laws of mathematics and geometry are all in our heads and that this is what allows those laws to be true of every object we see, then you are what Kant calls "a Transcendental Idealist".

If we're being Transcendental Realists then it makes sense to collect empirical data to settle whether the universe is a simulation or not. If we're being Transcendental Idealists, then the empirical data we collect has absolutely no bearing on the question.

OP here. This is part 4 of a 5 part series I stumbled across exploring Queer figures in the history of computer science. Parts 3, 4 and 5 are particularly interesting because they explore Queer history within CS beyond just Turing and Wittgenstein (discussed in parts 1 & 2).

Landin is a particularly interesting figure to study - he's one of the fathers of functional programming and the author of the much beloved paper "The next 700 programming languages" [1] where he coined the term "syntactic sugar"

[1] http://www.math.bas.bg/bantchev/place/iswim/next700.pdf