the more modern and hip way is to use not-a-flamethrower
55 karma · joined September 25, 2007
I wonder what would be required to build a model that explores the search space of compilable programs in say python that sorts in correct order. Applying this idea of using ML techniques to finding better "thinking" blocks for silicon seems promising.
All this to say, to repro my setup with Linux and another brand of intel powered machine, I'll waste an amazing amount of time. Intel is not going anywhere. They might have missed a beat or two, but they will pump out the best CPUs again in a short time. AMD got the upper hand for while back when the transition to x64 happened with the first real dual cores. Intel is not looking great right now I'll give you that, but chances are they will come back. Maybe. But in any case, this is a "if it works dont fix it". This CPU change will force a bunch of ppl to fix something that worked.
I have been reflecting along the same lines for a while, here are few thoughts, if anyone is interested.
Philosophy is constructed from two words and could be translated literarily from Greek as: love of knowledge. This implies a "lover", and from this individuality in the act I see flowing a lot of the problems you describe.
From my understanding, Wittgenstein main point is: "meaning is usage". This is a generalization that is a centrality of philosophy itself; Russell alludes to it in "the problems with philosophy" as he sets the reader on a quest to right something that can't be.
Here's my reasoning: since no two person can use a word in exactly the same way, the inherent imprecision of language and of philosophy as a construction is a feature not a bug, a v.useful one still; ever had this epiphany moment of having a great idea because you misunderstood someone?
If you set off to generalize enough on practical philosophy, I guess you get to the wisdom expressed in sayings and in illustrations; they convey by high bandwidth a particular pattern of analysis from one individual to another one that seeks wisdom, but one would be hard pressed to call receiving (as in "idee recues") sayings as a philosophical endeavor.
The way I now see philosophy is it's a quest to a personal worldview acquired through a personal love for knowledge. It cannot be exact nor absolutely true unless you're a dictator or a cult leader. This is why the idea and "ideators" are so closely associated; people talk about A.Rand because through her constructed world view she gives an ethic that have seducing finalities; however as you point out, objectivism as she conceived it cannot be perceived again by a human being let alone brought to new heights.
I find that reading inherently imprecise philosophical material can give very strong insights exactly because of the words are soft, and impact each unique individual in a different way. The ones that are not purposefully unreadable that is (Foucault?), in this I agree with you. "I", as my existing uniquely individual self, personally agree with you; another unique entity that defines itself as an ensemble of cells and electric currents. Seriously, I find it rather unconvincing that because you cannot pinpoint self, or soul, you negate something as evident as individuality, from which "I" choses to defines itself. I guess this fits "l'air du temps", ref Dawkins, Pinker and co. It has the smell of groupthink tho.
(BTW, evilmonkey your comment got me ROTFL)