gems

If this response by devindotcom was really "irrelevant nitpicking", then there is an easy solution to that: correct yourself immediately and be very explicit about it. The remainder of this branch could have been avoided completely.

300bps didn't do that though. So did he/she actually mean what was said? Well no, because 10 minutes later your criticisms will be dismissed as [strikethrough]pedantry[/strikethrough] silliness.

>This thread has given me more karma than your entire account has received in its existence.

Oh my goodness! What was the point of saying that, really?

>I think it's clear there is a vocal minority of people who are posting a half-dozen comments each in this thread while the vast majority at least don't find what I'm saying as offensive as you apparently do.

I don't find this offensive. I'm just asking you to be technically correct with what you say, or to at least address the people who are confused by what you're saying. Apparently, that's too high of a standard for you to live up to.

Here's the lesson: if you have a point to make, please don't fit in extraneous claims, which are much debated themselves, into your argument or comment. It's not hard to see that they can be confused as being part of your point.

> This seems to be a recurring theme on HN, where people point out irrelevant nitpicks as if I couldn't do that myself.

I will say this again: there is nothing wrong with nitpicking. If you can't be technically correct, then you're not correct.

What is the functional difference between a handicapped person who can memorize little and a person who isn't labeled handicapped but memorizes just as much? If there is none, then your qualification is useless.

What difference does it make what the source of the problem is? Why do you have to know the type of handicap?

edit: he/she has already given an excuse for him/herself to stop answering questions. :(

I'm asking you to be rigorous with your claims. And there's nothing wrong with being pedantic.

If you can't respond to questions without getting defensive, please grow up.

You said, with regards to memorization, in your OP:

"I'm convinced anyone can do this and the major thing stopping them is their belief that they can't do it."

If you want to now adjust that claim and say "some can do it", you better be able to tell us how to distinguish.

Please just answer the question. You seem to be using the person (sillysaurus) as an excuse to avoid having to address problems in your own worldview.

As far as I know, light is defined precisely in physics. The light from a light bulb comes from electricity traveling through a highly resistive wire. The particle interactions generate photons.

"The bulb is simply the object which converts the electrical energy to EM radiation, not the origin of the light itself."

If you were to ignore the particle interactions, then yes, the light originates from the light bulb. It certainly does not originate from electricity. Where the electricity comes from is irrelevant.

"It means that you receive the fact as it is."

I have no idea what that means.

"The dichotomy between experiential and physical things is illusory. It's simply that you experience the physical things from your own perspective,"

Oh, I know.

I still don't think you defined awareness precisely enough.

I don't understand what you're saying. Pretend like I am idiot and explain it to me in simple terms.

1. Can you define consciousness? Or is consciousness = awareness? Is that what you meant?

2. You ask "What is the origin of awareness itself?". I really don't understand this question. What is awareness? I can't even comprehend what you mean when you ask "what is the origin of [it]?". Colloquially, physical things have "origins", which is to say that at some point some physical thing was "created" or "crafted". My intuitive idea of awareness is that it is an experience, it's not something physical.

I tend to be dismissive of the philosophical conversation. I think what will resolve the question is scientific (biological) study. Maybe math/cs theorists (AI) will get there first. But I am almost certain that no philosophical conversation we can have will give me an insight about our cognition.

Well, what was his argument? Based on his second reply, he seems to think that because it only depends on your ability to reason that it should be easy. But doesn't that trivialize the matter? As long as we have mathematical models, as we do in physics and in chemistry, then it should be just as easy to learn physics and chemistry.* So then what does he consider hard to learn? Are the social sciences hard to learn? The 'it is of the mind' is a non-argument to me. And I don't think he addressed anything I said.

Anyway, this is almost irrelevant to what I was saying. Even if you assume every person can reason well, I'm saying you could still be in error unless you seek validation and guidance. It's really easy to think you've given a solid argument for something, but actually be wrong. It happens to everyone.

*By the way, there is a definite trend in physics for math, instead of experimentation, to be leading the way towards discovery.

I reread this branch and thought it sounded awful. What I meant to say is that if you optimize for low cost, you're limiting your choices to schools that lack the reputation. I don't know very many schools that have both (maybe some state schools). And yeah, this results in having a burden to defend yourself.

I wish I could delete the rest of this branch.

Basically nothing you said actually made a case against anything I said, or for the thesis that it is easy to self teach. Just stating this for the record.

It's unrealistic because I really think you need the social aspect of it: collaboration and criticism. I didn't say you can't learn something on your own sometimes.

Also lots of people have convinced themselves of lots of silly things. You can probably find dozens of papers from people with bachelors in math (or no degree) claiming they have solved P=NP. A lot of these turn out to be completely bogus, but the authors nonetheless thought they were serious attempts.

It's false that any of what I said can be true for some (or many) students? How do you determine if you're one of those students?

yeah, so, I was rushing. I edited the previous post: what matters is all the things that go along with cheaper schooling, not that fact that it's cheap.

1. The point was "there is a standard of rigor that you don't experience at every school". I could have used anything as an example. It doesn't matter that I picked community college. If you agree with that statement, then do you disagree with the conclusion: that once you go down that path, you the student, have a burden to explain to everyone how the quality of education compares with the best?

Technically, yeah, I made a generalization: cheaper schooling means shittier quality education (not bad, just worse). Of course, I haven't stepped into every community college classroom. But this is the psychology of the people looking at your application.

Technically technically, what actually matters is all the things that go along with going to a cheaper school, not really the fact that it's cheap.

2. "The rigor was pretty good" - does that mean you kept taking math classes (real analysis, etc)? If not, then how can you make that claim?

About point 2 and point 3: the quality of the undergraduate education is considered in applicants to top schools. Like I said before, there is definitely a standard of rigor that you don't experience at every school. As soon as you decide to optimize for financial cost (picking the cheapest school, doing community college), you've already placed on a burden on yourself.

You spent a significant chunk of your post suggesting self study. For something like math, this is really really really unrealistic. Most pure math textbooks don't have simple problems you can just check in the back. They're multistep proofs that can be done in a number of different ways. Oh, and you encounter plenty of material where you can easily trick yourself into thinking that you really understand it when you actually don't. Additionally, there is a standard of rigor that you don't experience at bad schools (or with no schooling). You could be writing complete nonsense solutions and not even know it.

Also: how are you going to self-study when you don't live at home? Studying is a full time job.

I am actually in a similar situation... except I'm in math. I can program though :/.

And by "similar" I mean that I may have to drop out because I cannot afford it. Loans from the government are not enough. Can't get private loans. Can't get money from the parents.

So what was the point?

Rapid weight loss is known to cause gallstones. That's what happened to me and it was awful! It's not a minor issue. It can interrupt your day, cause you pain, and prevent you from working or sleeping for more than 10 hours if you don't eat the right foods.

If you could actually define those words in a rigorous way, maybe then we'd be able to have a conversation about whether or not they are material. Too bad nobody really knows what consciousness is. Do you have some insight that nobody else has?

It's pretty clear there is a physical basis for cognition. Some extremely pedantic philosophers may not come to the same conclusion though. If you have any doubts, here's how you can find out: get a friend to beat your head in with a baseball bat (made with preferably something tough like steel or titanium).

What is the domain of $k$?

I can't tell if you're trolling. I would say most mathematicians and scientists are enthusiasts. Many programmers are also enthusiasts.

I don't even have to specify the occupation. All I have to say is that "some people are enthusiasts and would continue to produce anyway".

Off the top of my head I can come up with 3 professors at my school who say that on their home page.

My perspective may be too cynical though.

That was sort of a trap. It's considered bad practice in academia to bypass the committees and speak with the professors directly. Professors usually say in their home pages something to the effect of 'if you want to do research with me, apply to the school, do not contact me directly, I will ignore you'.

I go to a large school. My impression is that GPA is a convenient measure to use to select candidates. At my school, you get lots of applications submitted for certain academic positions. If you're the one trying to pick the students, how do you pick the most qualified?

Huh? I'm telling you how top graduate schools consider applicants. They usually weight research and letters the highest, then grades, then GRE scores.

Of course. But do you realize that some groups/schools filter by GPA? You don't even get considered unless you're above a certain threshold. How do send other signals then?

Are you going to try to talk with the professors personally? How and when are you going to do that?

edit: furthermore, how do you know the professor can single-handedly have any impact on who gets admitted into the program?