For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.
Image descriptions and plain text captions of written content are expected of all screenshots. Here are some image text extractors (I looked these up quick and will gladly take FOSS recommendations):
-web
-iOS
Please begin copied raw text posts (lacking a screenshot that makes it apparent it is from Tumblr) with:
# This has been reposted here to Lemmy as part of the "Curated Tumblr Project."
I made the icon using multiple creative commons svg resources, the banner is this.
More nerds need to get into philosophy. Specifically CS nerds. I think there’s a tendency, when you get into programming, to start seeing the world in terms of discrete, quantifiable units and categorical rules. It’s a helpful counterbalance to also study something that uses logic to deconstruct that kind of objective physicalist assumption.
Counterpoint, we get enough of that shit from people writing our design specs, and then give feedback like "it needs to pop more" or "this is good, but we need it to feel more modern".
So, discrete, quantifiable things make for an easier deliverable, thanks.
There’s a quote that I’m having trouble sourcing, but it’s basically:
Code is for humans to read, and only incidentally for computers to execute.
I think a lot of things are like that, especially when it comes to defining and organizing work. It’s less about making the perfect requirements document and more about getting everyone to think about a shared goal in a similar way.
Specifics are great because they make for solid landmarks. But abstract language is essential too, because it clues you into how you ought to navigate the terrain in between those landmarks.
And there is always space in between the specifics. If you managed to nail down every last detail in your spec, congratulations on your new hand-compiled programming language.
That's why I'm so happy that we have a UI/UX team, they can deal with the design nonsense while I'm left to logic.
I believe individuals choose the worldview that comforts/benefits one the most, and that is why programmers often think in discrete units. It helps them identify issues and handle them well. Is there a reason to introduce discomfort, when the worldview works quite well?
Also so much of how we talk about CS/software dev is cribbed directly from, not just real engineering, but also philosophy. Abstraction, concretisation, instantiation, etc.
they would also get that if they learned more math. eventually they tell you that a lot of concrete rules are more like conventions and assumptions that we have collectively decided are “reasonable”. don’t get me wrong, those conventions are still extremely useful. calculus, for example, has made a lot of problems way easier to solve. but it’s not like moses came down from the mountain with the fundamental theorem of calculus etched in stone. you still need to assume things in order to be able to do calculus, and the ways in which calculus is taught and understood has changed a decent amount over the years (infinitesimals to limits, riemann sums to measures, the introduction of differential forms, etc)
For real. A few times, I’ve been like “What makes you think matter is more fundamentally real than consciousness?” and received an argument that you can measure matter and make mathematical proofs about it.
And I’m just… dumbfounded by the lack of awareness that they’re essentially using a mere mention of math itself to dismiss the significance of axioms.
my experience studying math has been that if someone uses the word “mathematical” when they’re trying to argue something, then there is a decent chance they don’t really know what they’re talking about. if they did, they would probably use a more specific term or cite a theorem or proof. math is not a monolith.
your anecdote is a pretty spectacular example of that. how nice it would be if we could “mathematically prove” that ZFC is objectively true. and also how nice it would be if we could “mathematically define” what it even means for something to be “true” or “objectively true”.
Side note, in my experience people often misuse the word "math" to mean "arithmetic, as in "I did the math" or "Your math is wrong" when they're just adding up some numbers lol.
yeah that one can be pretty rough too. i think i’ve become a bit desensitized to it over the years, and paul lockhart’s lament has helped me cope a bit, but the pain is still there.
"Because you have to wonder: how do the machines know what Tasty Wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything."
It's a single-celled protein combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins and minerals. Everything the body needs.
For the unaware, this is a Quote from The Matrix, in which the character muses about how the fake reality which is the matrix might be inconsistent with actual reality but the people would never know the difference. He then goes on to explain that, to him, the steak is delicious, so he does not care.
Remember kids that you don't feel matter; you feel the electrostatic repulsion of electrons that occupy part of the 99+% of empty space of each atom is composed of. The vibrational frequency of those atoms create heat that radiates through that void to be detected by other atoms as more or less heat energy. Over 99% of you is empty space and radiant energy, which means that mathematically you barely even exist.
nothing is real do what you want
That is a fallacious conclusion from this observation. Don't use this philosophy as an excuse to act like an asshole.
While everyone perceives reality slightly differently, apples do have a specific light absorption and reflection spectrum.
Our limited perception of it doesn't make it "not real". Same is true for other senses as well.
There's also the possibility of Boltzmann brain hallucinating things, but since there is no way to prove or disprove it, that's still not a reason to be an asshole
We do know how things taste, sound, look, smell, feel, etc because those are all subjective concepts of perception. Without us, the physical phenomena we sense don’t do any of those things.
How does the addition of just one proton change the material's characteristics SO much??
To make it even crazier while we think of color blindness as a binary thing, it's really (like most things) a spectrum.
Everyone has a slightly different ratio of cones. And some have a different amount of cones than others. Then there's the ratio of the different comes to rods.
Take any two random people and they'll likely agree what name a color is, but they both experience that color slightly differently.
There are also the rare tetrachromagraphic people who see 4 colors. Most people have RGB, tetras have an orange receptor.
Shrimp have multiple color recptors because their brains are too primitive/rudimentary to combine input from more than a single receptor into a composite color. The result is that 12 colors (or however many receptors it is) is the total number of colors they can see.
nothing is real do what you want
This is what they take away from it? Discussing qualia is fascinating, and natural philosophy of the mind in general is an amazing field, but if your takeaway is that nothing exists, your understanding is about as deep as a puddle
What colors can mantis shrimp even see? Having 16 different cones doesn't mean anything if they're all slightly different variations of green, for example.
Edit: Okay, they can see more colors that us. They can see 300 nm to 720 nm and we can see 400 nm to 700 nm.
I think your question was spot on. They have more cones but they seem worse. They also lack our ability to process the stimuli into a rich tapestry of color.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24458639/
Not sure if there's more current info though.
Well yeah, that thought is important. While apples do have an objective color in the sense that physics teaches us that electromagnetic radiation with a certain frequency is more or less likely to be absorbed/reflected, we can only perceive a subjective color.
I personally define reality as any measurement that a machine (computer or robot) can take. As such, there is an objective reality. But also, most people mostly act on emotion and not based on real data.
But also, this isn't a meme. It belongs in the philosophy or science memes community.
Funny – just this week I ran into the concept of Solipsism for the first time in my life, and now this post.
Now think about the fact that we lock people up based on eyewitness testimony....
Mantis Shrimp actually lack the hardware for color interpolation. So they see 12 colors, total, compared to the wide spectrum that humans see.
Well, doesn't that change everything! How disappointing. I guess that's why they need so many receptor types, eh. They are just brute-forcing colors at this point.
You have a source for this though? I'd love to read about it and learn more.
Physicists: spend hundreds of generations empirically proving objective science
Philosophers: yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man
