"Mathematicians notwithstanding, a computer is a class of automaton known as a behaving machine. As such, it must not be seen as a function calculator that takes input arguments and returns an answer. It should be seen as belonging to the category of machines like brains and neural networks" from http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2010/02/computer-scientists...
I am sure there is meaning in this, but I am not sure it is a meaning that yields readily to rational thought. Hence my classification of the blog as noise.
Do I need to spell out the similarities with Time Cube, or enumerate John Baez's Crackpot Index in an oddly self-referential strange loop?
It is indeed not rocket science. Or much of any science.
edit: "We are all accustomed to believe that everything is made of something. We are taught that matter consists of molecules and that molecules are made of atoms which are themselves made of even smaller components. This line of reasoning makes sense initially but, as seen below, it cannot be sustained." if you think I am merely being obtuse.
You are worse than obtuse. You are plain dishonest. You are picking stuff up out of context in order to appear to make a valid disparaging point but you are just being an a*hole. And you know it.
Personal reprimands from you are effective in snapping otherwise reasonable people out of the mindset that sometimes results from anonymity, but it's just a stop-gap measure. I know you already know this, but it's worth pointing out.
Tangential anecdote: the last 10 or so uncivil comments I've read have been from throwaway accounts and accounts with small post counts/karma. I suspect most of these accounts are proxies for more active ones. Not sure if this metric can be leveraged in some way without producing too many false positives. Using machine learning to enforce civility is kind of ironic actually. Still, might be worth investigating.
If I understand correctly this means we should just write small program that can learn which reactions to given stimuli of the program are good, and which aren't, based on history of signals and responses of the program that are known to be good.
While interesting, I doubt it will do much to make programs more correct.
Somebody has to tell the program that this new reaction is good, so you should learn it as an exception to the older rules, or it is wrong, and we have found a bug.
11 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 34.8 ms ] threadThat said, I've often wondered what Sokal is doing nowadays.
I am sure there is meaning in this, but I am not sure it is a meaning that yields readily to rational thought. Hence my classification of the blog as noise.
Do I need to spell out the similarities with Time Cube, or enumerate John Baez's Crackpot Index in an oddly self-referential strange loop?
It is indeed not rocket science. Or much of any science.
edit: "We are all accustomed to believe that everything is made of something. We are taught that matter consists of molecules and that molecules are made of atoms which are themselves made of even smaller components. This line of reasoning makes sense initially but, as seen below, it cannot be sustained." if you think I am merely being obtuse.
Personal reprimands from you are effective in snapping otherwise reasonable people out of the mindset that sometimes results from anonymity, but it's just a stop-gap measure. I know you already know this, but it's worth pointing out.
Tangential anecdote: the last 10 or so uncivil comments I've read have been from throwaway accounts and accounts with small post counts/karma. I suspect most of these accounts are proxies for more active ones. Not sure if this metric can be leveraged in some way without producing too many false positives. Using machine learning to enforce civility is kind of ironic actually. Still, might be worth investigating.
While interesting, I doubt it will do much to make programs more correct.
Somebody has to tell the program that this new reaction is good, so you should learn it as an exception to the older rules, or it is wrong, and we have found a bug.