A competent programmer should be able to have 80%+ comprehension on any code you set in front of them. They should also be capable of very simple edits, and maybe even a little debugging.
Bullshit. For example, I would not expect even a very competent programmer to understand ANY of this: : branch fromr dup tor @ fromr + tor ; : notbranch not fromr dup tor @ 1 - * fromr + 1 + tor ; : if immediate ' notbranch , here 0 , ; : else immediate ' branch , here 0 , swap dup here swap - swap ! ; : then immediate dup here swap - swap ! ;
While this will be familiar to those programmers who have likely written this *exact* code before, completely independent of everyone else who has written it, I wouldn't expect any programmer, regardless of skill, would be able to decipher it without an awful lot of experience in the language it's written in.
iOS is an operating system, not a programming language. HTML5 & CSS3 might qualify under a very unusual definition (as their combination has been shown to be Turing complete) but not individually. jQuery is a really shitty library, not a programming language. NoSQL is a database, not a programming language.
Expecting "knowledge of" is fine. (Except for jQuery. Using it is a mistake. Requiring it is insane.) But requiring something does not magically make some random thing a programming language.
I provide names, you don't look. I provide citations, you don't look.
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that you're interested in anything but validating your own silly preconceptions.
It's not my job to search for evidence for your claims.
Actually, it's YOUR bullshit claim under consideration here. Specifically,i>"So far, no one has demonstrated any ability of human mind that couldn't be replicated through computation.".
Of course, you refuse to even look at the evidence. Figures. It's exactly what I expected for you religious zealots.
Go pray to Lord Kurzweil, who offers you salvation in his video-game afterlife, for a way to combat heretics like me who assault you with reason, logic, and evidence.
Well, programming is ridiculously easy. I'm sorry, but being able to write computer programs does not make you special, indicate that you're above average, or whatever else it is that supports your ego.
Perhaps you should have also developed other skills?
Why are you waiting on me? Did you forget how to use a search engine?
Start here:
Lucas, John Randolph (1961) "Minds, Machines, and Godel" Philosophy 36:112-137 Block, Ned (1978) "Troubles with Functionalism", Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9:261-325 Searle, John R (1980) "Minds, Brains, and Programs" The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:417-457 Van Gelder, Tim (1998) "The Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science" Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21:615-665 Fodor, Jerry A (2000) The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press Thompson, Evan (2007) Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Though I doubt you actually care. You religious folks are only interested in validating your beliefs.
It's crude circular logic: "syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics" is both an axiom and the conclusion of Searle's argument.
There is some evidence that consciousness is an illusion
Lol!
I hate to break it to you, but if I'm fooled in to believing I'm conscious, then I'm conscious!
This is what happens when you parrot a meme without understanding it. The nonsense you're looking for is "There is some evidence that free-will is an illusion". It's still nonsense, of course, just not as immediately laughable as the above.
What's the big deal? This isn't anything we didn't already know. You can disagree with how these guys came to their conclusion, but it's the exact same conclusion others, by different means, reached decades ago: computation is insufficient.
Religious nuts like Ray Kurzweil may not like it, but it's not the researchers fault that reality doesn't validate your superstitious beliefs.
We don't know how human mind works.
That's right. We don't. Of course, we don't need to know how it works in order to identify what does not.
Stop living in a fantasy land and learn to embrace reality. It's much more interesting than Kurzweil's video-game afterlife and Spielberg's sex-bots.
Slashdot Mirror
Or I can admit defeat, and consider my theory back to hypothesis
What? Theory and Hypothesis are different things. One does not graduate or degrade into the other.
A competent programmer should be able to have 80%+ comprehension on any code you set in front of them. They should also be capable of very simple edits, and maybe even a little debugging.
Bullshit. For example, I would not expect even a very competent programmer to understand ANY of this:
: branch fromr dup tor @ fromr + tor ;
: notbranch not fromr dup tor @ 1 - * fromr + 1 + tor ;
: if immediate ' notbranch , here 0 , ;
: else immediate ' branch , here 0 , swap dup here swap - swap ! ;
: then immediate dup here swap - swap ! ;
While this will be familiar to those programmers who have likely written this *exact* code before, completely independent of everyone else who has written it, I wouldn't expect any programmer, regardless of skill, would be able to decipher it without an awful lot of experience in the language it's written in.
pi = 22 / 7
You wish. That won't get you farther than 2 decimal places. 355/113 is better, but it still only gets you 6 decimal places.
It's not so easy to square the circle.
Well, he's right.
iOS is an operating system, not a programming language.
HTML5 & CSS3 might qualify under a very unusual definition (as their combination has been shown to be Turing complete) but not individually.
jQuery is a really shitty library, not a programming language.
NoSQL is a database, not a programming language.
Expecting "knowledge of" is fine. (Except for jQuery. Using it is a mistake. Requiring it is insane.) But requiring something does not magically make some random thing a programming language.
Tablet websites, mobile apps all require iOS, Android, mobile app, objective-c, and jquery +html 5.
What kind of lunatic would use jquery on mobile? It's nasty enough on the desktop.
Do you have some secret definition of programming that you'd like to share with the class?
JavaScript is not only a programming language, it's a surprisingly sophisticated and capable language.
Funny, I'll bet he says the same thing about your code.
I provide names, you don't look. I provide citations, you don't look.
Call me crazy, but it seems to me that you're interested in anything but validating your own silly preconceptions.
It's not my job to search for evidence for your claims.
Actually, it's YOUR bullshit claim under consideration here. Specifically ,i>"So far, no one has demonstrated any ability of human mind that couldn't be replicated through computation.".
Of course, you refuse to even look at the evidence. Figures. It's exactly what I expected for you religious zealots.
Go pray to Lord Kurzweil, who offers you salvation in his video-game afterlife, for a way to combat heretics like me who assault you with reason, logic, and evidence.
Well, I can't argue with a guy who has trouble with basic reading comprehension. Enjoy pretending that you're right.
Well, programming is ridiculously easy. I'm sorry, but being able to write computer programs does not make you special, indicate that you're above average, or whatever else it is that supports your ego.
Perhaps you should have also developed other skills?
Will we teach them sound theoretical backgrounds? Guessing no.
Yeah, they're totally going to skip loops, variables, conditional branching, etc. and focus exclusively on visual studio's UI.
No. Hello World is _NOT_ going to achieve that. This needs to be a deeper program.
Most classes tend to get past the first day.
I'm curious as to what you expected. Did you honestly think even the least competent instructor could stretch that out to 6 weeks?
That's what he said. Did you miss it?
Why are you waiting on me? Did you forget how to use a search engine?
Start here:
Lucas, John Randolph (1961) "Minds, Machines, and Godel" Philosophy 36:112-137
Block, Ned (1978) "Troubles with Functionalism", Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9:261-325
Searle, John R (1980) "Minds, Brains, and Programs" The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:417-457
Van Gelder, Tim (1998) "The Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science" Behavioral and
Brain Sciences 21:615-665
Fodor, Jerry A (2000) The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
Thompson, Evan (2007) Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Though I doubt you actually care. You religious folks are only interested in validating your beliefs.
Well, I guess dismissing them out-of-hand, without reading or understanding anything, is easier than dealing with reality.
You Kurzweil cultists make creationists look sane.
A painfully slow language that struggles to maintain compatibility between versions?
Yeah, what a great replacement.
Yes, it was. Unfortunately, it was also a boarding school for the morbidly obese...
You think QM is magic / pseudoscience?
You must be a Randian.
It's crude circular logic: "syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics" is both an axiom and the conclusion of Searle's argument.
Nope. Try again.
So far, no one has demonstrated any ability of human mind that couldn't be replicated through computation.
No one except Searle, Lucas, Block, Fodor, etc.
There is some evidence that consciousness is an illusion
Lol!
I hate to break it to you, but if I'm fooled in to believing I'm conscious, then I'm conscious!
This is what happens when you parrot a meme without understanding it. The nonsense you're looking for is "There is some evidence that free-will is an illusion". It's still nonsense, of course, just not as immediately laughable as the above.
What's the big deal? This isn't anything we didn't already know. You can disagree with how these guys came to their conclusion, but it's the exact same conclusion others, by different means, reached decades ago: computation is insufficient.
Religious nuts like Ray Kurzweil may not like it, but it's not the researchers fault that reality doesn't validate your superstitious beliefs.
We don't know how human mind works.
That's right. We don't. Of course, we don't need to know how it works in order to identify what does not.
Stop living in a fantasy land and learn to embrace reality. It's much more interesting than Kurzweil's video-game afterlife and Spielberg's sex-bots.
"woo"?
Nothing is funnier than a Randian complaining about the quality and integrity of a public forum.
Keep beating that dead horse!
If you're a developer you've probably got a pretty decent machine anyway.
I develop on the crappiest machine I can tolerate. It's a not-so-subtle way to encourage me to keep apps fast and light.