A major problem with these sorts of courses is that they're often not taught in a way that emphasizes their utility to the student. If you're thinking about being a psychologist for example why is calculus important? I'm not saying it isn't. I can think of several different ways it could be very important especially as it regards understanding statistics
+1
Andy Field's "Discovering Statistics Using SPSS" may serve as a text book with many good examples and an overall hands-on approach
(I've been teaching statistics to psychologists for some years BTW)
I've participated in RoboCup in the 3D-Simulation league from 2004 to 2006.
Having no internet access is really a bad thing, and the only time that this happened when I participated was in Lisbon '04. They had only 255 IP addresses, which worked well the first two days. But when all of the about 1700 people were on site, the network broke down;)
2005 in Osaka and 2006 in Bremen worked very well on this infrastructural things
I've never heard about power outtakes at RoboCup competitions. This must be even worse than the problems of the Lisbon '04 RoboCup...
> An interesting demonstration (Kripke's argument? or Chisholm's??). haha:) Cool link!
> but it is very like that nothing is given That's the main point where we disagree. To me, the phenomenological viewpoint is much more convincing. By the way: Do you think that there's some kind of independent reality out there (Me not)? Just to make sure there's a "common ground" for arguments.
> The process of acquiring "semantics" in human beings is mysterious and by no means a solved problem. Don't forget the question "is it acquired at all"
> The difference between computers and humans isn't the ability to reason. This would only be true if "to reason" were identical to "to apply some algorithm on some set of symbols" (which is the only thing any turing machine can do).
As you can see, the whole thing stays in the realm of syntax, never getting to semantics.
> Incorporate enough complexity in the right sort of organizational framework, > and the two should be interchangable. That's a bold statement.
Could you explain what exactly mean with "enough complexity" and "the right sort of"? So, what type of complexity does it take, and what is the right sort of organization?
And France, Britain, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudia Arabia, South Africa, Brazil, and Israel have demonstrated themselves to be reliable, predictable partners in international politics?
To take this back from general politics to Galileo:
When the atomic power plant in Czernobyl blew up, the europeans suffered several days lacking appropriate information about what had happened there. The US refused to share the knowledge they had gained with their satellites.
It was the aftermath of this experience that gave rise to Galileo.
Slashdot Mirror
A major problem with these sorts of courses is that they're often not taught in a way that emphasizes their utility to the student. If you're thinking about being a psychologist for example why is calculus important? I'm not saying it isn't. I can think of several different ways it could be very important especially as it regards understanding statistics
+1
Andy Field's "Discovering Statistics Using SPSS" may serve as a text book with many good examples and an overall hands-on approach
(I've been teaching statistics to psychologists for some years BTW)
I was just about to post the same thing :)
I've participated in RoboCup in the 3D-Simulation league from 2004 to 2006.
;)
Having no internet access is really a bad thing, and the only time that this happened when I participated was in Lisbon '04. They had only 255 IP addresses, which worked well the first two days. But when all of the about 1700 people were on site, the network broke down
2005 in Osaka and 2006 in Bremen worked very well on this infrastructural things
I've never heard about power outtakes at RoboCup competitions. This must be even worse than the problems of the Lisbon '04 RoboCup...
> Yeah, "you" stepped in to europe and saved our asses from the Nazis.
The second world war was decided in the east. You shouldn't forget that.
> An interesting demonstration (Kripke's argument? or Chisholm's??). :) Cool link!
haha
> but it is very like that nothing is given
That's the main point where we disagree. To me, the phenomenological viewpoint is much more convincing.
By the way: Do you think that there's some kind of independent reality out there (Me not)? Just to make sure there's a "common ground" for arguments.
> The process of acquiring "semantics" in human beings is mysterious and by no means a solved problem.
Don't forget the question "is it acquired at all"
Silly, I was thinking the same thing about you ;)
Concerning your post: You just fell into the Fido-"Fido"-trap
That's the first interesting thought that I read in this discussion. Thank you!
> The difference between computers and humans isn't the ability to reason.
This would only be true if "to reason" were identical to "to apply some algorithm on some set of symbols" (which is the only thing any turing machine can do).
As you can see, the whole thing stays in the realm of syntax, never getting to semantics.
> Incorporate enough complexity in the right sort of organizational framework,
> and the two should be interchangable.
That's a bold statement.
Could you explain what exactly mean with "enough complexity" and "the right sort of"?
So, what type of complexity does it take, and what is the right sort of organization?
> Semantics are associations between symbols.
Sorry, but that's untrue.
Searle's Chinese Room argument (already mentioned here) should help to get the difference between syntax and semantics.
And France, Britain, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, India, Pakistan, Iran, Saudia Arabia, South Africa, Brazil, and Israel have demonstrated themselves to be reliable, predictable partners in international politics?
To take this back from general politics to Galileo:
When the atomic power plant in Czernobyl blew up, the europeans suffered several days lacking appropriate information about what had happened there. The US refused to share the knowledge they had gained with their satellites.
It was the aftermath of this experience that gave rise to Galileo.