The thing with SQL is that it was indeed written to allow English-like statements and to be an "easy to understand" language. If you take only the simplest SQL statements then it is easy to understand but with any complexity it indeed becomes hard.
Despite this, SQL is the most successful logic/declarative language in the world. I think it's been argued that Prolog and logic programming stalled because SQL is good enough for the largest domain that logic programming is useful for.
Ultimately, I don't think it's any missing feature in SQL that makes it hard to understand large statements - it's just that large logic statements are hard. Maybe some way to make expressions more modular - incrementally constructing "adjectives" for use where clauses for example. But much as we all like our pet improvement to logic expression, I don't think that's the problem.
Oak trees vary their acorn production substantially year by year, probably to avoid an excess of acorn "predators". And since Oaks don't die when producing acorns, they have less incentive to avoid the predators.
So the same pressures can be observed many places but the particular biology of each species varies the results.
I grew up in a house whose yard was filled with oak trees ... I'm pretty convinced they survive due to the stupidity of squirrels rather than "overwhelming" these predators. There were oftens way more acorns than needed, but every year the squirrels would work furiously to bury them ... then promptly forget where they put them. So the squirrel population was held in check by the number of acorns they could find the rest of the year and the acorns had the advantage of being buried (versus germinating on the surface).
We should also look at the article under consideration. It seems to describe a molecule that might "cure" or ameliorate the effects of aging. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence but even more, there's a big "push" to have something like this published given that in there would be a tremendous amount of money interested in investing in a project that appears to have even a one percent chance of being that big.
I have to be careful to adjust the level of detail down. And, frankly, that's one thing Agile is good for - the use of narrative.
I feel like shop work ( saws, sanding, filing, etc ) and music are better for that but maybe that's bias. Sports teaches some things, but there's an awful lot of sorting going on and some of the "adults" have weird reasons for being there. But I think of character as "what you do when nobody is looking."
Truly great coaches are worth it, though. The best one I ever had told me to get out of sports :)
Yeah I agree, but I suppose the person has to be willing to learn too. I can point to a couple of specific teachers and lecturers during my school years, and then the technical director at one job, who all influenced me a lot and shaped my work ethic and desire for attention to detail. Colleagues and friends may not have felt as influenced by the same people.
Can you teach someone to be good at what they do? Of course you can study people who are good at what they do. Perhaps other people who want to become good at what they do can learn from that. However, no one will become good at what they do purely by emulating someone else, since what they do won't be the same thing.
Besides. Things like Agile aren't "observing what people who are good at what they do, do". It's a formalized process based on the ideas that some people who are good at what they do have about WHY they are good at what they do. But do people who are good at what they do really know why they are so? They probably don't! Besides, they are going to mix in all kinds of things that they think they do, or they think they should do, or they think that good people they learned from did, in that formalized process. In the end, the process they describe may sound good to them, but have very little to do with what good people actually do or should do in any particular circumstance.
Right. The paper also only takes a few seconds to identify as bullshit: rather than having any claims whatsoever about biology or how the human brain in particular depends on quantum behavior, it just takes the Copenhagen-interpretation concept of "observer" over-literally.
While others may have more credible claims that the brain's operation depends on quantum behavior, my inclination is to be highly skeptical due to the basic nature of biology combined with the bias you cite.
Because our experience of the world is the thing we hold most dear. We associate it with our identity, to the point where the two seem inseparable. The idea that we are "in the world, but not of it" is very deeply ingrained. Our tendency towards introspection alienates us from nature, and leads us to the conclusion that there must be something that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Just about everyone has a deep-seated desire to be special, to be destined for a higher purpose -- and that view is not (generally) compatible with the notion that consciousness is an emergent physical phenomenon, rather than evidence of a soul.
I don't think it is justified to say that consciousness is not a riddle. There is no evidence that consciousness is more than the product of the complex physical processes happening in our brain but I don't think that makes the issue any less puzzling. How does a collection of particles completely governed by physical laws become conscious? If consciousness is just an emergent property of an incredible complex state machine than any implementation would have to be conscious, the often quoted simulation of a brain inside a computer as well as a gigantic pile of levers, gears and pulleys in the right arrangement. The thought that a collection of gears can become aware of its existence seems, at least to me, pretty outlandish.
> The thought that a collection of gears can become aware of its existence seems, at least to me, pretty outlandish.
I mean, it's less exciting when you break that down into the what it means for a person to be aware of themselves. For me, it breaks down to neurons & symbols, well-known scientific domains. While I may not be right, it's not difficult to come up with plausible explanations for the phenomena humans experience. Most of the mystery comes from it being very difficult for most people to even define consciousness. Much of the syntax we have for it (in the west, at least) is cobbled together from various religions, spiritualities, and extremely, extremely dense philosophers read by few and understood by fewer.
You might find Richard Hofstadter's Book "I Am A Strange Loop" illuminating if you find my explanation meager.
>I mean, it's less exciting when you break that down into the what it means for a person to be aware of themselves. For me, it breaks down to neurons & symbols, well-known scientific domains.
I'm not aware of "neurons and symbols". I'm aware of feeling, sight, smell, etc.. The fact that consciousness is an experience is what's fundamentally at odds with building a consistent model. Modeling cognition is the easy part.
> If consciousness is just an emergent property of an incredible complex state machine
it is just an obvious conclusion once you observe the continuous chain of living matter between first clumps of amino acids in primordeal soup 2B+ years ago and you. There is just no point where one can say that consciousness didn't exist before and started exist immediately after. It was just increasing as the complexity of the system increased, and will continue to increase beyond humans. What we call consciousness, the carriers of future consciousness would look at like we look at lizards' consciousness today.
>than any implementation would have to be conscious, the often quoted simulation of a brain inside a computer as well as a gigantic pile of levers, gears and pulleys in the right arrangement.
giving that these examples are simpler than a simple cell, it is no surprise that we don't observe any noticeable consciousness in these examples.
>The thought that a collection of gears can become aware of its existence seems, at least to me, pretty outlandish.
Can a collection of gears, given enough size and complexity, behave in a way as to attempt to maximize entropy it would generate over its whole period of existence? Can it make a copy of itself with modifications as to increase the target entropy achievable by the copy? This 2 "can"s is actually what defines the living matter. Consciousness is just the emerging algorithm of maximizing the target entropy. Self-awareness is just ability of algorithms to observe its own "subroutines".
San Francisco is currently getting the overflow from massively constricted housing market of San Jose and the Peninsula. Build high rises in East Palo Alto and you satisfy the demands of the "anti-gentrifiers" and make the labor more elastic.
I don't think his later comments really negate his earlier comments.
Neural networks continue to make progress in the narrow field they are designed for and researching these I'm sure continues to be interesting. That doesn't change the point that human don't interpret an image as a couple of annotations but as rich fabric of information far beyond what computer vision current does.
Basically, there is a ocean of interesting, useful and excite things computers can do before they arrive at what humans can do.