Comment Re:somewhat diffrent (Score 3, Insightful) 215
Now imagine if programmers were overpaid, undertalented, super inflated egos, where glaring faults in code could be patched over with a public relations campaign?
Imagine?
Now imagine if programmers were overpaid, undertalented, super inflated egos, where glaring faults in code could be patched over with a public relations campaign?
Imagine?
he "10x productivity" idea is somewhat silly anyhow
That doesn't make much sense to me either. I've found that if you want productivity, you don't hire "rock stars" you hire average programmers that are comfortable working on teams. The best hire you can make is a guy who just does his job -- follows guidelines without complaining, completes one task and just moves on to the next.
Programming is easy. As a consequence, it gets really boring. When you're building LOB apps, it's even worse. The last thing you want on your hands is a bored "rock star" inventing new ways to keep himself entertained. I'm convinced that they're the #1 cause of unmaintainable software.
Ugh... It's like I'm talking to a wall.
I give up. Go ahead and continue to be irrational.
Can you do just one thing for me? Stop spreading your ignorance. As I said before, you're actively doing harm to the public understanding of science.
there is no way somebody is this dense.
I was thinking the same thing!
There are no souls any more than there are flying fire-breathing dragons
Prove it.
See, that's a claim to knowledge. That you have no reason to *believe* in such things. doesn't mean you can claim *knowledge* that they don't exist.
This isn't complicated. Faulty reasoning is always BAD, regardless of how important you find the conclusion.
You anti-science "science cheerleaders" and self-appointed "defenders of science" only care about promoting your own beliefs and obviously don't care if you support them with nonsense reasoning and laughable arguments. People like you are dangerous. You're actively doing harm to the public understanding of science.
Wrong, the claim is that we have no such thing as 'sou' that was ever measured or displayed in a measurable, repeatable way.
It's pointless to lie when anyone can see what you actually wrote by scrolling up a bit:
The answer is no, you don't have a soul, there is no such thing as a soul.
This is getting sad. Just leave science and the defense of science to those of us with ACTUAL scientific credentials. You cheerleaders are doing more damage to the public understanding of science than even the most ambitious creationist could possibly hope to achieve.
Yes, I've read his book (singular; one was enough)
Liar. Remember, you wrote:
Unless you're of the rather woolly Penrose school of thought, there's nothing "magic" involved in the physical implementation of the mind, it's just physics.
If you had ACTUALLY read any of his relevant books, you'd know that Penrose agrees that "there's nothing 'magic' involved... it's just physics."
You can argue about whether he's right or wrong
Why? The point was that your post was laughable nonsense. My only goal was to point that out, in case some unsuspecting reader thought it wasn't.
but using my opinion
Perhaps you should stop presenting your uninformed opinion as fact?
Penrose bases all of his ideas on the assumption that there are limits on computational methods that apply to machines but not to humans.
Actually, he spends a great deal of time justifying that "assumption". To claim "There is no basis for that assumption." is to disregard, out of hand, the bulk of what he's written on the subject.
Try reading his books first. You'll look less foolish.
Let me guess: You're a singularity nut?
Again, knowledge and belief are different things. You're just confused. It's probably not your fault. I blame the science cheerleaders -- they've spread more nonsense about science than the ICR could ever hope.
You're making a knowledge claim, which is completely unjustified.
It also appears that you think empiricism is the end of epistemology. You're free to believe that nonsense, but the least you could do is get it right!
What do you mean 'prove it'?
You made a positive claim. See:
The answer is no, you don't have a soul, there is no such thing as a soul.
Remember: you're talking about knowledge here, not belief, after all. Learn the difference.
you have to prove that such a thing is even a remote possibility
The only claim I made was "we don't know" which is true. We don't know.
it is an extraordinary claim to make that there is a soul
Sure. Did you miss the part where I never made such a claim?
those who make extraordinary claims have to come up with all the proof in the world to back those up.
"All the proof in the world" What does that even mean?
Sigh... I really wish the science cheerleaders with no actual scientific background would go away. They're dangerous.
Prove it
Neat, huh? The answer you were looking for is "we don't have a clue". Thanks for playing.
An epiphenomenalist? Wow. I thought you guys had all been shamed in to obscurity!
Unless you're of the rather woolly Penrose school of thought, there's nothing "magic" involved
Wow, total fail! I take it you never managed to actually get through any of his books on the subject?
Did the math scare you off? No, that's giving you too much credit. I'll bet that you "formed" "your" opinion by blindly believing some nonsense someone wrote on an internet forum. Very likely someone who also didn't read those same books.
For clarity: I'm not offering my opinion on Penrose here. I'm just pointing out that you clearly know absolutely nothing about his thoughts on the subject. You should probably avoid this topic in the future. It makes you look like a name-dropping moron.
So
Fuck you.
That was CYOA #12 Inside UFO 54-40
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds
