For Dijkstra, programming was closer to mathematics than to a craft. The goal wasn’t to “get a feel” for code. The goal was to reason about it rigorously, to understand why it works before discovering whether it works.
The second part of this talk pursues some of the scientific and educational consequences of the assumption that computers represent a radical novelty. In order to give this assumption clear contents, we have to be much more precise as to what we mean in this context by the adjective “radical”. We shall do so in the first part of this talk, in which we shall furthermore supply evidence in support of our assumption.
The usual way in which we plan today for tomorrow is in yesterday’s vocabulary. We do so, because we try to get away with the concepts we are familiar with and that have acquired their meanings in our past experience. Of course, the words and the concepts don’t quite fit because our future differs from our past, but then we stretch them a little bit. Linguists are quite familiar with the phenomenon that the meanings of words evolve over time, but also know that this is a slow and gradual process.
It is the most common way of trying to cope with novelty: by means of metaphors and analogies we try to link the new to the old, the novel to the familiar. Under sufficiently slow and gradual change, it works reasonably well; in the case of a sharp discontinuity, however, the method breaks down: though we may glorify it with the name “common sense”, our past experience is no longer relevant, the analogies become too shallow, and the metaphors become more misleading than illuminating. This is the situation that is characteristic for the “radical” novelty.
I really liked Jacque Fresco. Not as a thinker I was supposed to admire, but as a person: the humor, the humility, the scientific curiosity still burning at 97.
That made the disagreements harder, not easier.
Fresco spent almost a century arguing one idea. We apply the methods of #science to engineering, to medicine, to flight. Then we run our economies and our politics on opinion, tradition, and the preferences of the financial elite.
He thought we had it exactly inverted. Rigor for the machines, guesswork for the humans.
“Technology was never the hard part. The harder question is what kind of society we want it to serve.”
Lisa Feldman Barrett, Michael Levin and Adam Frank discuss whether science should abandon its materialist framework.
Could a different metaphysics help science to progress further?
With a free trial, you can watch the full debate NOW at https://iai.tv/video/science-beyond-t… centuries, we’ve assumed that science has banished the transcendent and established that reality is entirely physical. But critics argue there are signs that a rigorous materialism might be holding science back. Increasingly, “emergence” is used to account for everything from consciousness to spacetime – a convenient placeholder for what materialist science may be unable to explain. Physicists like Heisenberg and Hawking concluded that science gives us models of reality, rather than final descriptions of its true nature, while there are scientists working in everything from biology to computer science who suggest that dualism is a productive metaphysical framework for their research. Materialism may have enabled science to reach beyond the dogmas of religion, but there are now those who are restlessly probing the limits of materialism itself. Does science need to assume a materialist account of the world or might this have fundamental limitations? Could a different metaphysics help science make progress on key questions, from the origin of life to the mysteries of quantum gravity? Or would abandoning materialism risk returning us to the myths of superstition and religion? #science #materialism #metaphysics Lisa Feldman Barrett is among the most cited scientists in the world for her research on the psychology and neuroscience of emotions. Adam Frank is an astrophysicist who explores the origins of stars, civilizations and consciousness, and is a leading figure in astrobiology and the search for alien life. Michael Levin is a synthetic biologist whose pioneering work in regenerative biology involves building biological robots to probe the nature of life, intelligence and evolution. Güneş Taylor hosts. The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! https://iai.tv/subscribe?utm_source=Y… 0:00 Intro 1:34 Science cannot reveal objective reality 5:28 — History shows that materialism is one of many philosophies of science 8:59 There are some mathematical facts which are discovered, not chosen 12:14 Does materialism prevent mythical and superstitious views of reality? 14:56 There is no 3rd person view of the universe 18:05 Is science truly reproducible? For debates and talks: https://iai.tv For articles: https://iai.tv/articles For courses: https://iai.tv/iai-academy/courses.
For centuries, we’ve assumed that science has banished the transcendent and established that reality is entirely physical. But critics argue there are signs that a rigorous materialism might be holding science back. Increasingly, “emergence” is used to account for everything from consciousness to spacetime – a convenient placeholder for what materialist science may be unable to explain. Physicists like Heisenberg and Hawking concluded that science gives us models of reality, rather than final descriptions of its true nature, while there are scientists working in everything from biology to computer science who suggest that dualism is a productive metaphysical framework for their research. Materialism may have enabled science to reach beyond the dogmas of religion, but there are now those who are restlessly probing the limits of materialism itself.
Does science need to assume a materialist account of the world or might this have fundamental limitations? Could a different metaphysics help science make progress on key questions, from the origin of life to the mysteries of quantum gravity? Or would abandoning materialism risk returning us to the myths of superstition and religion?
For centuries, we’ve assumed that science has banished the transcendent and established that reality is entirely physical. But critics argue there are signs that a rigorous materialism might be holding science back. Increasingly, “emergence” is used to account for everything from consciousness to spacetime – a convenient placeholder for what materialist science may be unable to explain. Physicists like Heisenberg and Hawking concluded that science gives us models of reality, rather than final descriptions of its true nature, while there are scientists working in everything from biology to computer science who suggest that dualism is a productive metaphysical framework for their research. Materialism may have enabled science to reach beyond the dogmas of religion, but there are now those who are restlessly probing the limits of materialism itself.
Go to https://ground.news/sabine to see through media bias and know where your news is coming from. Take advantage of their Holiday Sale to get 40% OFF unlimited access this month only.
Everyone loves to talk about complex problems and complex systems, but no one has any idea what it means. I think that understanding complexity is THE biggest gap in science today. What do we even mean by complexity? What do we know about it? And what’s the problem with trying to explain it? That’s what we’ll talk about in this video.
00:00 Intro. 00:28 What is complexity? 02:57 Measures for complexity. 07:41 Properties of complex systems. 13:33 Recent Approaches. 16:20 Stay up-to-date with Ground News.
Excellent article on the importance of private funding for cutting-edge science.
“The skepticism toward private science funding is part of a broader anti-capitalist sentiment, likely fueled by real affordability problems in housing, healthcare, and education. These concerns are understandable. But directing private capital toward fundamental science benefits everyone, and treating this the same as other uses of wealth only ensures that money flows into megayachts rather than research.”
Private wealth funded most of history’s scientific breakthroughs. Stigmatizing it now is holding us all back.
“The biggest surprise was that the ship goo had life in it at all,” researcher Cody Sheik, who discovered the substance, said in a press release. “We thought we’d find nothing. But surprisingly, we found DNA, and it wasn’t too destroyed, nor was the biomass too low.”
After further analysis, the team reconstructed 20 genomes from the sample. Some appear to represent entirely new branches of life, including what could be a previously unknown order of archaea and even a new bacterial phylum.
Inside the goo, scientists found microbes that thrive in semi-warm environments with no oxygen — conditions that closely match those inside the ship’s mechanical systems. Researchers believe the organisms may have hitchhiked on oil used to grease the rudder, remaining dormant until conditions allowed them to grow.
