Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

comlab.ox.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 177 posts

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#111

Post by paulbaumgart »

igravious wrote: post #78
chrisaycock wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul Graham wrote an essay a few years ago about his very frustration with this: http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

As someone with a degree in philosophy and mathematics but who has earned his bread & butter doing QA, coding, network and sys admin I feel that I have a lot of inside knowledge that I can bring to this debate. I could fill an essay myself in response to Paul's post but I'll keep it brief so as not to bore anyone. This: "Philosophy doesn't really have a subject matter in the way math or history or most other universi…

From what I know of the audience here, I think a lot of people would be interested in reading a well-reasoned response to one of pg's essays. Even if it's long.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#112

Post by albertzeyer »

ohyes wrote: post #83
mayank wrote: post #17

Caveat: this is an anecdote, and your mileage may vary, but I think it illustrates a point of contention in the "two cultures". As a computer science major in the US, I once took a "philosophy of mind" course out of a genuine multi-faceted interest in AI. I was working on undergraduate machine learning research at the time, so I used to pore over the green Norvig/Stewart AI book like a religious text. Unfortunately,…

I apologize if I am bad at articulating this. Philosophy of the Mind is much different from Artificial Intelligence. And it is also much different from Neuroscience. Neuroscience asks 'How does the Brain work?' (Based in biology and chemistry). Artificial intelligence asks 'How do I simulate human intelligence?' (Based in math, and computer science, complexity theory). Philosophy of the mind asks a lot of messy quest…

The mind isn't the brain,

Do you mean the difference of hardware and actual content or something else?

and the mind isn't strictly human intelligence, so what is it?. What is consciousness? How is it that I have an idea of self? What are my perceptions? How do I model the world around me? What's up with free will?

Isn't that what neuroscience probably will answer at some time? For example, we might get an answer to these questions from the Blue Brain project.

And maybe AI also in a somewhat different way. For example, we might get the result that all kind of intelligence has some form of consciousness and we could even define it somehow because of the knowledge we get out of AI. I even think it is very likely that we will get an advanced knowledge of what intelligence is by advances in AI.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#113

Post by igravious »

zyfo wrote: post #100
ohyes wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize if I am bad at articulating this. Philosophy of the Mind is much different from Artificial Intelligence. And it is also much different from Neuroscience. Neuroscience asks 'How does the Brain work?' (Based in biology and chemistry). Artificial intelligence asks 'How do I simulate human intelligence?' (Based in math, and computer science, complexity theory). Philosophy of the mind asks a lot of messy quest…

"when something has been solved by science, philosophers stop worrying about that realm so much" I think this sums up quite well why philosophy is perceived the way it is. Once something becomes useful it turns into a new field, which explains why it may seem as if philosophy accomplished nothing. Historically speaking, all (sans math? ~) western science stems from philosophy in its broadest sense.

I've often expressed this as philosophy is that discipline which brings other disciplines into being.

For instance the natural sciences were studied under the heading of natural philosophy for a reason at one point!

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#114

Post by jaxn »

mayank wrote: post #108
zyfo wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"when something has been solved by science, philosophers stop worrying about that realm so much" I think this sums up quite well why philosophy is perceived the way it is. Once something becomes useful it turns into a new field, which explains why it may seem as if philosophy accomplished nothing. Historically speaking, all (sans math? ~) western science stems from philosophy in its broadest sense.

In response to your comment and the (well articulated, btw) parent, the problem I have/had is in this part: "when something has been solved by science, philosophers stop worrying about that realm so much " The "so much" part was what troubled me -- most of the philosophy of mind class was historical developments, etc., but occasionally it did step into the realm of science, while ignoring everything science had to of…

I was a philosophy major and my take was always that "philosophy is the study of things science hasn't yet solved". Yes, it butts up to science and when you tread over the line that helps you either prove or disprove that part of the theory.

It is like a financial model for a startup. In the beginning you guess at what your revenue and expenses are. Then you learn some facts (my rent is $xxxx/mo and I currently have xxx paying customers). You adjust the model based on the new facts, but the rest is still your best guesswork.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#115

Post by blibble »

tomsaffell wrote: post #80
liuhenry wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I applied to Oxford for the 2011 cycle (as an American student), and it is fairly different. Oxford works under the tutorial system. There's a set number of courses and subjects, and every course is specific and roughly fixed. This is basically what the U.S. system calls a major, but you don't generally study anything outside of major. Every class you take is within your course. For the course I applied to, every wee…

>it's generally pretty hard to change courses. I cant speak of Oxford, but I knew several people at Cambridge who changed subjects (sometimes more than once). It's not trivial, but if you want it enough then there isn't much to stop you. (Once you are there then the college's MO is to support your academic success, whatever path it takes). Take-away: don't be put-off applying by this - if you need to change, you can.

To get the undergraduate degree at Cambridge you have to pass the examinations for Part I and II (some subjects have IA, IB and II and others have I, IIA and IIB), along with some other crazy medieval rules. You can trivially switch once you've completed Part I, and also within the first weeks of starting Part I; there are some other circumstances but these are the most common.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#116

Post by kmfrk »

abless wrote: post #77
kmfrk wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oxford goes through UCAS. You'll want to kill yourself when using it. Only an absurdly low amount of characters (with spaces) are allowed for the personal essay, 1600, 2400, or something, so don't start preparing for a 36-page-long piece of circumspection. It's really down-putting that there is so little focus on this part, as this is what allows applicants to stand out the most.

The personal essay is the part where applicants stand out the most? I sure don't hope so...I am tired of reading all these I-almost-cured-cancer-as-a-kid type essays that people in the US seem to submit for the undergraduate application. Give me a break, seriously. The single most important part of the Oxbridge application process is the interview. That's where you get to sit down with two professors that take you th…

Sure - if you make it to the interview.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#117

Post by user24 »

corin_ wrote: post #49
rm445 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The teaching at Oxford (and Cambridge) is stellar and more Americans should consider it as an option. Getting onto an undergraduate programme is competitive but egalitarian: you need to show you are a top performer academically and then impress at an interview. Your competition at the application stage is (very roughly speaking) the smartest kid from every British school. Very few of them will get in; every course ha…

Overall a good answer, however there is something to add. For British students, once you turn twenty-one you no longer have the same strict entry requirements, instead it's more a case of proving that you're the kind of person they want than showing what exams you've passed. (Though they're likely to ask you to do some studying before applying, to demonstrate that you're willing/able to learn.) Most likely the same f…

Yeah, I applied as a mature student to an MSc program and was accepted. At the time I had a first class IT and Philosophy BA, 4-ish years commercial programming experience, and an E grade at AS level Psychology.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#118

Post by mayank »

jaxn wrote: post #114
mayank wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In response to your comment and the (well articulated, btw) parent, the problem I have/had is in this part: "when something has been solved by science, philosophers stop worrying about that realm so much " The "so much" part was what troubled me -- most of the philosophy of mind class was historical developments, etc., but occasionally it did step into the realm of science, while ignoring everything science had to of…

I was a philosophy major and my take was always that "philosophy is the study of things science hasn't yet solved". Yes, it butts up to science and when you tread over the line that helps you either prove or disprove that part of the theory. It is like a financial model for a startup. In the beginning you guess at what your revenue and expenses are. Then you learn some facts (my rent is $xxxx/mo and I currently have…

I always imagined philosophy as the study of things beyond the realm of science. By saying that its the study of things science hasn't yet solved, you're saying that philosophy is speculation about things that science will possibly solve, but speculation without taking science to date into account, and without empiricism. That just sounds like bad science. Am I misunderstanding your point? In fact, your last three lines sound exactly like the scientific method + uninformed speculation. The difference seems to be that science insists on a way to invalidate your speculations, whereas philosophy does not.

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#119

Post by ohyes »

albertzeyer wrote: post #112
ohyes wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize if I am bad at articulating this. Philosophy of the Mind is much different from Artificial Intelligence. And it is also much different from Neuroscience. Neuroscience asks 'How does the Brain work?' (Based in biology and chemistry). Artificial intelligence asks 'How do I simulate human intelligence?' (Based in math, and computer science, complexity theory). Philosophy of the mind asks a lot of messy quest…

The mind isn't the brain, Do you mean the difference of hardware and actual content or something else? and the mind isn't strictly human intelligence, so what is it?. What is consciousness? How is it that I have an idea of self? What are my perceptions? How do I model the world around me? What's up with free will? Isn't that what neuroscience probably will answer at some time? For example, we might get an answer to t…

The mind is a concept, the brain is a physical thing.

It is very conceivable that things without brains could have minds. 'Strong' Artificial Intelligence is an example of this. Intelligent quasars would be another example. (Meat that thinks? Preposterous!)

It is also very conceivable that things without minds, could have brains. Does a dog have a mind? aardvark? chipmunk? toad? ant? They all have brains that function in basically the same way as ours do. Saying that the mind doesn't really exist is also an acceptable answer, but kind of an odd one from the perspective of someone experiencing it.

Point being: Neuroscience is primarily mechanical.

It explains human brains and monkey brains and dog brains equally well. It explains hwo they work. We primarily study human brains because we have a vested interest in understanding them. (Also we consider our own brains to be the best). We end up studying the mind in neuroscience, because it is one of the interesting (and complicated) phenomena of the human brain (as compared to an ant brain).

Re: Oxford announces new degree in Computer Science and Philosophy

#120

Post by scotty79 »

sid0 wrote: post #87
scotty79 wrote: post #55

Philosophy is what you do when you don't know something and don't know how to actually discover anything about it but you are not wise enough to let it go and find something you could actually discover something about.

Philosophy is what you do when you don't know something and don't know how to actually discover anything about it but you are not wise enough to let it go and find something you could actually discover something about. That sounds like a lot of research in maths and CS.

Math and cs can be researched because hypothesis in math and cs can be shown to be wrong. Can you point one theory that was ruled out to be wrong thanks to philosophy? If you can't then how can you find philosophy and (any) research similar?
Post reply on HN