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

A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

daddymodern.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 107 posts

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#11

Post by Lost_BiomedE »

walexander wrote: post #3
Hisoka wrote: post #2

I feel we love our work because we all need a worthwhile struggle and goal.

I believe some of us have an intrinsic desire to build things. Just like birds build nests and bees build hives. Some of us have a desire to build and are probably rewarded with some chemical brain fix as a result. At this point though, we've simply changed the medium from sticks and mud to Python and Minecraft.

"and are probably rewarded with some chemical brain fix as a result"

Dopamine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine

Realizing what gives you award stimulus is important for reinforcing behavior you want and discouraging what you do not want. It is also good to know for all you app and game developers out there.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#13

Post by ez77 »

araneae wrote: post #12

Only programmers that enjoy philosophy. Personally I feel the whole field is obsolete with the invention of neuroethology and similar.

Neurethology for one thing assumes the existence of matter, in particular neurons... It may not be your cup of tea (or mine!), but I very much doubt philosophy will ever become obsolete as long as there is a functioning mind ;-).

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#14

Post by araneae »

ez77 wrote: post #13
araneae wrote: post #12

Only programmers that enjoy philosophy. Personally I feel the whole field is obsolete with the invention of neuroethology and similar.

Neurethology for one thing assumes the existence of matter, in particular neurons... It may not be your cup of tea (or mine!), but I very much doubt philosophy will ever become obsolete as long as there is a functioning mind ;-).

I think it's safe to assume the existence of neurons.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#16

Post by coldarchon »

araneae wrote: post #12

Only programmers that enjoy philosophy. Personally I feel the whole field is obsolete with the invention of neuroethology and similar.

Schoppenhauer and Sokrates knew more about the functions of the brain than all scientists of any neuro branch together.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#17

Post by ez77 »

araneae wrote: post #14
ez77 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neurethology for one thing assumes the existence of matter, in particular neurons... It may not be your cup of tea (or mine!), but I very much doubt philosophy will ever become obsolete as long as there is a functioning mind ;-).

I think it's safe to assume the existence of neurons.

A characteristic aspect of philosophy is to question essentially every assumption. You and I may find other things much more interesting, even if they require some basic assumptions, but that's another story.

Edit: I don't know why araneae's comments are being downvoted (despite my upvotes). His points are constructive and on topic...

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#18

Post by ubernostrum »

araneae wrote: post #12

Only programmers that enjoy philosophy. Personally I feel the whole field is obsolete with the invention of neuroethology and similar.

A wise man (my advisor when I was doing my philosophy degree) once said something to the effect of:

There are two great mistakes you can make in philosophy. One is deciding there is no ultimate answer. The other is deciding you've found it.

Re: A Philosopher Every Programmer Should Know: Susanne K. Langer

#19

Post by somephilosopher »

ez77 wrote: post #17
araneae wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's safe to assume the existence of neurons.

A characteristic aspect of philosophy is to question essentially every assumption. You and I may find other things much more interesting, even if they require some basic assumptions, but that's another story. Edit: I don't know why araneae's comments are being downvoted (despite my upvotes). His points are constructive and on topic...

I wouldn't downvote anyone, but perhaps because it's a paradigm example of a particular strain of thought you see a lot amongst techie/engineering types with limited experience of philosophy, and a line of thought that doesn't stand more than a cursory examination.

You've already answered it with your neurons example. Someone else has pointed out that neuroethology will not touch on normative facts (although will presumably uncover empirical facts that have normative significance).

People have been predicting the death of philosophy for hundreds of years. It hasn't happened yet, and it is unlikely to, as there are always fundamental questions to ask (even though progress on them is difficult, if possible - but that's another question).

Post reply on HN