4 ms·

While I think there's some truth to this, the author has it backwards in some kind of way. Or rather: The author misses an important epistemologic nuance. > On

by Garlef 5y ago

While I think there's some truth to this, the author has it backwards in some kind of way. Or rather: The author misses an important epistemologic nuance. > One year ago I paused my programming life and started writing a novel, with the illusion that my new activity was deeply different than the previous one. What's implied here is the hope for a new experience. But this can never be achieved: A programmer can never experience the writing of a novel as a non-programmer would. Furthermore: Even the similarities can only be thought about from a programmers mind. Imagine two writers discussing writing. One is a non-programmer, the other one is a programmer. Even if, after some exlpaining, the non-programmer and the programmer agree on the similarities, this can only happen because the non-programmer changed. They needed to learn some programming just to understand the similarities experienced by the programmer. The non-programmer writer will never be a non-programmer-writer again. The author experiences writing as very similar to programming precisely because they are a programmer.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
>The author experiences writing as very similar to programming precisely because they are a programmer. Sure. But the veracity of the comparison doesn't depend on the prerequisites to make the comparison.
- Garlef 5y ago
  How can there be a comparison without the prerequisites? The words don't carry any meaning without context. You could say "the veracity does not depend on the prerequisites" to mean "whoever enters the context will agree to the comparison".
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    Look, I have two objects in a locked room. They are in fact very similar objects. They have the same weight, same visual presentations, same physical composition, up to reasonable limits of measurement. In short they are very similar objects. Your approach says, the object is only similar iff someone has the key to the room and observes the two objects. Sure, the only way to tell that they are similar is to for someone or something to make the observation. But its quite something different to say that they are similar only because someone observed the two objects. Maybe that's true, but that's a pretty wild claim.

by Garlef 5y ago

jonnycomputer 5y ago

>The author experiences writing as very similar to programming precisely because they are a programmer. Sure. But the veracity of the comparison doesn't depend on the prerequisites to make the comparison.

Garlef 5y ago
How can there be a comparison without the prerequisites? The words don't carry any meaning without context. You could say "the veracity does not depend on the prerequisites" to mean "whoever enters the context will agree to the comparison".
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Look, I have two objects in a locked room. They are in fact very similar objects. They have the same weight, same visual presentations, same physical composition, up to reasonable limits of measurement. In short they are very similar objects. Your approach says, the object is only similar iff someone has the key to the room and observes the two objects. Sure, the only way to tell that they are similar is to for someone or something to make the observation. But its quite something different to say that they are similar only because someone observed the two objects. Maybe that's true, but that's a pretty wild claim.