For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.
Image descriptions and plain text captions of written content are expected of all screenshots. Here are some image text extractors (I looked these up quick and will gladly take FOSS recommendations):
-web
-iOS
Please begin copied raw text posts (lacking a screenshot that makes it apparent it is from Tumblr) with:
# This has been reposted here to Lemmy as part of the "Curated Tumblr Project."
I made the icon using multiple creative commons svg resources, the banner is this.
Remember kids that you don't feel matter; you feel the electrostatic repulsion of electrons that occupy part of the 99+% of empty space of each atom is composed of. The vibrational frequency of those atoms create heat that radiates through that void to be detected by other atoms as more or less heat energy. Over 99% of you is empty space and radiant energy, which means that mathematically you barely even exist.
We do know how things taste, sound, look, smell, feel, etc because those are all subjective concepts of perception. Without us, the physical phenomena we sense don’t do any of those things.
How does the addition of just one proton change the material's characteristics SO much??
More nerds need to get into philosophy. Specifically CS nerds. I think there’s a tendency, when you get into programming, to start seeing the world in terms of discrete, quantifiable units and categorical rules. It’s a helpful counterbalance to also study something that uses logic to deconstruct that kind of objective physicalist assumption.
I believe individuals choose the worldview that comforts/benefits one the most, and that is why programmers often think in discrete units. It helps them identify issues and handle them well. Is there a reason to introduce discomfort, when the worldview works quite well?
Also so much of how we talk about CS/software dev is cribbed directly from, not just real engineering, but also philosophy. Abstraction, concretisation, instantiation, etc.
Counterpoint, we get enough of that shit from people writing our design specs, and then give feedback like "it needs to pop more" or "this is good, but we need it to feel more modern".
So, discrete, quantifiable things make for an easier deliverable, thanks.
There’s a quote that I’m having trouble sourcing, but it’s basically:
Code is for humans to read, and only incidentally for computers to execute.
I think a lot of things are like that, especially when it comes to defining and organizing work. It’s less about making the perfect requirements document and more about getting everyone to think about a shared goal in a similar way.
Specifics are great because they make for solid landmarks. But abstract language is essential too, because it clues you into how you ought to navigate the terrain in between those landmarks.
And there is always space in between the specifics. If you managed to nail down every last detail in your spec, congratulations on your new hand-compiled programming language.
"Because you have to wonder: how do the machines know what Tasty Wheat tasted like? Maybe they got it wrong. Maybe what I think Tasty Wheat tasted like actually tasted like oatmeal, or tuna fish. That makes you wonder about a lot of things. You take chicken, for example: maybe they couldn't figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything."
It's a single-celled protein combined with synthetic aminos, vitamins and minerals. Everything the body needs.
nothing is real do what you want
That is a fallacious conclusion from this observation. Don't use this philosophy as an excuse to act like an asshole.
While everyone perceives reality slightly differently, apples do have a specific light absorption and reflection spectrum.
Our limited perception of it doesn't make it "not real". Same is true for other senses as well.
Now think about the fact that we lock people up based on eyewitness testimony....
Kind of, but only after a jury agrees that the eyewitness really saw what they thought they saw.
ITT & OP-C: People without reading habits rediscovering philosophy in the 21st century
It's just Tumblr being Tumblr: they knew exactly what they were doing, they knew the philosophical concepts already, but the posts must be phrased as some whimsical discovery mixed with internet humor and spontaneity otherwise they do not get reblogged.
That's always the Tumblr structure and tone. You can't post an explanation or reference or author, you need to make it sound like some shower thought.
Or...they're just people having shower thoughts
Well yeah, that thought is important. While apples do have an objective color in the sense that physics teaches us that electromagnetic radiation with a certain frequency is more or less likely to be absorbed/reflected, we can only perceive a subjective color.
I personally define reality as any measurement that a machine (computer or robot) can take. As such, there is an objective reality. But also, most people mostly act on emotion and not based on real data.
But also, this isn't a meme. It belongs in the philosophy or science memes community.
I personally define reality as any measurement that a machine (computer or robot) can take. As such, there is an objective reality.
Is there? How do you determine whether the machine doing the measurements is real?
The face punch method, (not a personal attack just a rather crude if effective philisophical tool) aka if I repeatedly punch you in the face you have a hard time continuing to argue that my fist is not real, or at the very least real enough for practical purposes. Personal involvment makes the situation a lot less abstract.
Oh, I never argued that fist are not a good way to determine reality, but calling your fist a machine is cringe.
Technically the person being punched is the machine in this situation, the fist is the thing being measured.
Funny – just this week I ran into the concept of Solipsism for the first time in my life, and now this post.
I sincerely doubt you ran into anything given that you don't exist.
😆🫵👏🤝
To make it even crazier while we think of color blindness as a binary thing, it's really (like most things) a spectrum.
Everyone has a slightly different ratio of cones. And some have a different amount of cones than others. Then there's the ratio of the different comes to rods.
Take any two random people and they'll likely agree what name a color is, but they both experience that color slightly differently.