Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.mixmin.net!eweka.nl!hq-usenetpeers.eweka.nl!xlned.com!feeder3.xlned.com!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMbF=C8n-F9Fbbs_qYUKH4azXYhnMb6QrbT+VUi_y6m8TE+ydw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMbF=C_GF_AKO2dD_=bH6VN2GVcSbC=KtHFLw62CKq2yitcfyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMbF=C8n-F9Fbbs_qYUKH4azXYhnMb6QrbT+VUi_y6m8TE+ydw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jake Angulo <jake.angulo@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:31:00 +1000
Subject: Re: Python for philosophers
To: python-list@python.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6050ee0da58404dca7c89a
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.1660.1368513088.3114.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 535
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:45286

--047d7b6050ee0da58404dca7c89a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> Do I want to learn to program?
> I didn't say I've wanted to learn to program neither said the
> opposite. I've said that I wasn't sure.


Hmmmm... i'd say you'll make very good business applications analyst.  In
fact i'd hazard to say you can make it to CIO.

Recommended reading:
* PERL for dummies by: Paul Hoffman
* Crime & Punishment by: Fyodor Dostoyevsky

With your natural philosophical talent, and just a little more
 supplementary knowledge you would Pwn & ruLZ!


Just...
pls...
dont do programming...
and Never do Python.


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> wrote=
:

> I'm amazed with your feedback, even when due to a lack of knowledge I'm
> not able to discuss some of them. I've been inspecting the stuff about
> rewriting and that drew my attention to my first intuition of Python bein=
g
> economic. Maybe could it support my impression about a thing thats behind
> the language and got to do with condensing expressions until their end
> point is reached. I'll absolutely read the book you recommended, coz look=
s
> perfect. The dis module thing sounds and looks perfect too. Then again
> something that was discussed here about Python being economic or not and
> how or in which sense also threw some light on my first impression about
> the language. Everything here is interesting and illustrative. Anyway, I
> think that maybe I'm missing the point and I'm not being capable of
> expressing the fundamentals of the reason why I'm here. I thought that th=
e
> most convenient thing to do is trying to keep myself attached to the
> natural language I master (so to speak) and answer the a set of questions
> that has been formulated. Maybe with this I'm helping myself.
>
> Towards what purpose I'm just inspecting Python's environment?
> Towards what purpose one would be just inspecting Chess' environment.
> Eventually, I could end up playing; but that isn't told yet.
>
> Do I want to learn to program?
> I didn't say I've wanted to learn to program neither said the opposite.
> I've said that I wasn't sure. And I said that because it's true. I'm not
> sure. Sureness tends to proliferate at its highest rate when one is looki=
ng
> to know. I'm looking to understand this something called Python. I've cam=
e
> here as explorer. I know_about numbers of things that go_about a number o=
f
> topics of various supposedly most separated sciences. Since I sometimes
> have the capacity for combining these knowledge units in a fancy way and
> "realize" a great deal of things, is that I use a lot the verb "realize".
> These constant instantiations of mine are like well done objects of real
> true knowledge, made somehow by myself, by calling a method called
> "understanding" from the class that corresponds and apply to any number o=
f
> memorized_data_objects that were previously instantiated in my mind comin=
g
> from my senses. For me this seems to look like what follows:
>
> >>> understanding(combination(a_set_of _memorized_data_objects))
>
> >>> def real_knowledge
> >>>     understanding(a_set_of_memorized_data_objects)  # How does this
> look?
>
> I'm positive about that being told all the time about everything is prett=
y
> much an economic issue, it just saves time, which in this environment sav=
es
> money, but at the cost of not playing with real knowledge that's verified
> by each self (checksummed so to speak). Monkeys didn't developed our actu=
al
> brains just by being told about everything, but experiencing the phenomen=
a,
> that now we humans are talking about.
>
> If not, then why do I care about Python programming?
> In part is like a gut_decision. Internet is plenty of information about
> one or another thing that one could be looking for, I've taken a look to
> Ruby and Java and C++, but was a set of Python characteristics that reall=
y
> matched with something inside of me. An entity named Python must be someh=
ow
> as a serpent. Don't forget that I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now
> I'm not trying to follow the path of what's told but acting like the monk=
ey
> and pushing with my finger against the skin of the snake. Could be the ca=
se
> that a stimulus_response method is being called inside of me. If that's t=
he
> case, objects instantiated by the stimulus_response method are the first
> ones that can be considered scientific like, inside of me. Python also mu=
st
> be an entity that's able to swallow, doesn't matter that it's chicken
> object. Then it will throw whatever by its tail. For me that's interestin=
g
> and, in me, interestingness use to call the understanding method. Then I
> realize that what's stated above implies that I can feed Python, and (her=
e
> starts the magic) see what type of whatever throws back by its tail. Then
> I'll approach to smell any possible profit.
>
> What do I aim to get out of this exercise?
> Since actually I'm not running for programmer, my reason for understandin=
g
> Python must be sui generis and it is.
>
> What do I think "Python's core" means?
> More than thinking I'm just trying to guess what Python's core must be.
> Any phenomena has a core. Maybe Python is economic as a snake and it is
> almost all core. What would be the core of a digestive system covered wit=
h
> skin? Considering Python as which in itself is all its truth and nothing
> but its truth (that's to say thinking it without all its optionals) I ten=
d
> to look at it as if one of the most economic living creatures, and maybe =
a
> core in itself.
>
> One color note is that in the serpent class there's no attachment method.
> Serpents are unemotional, they use to drop their eggs here and there
> without a care. Serpent class lacks of empathy method.
>
> What do I mean by "global definition"?
> I mean one that would generic enough that includes myself.
>
> What's an "entity"?
> It could be any phenomena. I just wanted to frame something and draw the
> attention to it, even if I'm still not in the position of label the
> phenomena in a correct manner nor conceptualize it at all.
>
> Why do my affirmation pre-suppose that exists something *more fundamental=
*
> to programming that Python is for?
> With this I don't mean more important but fundamental, that comes from
> foundation, that's to say something meta or previous.
>
> Aside from driving screws, what is the single and most basic use of a
> screwdriver?
> Aside the use that materialistic marketing tends to include in its eterna=
l
> propaganda, there's another use of whatever tool that I, the monkey, am
> able to manipulate. My hand and my thought are engaged in the closest
> relationship one can ever imagine. Manipulating, sets a foo in my brains,
> foo that doesn't set the just listening to what someone would tell_about.
> The case is I'm not able to get my material hands over Python, but that
> doesn't mean that I must merely observe it as if it were non material. I'=
m
> trying at least to emulate certain conditions to fill this gap. Modeling
> something that could be called object_manipulation in order to understand
> sounds crazy and maybe it is, it's paradoxical too, at the same time soun=
ds
> logic.
>
>
> For my purposes, what is so special about interactive mode that I single
> it out in this way?
> Using the command line I'm setting myself closer to what I'm trying to
> understand. That doesn't seem to be what one would consider doing wrong.
>
> Why do I tend to believe that interactive mode isn't just like
> non-interactive mode?
> It seems that there are tiny differences between typing on the command
> line and running a .py file. This drew my attention to the fact that bein=
g
> economic has a lot to do with my purpose, so I decided to avoid the tiny
> differences.
>
> Why do I insist on the fact that "I must prevent myself from knowing too
> much about a subject, that the best for me here is trying to fill the gap=
s,
> mostly, using intuition?
> This is an important question that I've tried to answer close to the star=
t.
>
> Why do I believe that intuition isn't greatly over-rated, and that most o=
f
> the time, isn't just an excuse for prejudice, and a way to avoid
> understanding?
> This is another good question that I've already tried to answer.
>
> What do I think "to know" means? What do I think "to understand" means?
> I've already tried to answer this.
>
> What do I think Python's "axiomatic parameters" are, and how did I come t=
o
> that conclusion given that I know virtually nothing about Python?
> I'm coping with this, as I've already stated, as if Python and Chess
> inherit from Games. Games are known for being a particular kind of
> phenomena, phenomena that not always but often includes something called
> board, that's to say whatever in that game that remains immutable and
> serves as its basic constant. With "axiomatic parameters" I've tried to
> illustrate this immutable. That could be called perimeter or edge or
> boundary, and even if all of those labels denote a limit, all of them,
> unless for me, sound like... static. To think about Python in terms of
> something that's static seems incorrect. "Axiomatic parameters" looked li=
ke
> an initial limit that one can set, it just sounded accurate for a Python'=
s
> kind of thing.
>
> Why do I maintain that Python could be something like chess.
> From the "trying to understand" point of view, everything can be
> considered a game. In my opinion even science could be considered a game
> that could be played in solitary mode.
>
>  Am I getting closer to the point?
>
>
> 2013/5/11 Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com>
>
>> Hi,
>> this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original
>> purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At
>> this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to
>> Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of
>> view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an
>> "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication
>> about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but =
in
>> the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself abo=
ut
>> Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entit=
y
>> it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic resu=
lt
>> one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I
>> roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an *economic
>> mirror for data*, one that mainly *mirrors* the data the programmer
>> types on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typ=
ed
>> it, but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for
>> example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears
>> between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but
>> expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the
>> apostrophes).
>>
>> So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that
>> mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back =
the
>> most shortened expression of that data?
>>
>> Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things tha=
t
>> programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the
>> lowest level of it's existence.
>>
>> Thanks a lot for your time.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> =BFHas le=EDdo =ABLas Novelas Prohibidas=BB <http://lasnovelasprohibidas.=
com/>?
>
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
>

--047d7b6050ee0da58404dca7c89a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><br></div><div><div>On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen Kant &lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:citizenkant@gmail.com">citizenkant@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrot=
e:</div><div>&gt; Do I want to learn to program?</div><div>&gt; I didn&#39;=
t say I&#39;ve wanted to learn to program neither said the</div>

<div>&gt; opposite. I&#39;ve said that I wasn&#39;t sure.</div></div><div><=
br></div><div><br></div><div>Hmmmm... i&#39;d say you&#39;ll make very good=
 business applications analyst. =A0In fact i&#39;d hazard to say you can ma=
ke it to CIO.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Recommended reading:</div><div>* PERL for dummies by:=
=A0Paul Hoffman</div><div>* Crime &amp; Punishment by:=A0Fyodor Dostoyevsky=
</div><div><br></div><div>With your natural philosophical talent, and just =
a little more =A0supplementary knowledge you would Pwn &amp; ruLZ!</div>

<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Just...=A0</div><div>pls... =A0</div><di=
v>dont do programming...=A0</div><div>and Never do Python.</div><div><br></=
div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Citizen=
 Kant <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:citizenkant@gmail.com" target=
=3D"_blank">citizenkant@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>I&#39;m amaz=
ed with your feedback, even when due to a lack of=20
knowledge I&#39;m not able to discuss some of them. I&#39;ve been=20
inspecting the stuff about rewriting and that drew my attention to my first=
 intuition of Python being economic. Maybe could it support my impression a=
bout a
 thing thats behind the language and got to do with condensing=20
expressions until their end point is reached. I&#39;ll absolutely read the =
book you=20
recommended, coz looks perfect. The dis module thing sounds and looks=20
perfect too. Then again something that was discussed here about Python=20
being economic or not and how or in which sense also threw some light on my=
 first=20
impression about the language. Everything here is interesting and=20
illustrative. Anyway, I think that maybe I&#39;m missing the point and I=
9;m=20
not being capable of expressing the fundamentals of the reason why I&#39;m=
=20
here. I thought that the most convenient thing to do is trying to keep=20
myself attached to the natural language I master (so to speak) and=20
answer the a set of questions that has been formulated. Maybe with this I&#=
39;m helping myself.<br><br></div><div>Towards what purpose I&#39;m just in=
specting Python&#39;s environment?<br>
Towards what purpose one would be just inspecting Chess&#39; environment. E=
ventually, I could end up playing; but that isn&#39;t told yet.<br><br>Do I=
 want to learn to program?<br></div>I didn&#39;t say I&#39;ve wanted to lea=
rn to program neither said the opposite. I&#39;ve said
 that I wasn&#39;t sure. And I said that because it&#39;s true. I&#39;m not=
 sure.
 Sureness tends to proliferate at its highest rate when one is looking=20
to know. I&#39;m looking to understand this something called Python. I&#39;=
ve=20
came here as explorer. I know_about numbers of things that go_about a
 number of topics of various supposedly most separated sciences. Since I=20
sometimes have the capacity for combining these knowledge units in a=20
fancy way and &quot;realize&quot; a great deal of things, is that I use a l=
ot the=20
verb &quot;realize&quot;. These constant instantiations of mine are like we=
ll done=20
objects of real true knowledge, made somehow by myself, by calling a=20
method called &quot;understanding&quot; from the class that corresponds and=
 apply=20
to any number of memorized_data_objects that were previously=20
instantiated in my mind coming from my senses. For me this seems to look li=
ke what follows:<br><br>&gt;&gt;&gt; understanding(combination(a_set_of _me=
morized_data_objects))<br><br>&gt;&gt;&gt; def real_knowledge=A0 <br>&gt;&g=
t;&gt;=A0=A0=A0=A0 understanding(a_set_of_memorized_data_objects)=A0 # How =
does this look?<br>


<br></div>I&#39;m
 positive about that being told all the time about everything is pretty=20
much an economic issue, it just saves time, which in this environment saves=
 money, but at the=20
cost of not playing with real knowledge that&#39;s verified by each self=20
(checksummed so to speak). Monkeys didn&#39;t developed our actual brains j=
ust by=20
being told about everything, but experiencing the phenomena, that now we hu=
mans=20
are talking about.<br><br><div>If not, then why do I care about Python prog=
ramming?<br></div><div>In
 part is like a gut_decision. Internet is plenty of information about=20
one or another thing that one could be looking for, I&#39;ve taken a look t=
o
 Ruby and Java and C++, but was a set of Python characteristics that really=
=20
matched with something inside of me. An entity named Python must be=20
somehow as a serpent. Don&#39;t forget that I&#39;m with the freeing up of =
my memory,
 now I&#39;m not trying to follow the path of what&#39;s told but acting li=
ke=20
the monkey and pushing with my finger against the skin of the snake.=20
Could be the case that a stimulus_response method is being called inside of=
 me. If=20
that&#39;s the case, objects instantiated by the stimulus_response method=
=20
are the first ones that can be considered scientific like, inside of me. Py=
thon also=20
must be an entity that&#39;s able to swallow, doesn&#39;t matter that it=
9;s=20
chicken object. Then it will throw whatever by its tail. For me that&#39;s=
=20
interesting and, in me, interestingness use to call the understanding=20
method. Then I realize that what&#39;s stated above implies that I can feed=
 Python, and (here starts the magic) see what type of whatever throws=20
back by its tail. Then I&#39;ll approach to smell any possible profit.<br><=
br>What do I aim to get out of this exercise?<br>
Since actually I&#39;m not running for programmer, my reason for understand=
ing Python must be sui generis and it is.<br>=A0<br>What do I think &quot;P=
ython&#39;s core&quot; means?<br>More
 than thinking I&#39;m just trying to guess what Python&#39;s core must be.=
 Any=20
phenomena has a core. Maybe Python is economic as a snake and it is=20
almost all core. What would be the core of a digestive system covered=20
with skin? Considering Python as which in itself is all its truth and=20
nothing but its truth (that&#39;s to say thinking it without all its option=
als) I tend=20
to look at it as if one of the most economic living creatures, and maybe
 a core in itself.<br><br>One color note is that in the serpent class=20
there&#39;s no attachment method. Serpents are unemotional, they use to dro=
p
 their eggs here and there without a care. Serpent class lacks of=20
empathy method.<br><br>What do I mean by &quot;global definition&quot;?<br>=
I mean one that would generic enough that includes myself.<br><br>What&#39;=
s an &quot;entity&quot;?<br>It
 could be any phenomena. I just wanted to frame something and draw the=20
attention to it, even if I&#39;m still not in the position of label the phe=
nomena in a=20
correct manner nor conceptualize it at all.<br><br>Why do my affirmation pr=
e-suppose that exists something *more fundamental* to programming that Pyth=
on is for?<br></div><div>With
 this I don&#39;t mean more important but fundamental, that comes from=20
foundation, that&#39;s to say something meta or previous.<br>=A0<br>Aside f=
rom driving screws, what is the single and most basic use of a screwdriver?=
<br></div><div>Aside the use that materialistic marketing=20
tends to include in its eternal propaganda, there&#39;s another use of=20
whatever tool that I, the monkey, am able to manipulate. My hand and my=20
thought are engaged in the closest relationship one can ever imagine.=20
Manipulating, sets a foo in my brains, foo that doesn&#39;t set the just=20
listening to what someone would tell_about. The case is I&#39;m not able to=
=20
get my material hands over Python, but that doesn&#39;t mean that I must=20
merely observe it as if it were non material. I&#39;m trying at least to=20
emulate certain conditions to fill this gap. Modeling something that could =
be called object_manipulation in order to understand sounds=20
crazy and maybe it is, it&#39;s paradoxical too, at the same time sounds
 logic. <br></div><div><br></div><div><br>For my purposes, what is so speci=
al about interactive mode that I single it out in this way?<br>Using
 the command line I&#39;m setting myself closer to what I&#39;m trying to=
=20
understand. That doesn&#39;t seem to be what one would consider doing wrong=
. <br>=A0<br>Why do I tend to believe that interactive mode isn&#39;t just =
like non-interactive mode?<br>It seems that there are tiny differences betw=
een typing on the command=20
line and running a .py file. This drew my attention to the fact that=20
being economic has a lot to do with my purpose, so I decided to avoid the t=
iny differences.<br><br>Why do I insist=20
on the fact that &quot;I must prevent myself from knowing too much about a=
=20
subject, that the best for me here is trying to fill the gaps, mostly,=20
using intuition?<br></div><div>This is an important question that I&#39;ve =
tried to answer close to the start.<br></div><div>
<br>Why do I believe that intuition isn&#39;t greatly over-rated, and that=
=20
most of the time, isn&#39;t just an excuse for prejudice, and a way to avoi=
d
 understanding?<br></div><div>This is another good question that I&#39;ve a=
lready tried to answer.<br></div><div><br>What do I think &quot;to know&quo=
t; means? What do I think &quot;to understand&quot; means?<br>I&#39;ve alre=
ady tried to answer this.<br>


<br>What
 do I think Python&#39;s &quot;axiomatic parameters&quot; are, and how did =
I come to=20
that conclusion given that I know virtually nothing about Python?<br>
I&#39;m coping with this, as I&#39;ve already stated, as if Python and Ches=
s=20
inherit from Games. Games are known for being a particular kind of=20
phenomena, phenomena that not always but often includes something called
 board, that&#39;s to say whatever in that game that remains immutable and=
=20
serves as its basic constant. With &quot;axiomatic parameters&quot; I&#39;v=
e tried to illustrate
 this immutable. That could be called perimeter or edge or boundary, and ev=
en if
 all of those labels denote a limit, all of them, unless for me, sound like=
... static. To think about Python in terms of something that&#39;s static s=
eems incorrect.=20
&quot;Axiomatic parameters&quot; looked like an initial limit that one can =
set, it just=20
sounded accurate for a Python&#39;s kind of thing.<br><br>Why do I maintain=
 that Python could be something like chess.<br></div>From the &quot;trying =
to understand&quot; point of view, everything can be considered a game. In =
my opinion even science could be considered a game that could be played in =
solitary mode.<br>


<br></div>=A0Am I getting closer to the point?<br></div><div class=3D"gmail=
_extra"><div><div class=3D"h5"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2013/5/11=
 Citizen Kant <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:citizenkant@gmail.com=
" target=3D"_blank">citizenkant@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br>


<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>this could be seen as an extravagant =
subject but that is not my original purpose. I still don&#39;t know if I wa=
nt to become a programmer or not. At this moment I&#39;m just inspecting th=
e environment. I&#39;m making my way to Python (and OOP in general) from a =
philosophical perspective or point of view and try to set the more global d=
efinition of Python&#39;s core as an &quot;entity&quot;. In order to do tha=
t, and following Wittgenstein&#39;s indication about that the true meaning =
of words doesn&#39;t reside on dictionaries but in the use that we make of =
them, the starting question I make to myself about Python is: which is the =
single and most basic use of Python as the entity it is? I mean, beside pro=
gramming, what&#39;s the single and most basic result one can expect from &=
quot;interacting&quot; with it directly (interactive mode)? I roughly came =
to the idea that Python could be considered as an <b>economic mirror for da=
ta</b>, one that mainly <b>mirrors</b> the data the programmer types on its=
 black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it, but expr=
essed in the most economic way possible. That&#39;s to say, for example, if=
 one types &gt;&gt;&gt;1+1 Python reflects &gt;&gt;&gt;2. When data appears=
 between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but express=
ed in the most economic way possible (that&#39;s to say without the apostro=
phes).<br>



<br>So, would it be legal (true) to define Python&#39;s core as an entity t=
hat mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back=
 the most shortened expression of that data?<br><br>Don&#39;t get me wrong.=
 I can see the big picture and the amazing things that programmers write on=
 Python, it&#39;s just that my question points to the lowest level of it=
9;s existence.<br>



<br>Thanks a lot for your time.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br></div></div><div class=3D"im">=
-- <br>------------------------------------------------------------------<d=
iv>=BFHas le=EDdo=A0<a href=3D"http://lasnovelasprohibidas.com/" target=3D"=
_blank">=ABLas Novelas Prohibidas=BB</a>?</div>



</div></div>
<br>--<br>
<a href=3D"http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list" target=3D"_=
blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>

--047d7b6050ee0da58404dca7c89a--