qaminsod

That's why I pirate all my music.

Seems like getting rid of lobbying and other forms of legalized corruption might be a good start.

> You can’t just go around changing words all willy nilly. Language is a group effort and different words have different meanings.

If you're going to argue semantics, then at least start with some definitions for the words you're arguing about. Your definition of perception as just the sensory input and interpretation as a conclusion based on this perception is not the only way or even the common way to use the words in this context.

For example:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapt...

> Perception refers to the set of processes we use to make sense of the different stimuli we’re presented with. Our perceptions are based on how we interpret different sensations.

and

> Perception: The organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information

> The scientific method has been used very reliably and predictably to solve very big problems.

When you say 'very reliably and predictably' what does that actually mean? What does 'very' mean? Do we have a way of objectively measuring these things?

> But in society we have decided to arrive at similar interpretations to many things so that we can function.

'Decided to arrive at' and 'arrived at' are not the same thing and also depend on your 'interpretation' of society. An electron doesn't decide to behave similarly to other electrons even if it does so, for example.

Replace 'perception' with 'interpretation' and my comment still applies. Interpretation can be thought of as part of perception or vice versa depending how you look at it. If you define interpretation as some stage of perception/observation that humans agree on then the statement 'interpretations are agreed upon by individuals' is a truism that doesn't really mean anything.

Nothing is truly repeatable because we don't have the ability to perform truly controlled experiments - we can't control time for example.

What you perceive as agreement and/or similarities in perception, is just your perception. Furthermore it says nothing about how much we can agree on and understand.

Sure, you could list a finite number of things humans perceive in a similar way, based on your own perception, but what about the possibly infinite number of things that humans don't perceive the same way or agree on?

> If it were inconsistent to that extent

To what extent? Do we have a way of measuring our understanding of the world?

> Yep you can make sense of it. Everyone can, and does. It happens every time cars stop at a red stop light.

You're assuming we all agree on what stop lights, rules of the road, cars, etc. are. If you see a red stop light from your perspective, I may see what from my perspective is a yellow ball - if you were to replace some part of your 'world-interpreter' with part of mine you might see a green frog. Also, just because we appear to act in certain patterns doesn't mean we can make sense of them. Can an electron make sense of itself?

> Even though we may perceive the same red stop light differently, we can still interpret it to mean “stop”.

Not really since you're just witnessing what I'm doing from your perspective - stopping. But maybe from my perspective I'm eating an apple sometimes and sometimes I'm drinking a coffee, but you interpret both of those as me stopping at a stop light. Maybe it's that specific time which makes you think I'm stopping at a stop light?

People have different interpretations of the world, how are you going to make sure of anything?

Spotify is closer to CDs than radio because you can play any song you want whenever you want at a quality similar to CDs.

> Out of interest how do you qualify a 'real' problem?

I assume it means a problem that needs solving, requires a computer to solve and is not just an exercise.

> Also solving non-real problems can lead to solving real problems

Yes, and there is nothing wrong or useless about solving problems that are not 'real', I was mostly just objecting to the usage of the term 'real problem'.

Solving real problems is not the same as doing things that make you feel that you are through your imagination.

> That's a very elitist take. Firstly they are solving their own very real problem of not knowing how to code. Second they could have a very specific problem they want to solve that can only be solved by code.

It's not elitist, it's realistic. You haven't actually mentioned a 'real' problem they are solving through code.

> Isn't that exactly the same problem they are solving for beginners?

Not according to the comment I was responding to.

I think there is a lot of value in going through the pains of setting up a development environment, writing build scripts, debugging environment issues, etc.

> Beginners can do useful and interesting things and solve real problems after a few hours of learning.

What real problems are beginners actually solving? I literally cannot think of a single one.

Most introductory programming tutorials I've seen start off with very straightforward instructions to setting up a basic environment - and this is actually useful in the long run. vs programming in some special editor abstracted away from the real world.

That being said online repls are useful for writing quick code for e.g. testing something out.