EmbeddingGemma 2: an open, lightweight multimodal embedding model
deepmind.google·6d ago
AI Engineering
Lobsters·Aug 1·5 min read
What Naur got wrong from The concept of mind
TL;DR
Peter Naur misinterprets Gilbert Ryle's philosophical concepts in his paper on programming, leading to unnecessary complexity. Ryle's focus on the embedded nature of theorizing contrasts with Naur's claims about unembodied theories.
✦ Why It Matters
Review Ryle's concepts to clarify your understanding of programming theory and its cultural implications.
Key Takeaways
- Clarify the distinction between intelligence and intellect in programming.
- Recognize programming as a form of theory building.
- Emphasize the importance of documentation for program revival.
- Engage with philosophical concepts to enhance software practices.
Full Summary
Peter Naur's paper on programming as theory building attempts to integrate Gilbert Ryle's philosophical ideas, particularly regarding the nature of theories. However, the critique argues that Naur misinterprets Ryle, conflating intelligence with intellect and misunderstanding the essence of theory.
Ryle emphasizes that theorizing is an activity embedded in culture and cannot be reduced to mere rules or criteria. The critique asserts that programming is a form of theory building, as it involves systematic inquiry and iterative improvement, akin to a farmer smoothing a path.
Furthermore, it challenges Naur's claim that reviving a program's theory from documentation is impossible, highlighting that well-documented systems can indeed be deciphered. This analysis underscores the importance of understanding the philosophical foundations of programming to enhance software development practices.