> How can a pile of sand and rocks smushed together real close play back video? How can it produce a process that understands natural language?

The laws of physics are enough to explain this because no one is arguing that computers are experiencing anything when they play a video or generate a set of numbers that are displayed as natural language.

> At no point did I ever intend to argue any such thing. I suggest you put away the strawman and actually engage with what I'm saying.

Sorry, I phrased that badly by using "you" when I did not mean that. I meant to say that if someone (not you) wanted to argue that simple matter has some sort of experience, then at least the position would make some sense. But materialism assumes that simple matter does not have any subjective experience of any kind.

Anyway, I won't be able to convince you that you have a mind, so I'll peace out.

As for why any materialist explanations are unsatisfactory is that even if you managed to map every physical interaction in a sentient being, you are only mapping physical phenomena. Maybe that is enough to account for how that maps into the contents of the experience.

I am not arguing about how the contents are generated though. I am arguing about the "field" of subjective experiencing, which I called a mind. How is that generated from a set of aggregates that has no subjective experience of any kind? The simplest answer is that it is not, even if those material aggregates are deeply involved in how the contents presented to this field are generated.

Maybe you want to argue that salt "tastes" something when it is dissolved in water, but materialism assumes that simple matter does not have any experience of mental events.

But the "hard" problem of consciousness has nothing to do with the contents of the experience, but with explaining how experiencing of any kind is produced by aggregates that themselves do not have any such experiences. The simple answer is that mind (experience, consciousness, whatever you wanna call it) is not produced by matter and is a completely different realm of reality.

Maybe if science simply assumed that mind and matter are different things instead they would have made some progress. For once, the "hard" problem of consciousness would be revealed to not be problem at all. As for non-scientific proof that you have a mind, you can just observe that for yourself in every instant of your own personal experience. No magic involved. If people want to deny their own minds that is up to them.

Matter and mind are not the same and mind is not produced from matter. That there are correlates between the body of a sentient being and the content of their experience is common sense but not proof that their body is causing the very ability to experience anything.

You would think that absolutely no progress being made on how dead matter somehow produces experience would make people question their assumptions. Instead you get people denying that they have a mind or just coping by thinking that if they map yet another correlation they will finally crack the code.

And looking at its suggestions, they are not very good. People are better developing their own writing style than trusting generic advice meant for common-denominator writing.

People are free to take whatever they want from Buddhism and practice and teach it, even if completely unqualified. There is no dharma police to call. I was just making the point that calling teachings that reject core tenants of Buddhism by the same name is often just done to help them associate with whatever "clout" the word Buddhism has in the popular imagination.

Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction is an example of how to properly go about this process without overstating what it really is.

This is the reason that anything beyond the first dhyana is not encouraged in Mahayana, as it is impossible to apply vipasyana in a state of concentration so deep that you cannot direct your mind.

The teachers popular in the SF scene are inflating their own achievements and the ones of their students by using very lightweight criteria. I had that experience when I attended a TWIM retreat before their founder died. According to them, I reached the fourth or fifth jhana. I can assure you I did not.

In general, there are three commonly accepted methods in Buddhist epistemology to know if something is true: perception, inference, and testimony. For the specific case of rebirth, common proofs use either perception, or inference.

- Perception: You train in states of concentration and use those to gain direct knowledge of past lives. Maybe some people would find this unconvincing even if they had the experience. Certainly not something likely to be accepted as scientific as Ian Stevenson's research has shown, even if the case presented was iron-clad.

- Inference: This uses Buddhist logic and an understanding of dependent origination. This specific argument comes from Dharmakīrti.

- Every moment of consciousness must have a substantial cause.

- Physical matter can serve as a cooperative condition for consciousness, but it cannot be consciousness's substantial cause, because matter and mind are fundamentally different in nature. Matter is extended, non-luminous, non-aware and consciousness is luminous and aware. If you are a scientific materialist, you will not accept this, but it must be noted that there is no scientific evidence of any kind for dead matter gaining awareness.

- Therefore, each moment of consciousness must arise from a preceding moment of consciousness of similar type.

- Then you trace this chain to the first moment of your present life. The chain must have been preceded by a moment of consciousness of similar type. The same logic applies to the last moment of your present life.

- Therefore, consciousness must be a stream that transcends physical birth and death.

Again, I am aware many people won't find this convincing, but to say that Buddhism does not attempt to prove rebirth and karma is not true.

Pretty much. Sad state of affairs. I don't care if people find something positive in Buddhism and offer their own takes, but too many people call their offerings "Buddhism" for the clout. Finding a qualified teacher becomes very difficult if you are actually interested in Buddhism.

On the positive side, I don't actually agree with the first sentence. You still have to find a proper Buddhist teacher if you want to be taught the good stuff. Even if you found the instructions somehow, it either requires proper motivation (at which point you are a buddhist) or a transmission for those methods to actually work.

The only vibecoded thing was an iOS app and I didn't follow this process because I don't know iOS programming nor do I want to learn it. This only works if you know at least how to define functions and data structures in the language, but I think most PMs could learn that if they set their minds to it.

- Define the data structures in the code yourself. Add comments on what each struct/enum/field does.

- Write the definitions of any classes/traits/functions/interfaces that you will add or change. Either leave the implementations empty or write them yourself if they end up being small or important enough to write by hand (or with AI/IDE autocompletion).

- Write the signatures of the tests with a comment on what it's verifying. Ideally you would write the tests yourself, specially if they are short, but you can leave them empty.

- Then at this point you involve the agent and tell it to plan how to complete the changes without barely having to specify anything in the prompt. Then execute the plan and ask the agent to iterate until all tests and lints are green.

- Go through the agent's changes and perform clean up. Usually it's just nitpicks and changes to conform to my specific style.

If the change is small enough, I find that I can complete this with just copilot in about the same amount of time it would take to write an ambiguous prompt. If the change is bigger, I can either have the agent do it all or do the fun stuff myself and task the agent with finishing the boring stuff.

So I would agree with the title and the gist of the post but for different reasons.

Example of a large change using that strategy: https://github.com/trane-project/trane/commit/d5d95cfd331c30...

- 1,800+ LeetCode problems organized into a prerequisite graph across all major topics (arrays, trees, graphs, DP, etc.).

- The engine starts you on easy problems and only unlocks harder topics once you've demonstrated mastery of their prerequisites.

- Spaced repetition, mastery learning, interleaving, and other strategies ensure you practice what you need.

- Powerful filtering features to only practice a subset of problems when you are in a rush.

What makes it different from just doing LeetCode or some curated sets? The problems are static and you will have to waste time figuring out what to practice. InterviewTraner turns those static problems into a dynamic experience personalized and optimized for you.

I plan on eventually expanding the curriculum beyond coding interviews to anything in the software engineering process that can fit into short and repeatable exercises.

I originally built Trane, the practice engine powering it, to optimize my music practice. The core insight (skills have prerequisites and practice should respect that structure) applies equally well to coding interviews.

Pricing:

- Free lite license (includes all array, string, recursion, hash table, and stack problems).

- $10/month for all 1,800+ problems (launch price with LAUNCH code, I plan the normal price to be $20/month).

Happy to answer questions about the deliberate practice approach, the scheduling algorithm, or anything else.

Links:

InterviewTraner: https://interviewtraner.com

Pictures Are For Babies (same engine applied to learning to read and write): https://picturesareforbabies.com

Trane: https://github.com/trane-project/trane

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47431950

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

- Module level comments with explanations of the purpose of the module and how it fits into the whole codebase.

- Document all methods, constants, and variables, public and private. A single terse sentence is enough, no need to go crazy.

- Document each block of code. Again, a single sentence is enough. The goal is to be able to know what that block does in plain English without having to "read" code. Reading code is a misnomer because it is a different ability from reading human language.

Example from one of my open-source projects: https://github.com/trane-project/trane/blob/master/src/sched...

How it works:

- 1,800+ LeetCode problems organized into a prerequisite graph across all major topics (arrays, trees, graphs, DP, etc.).

- The engine starts you on easy problems and only unlocks harder topics once you've demonstrated mastery of their prerequisites.

- Spaced repetition, mastery learning, interleaving, and other strategies ensure you practice what you need.

- Powerful filtering features to only practice a subset of problems when you are in a rush.

What makes it different from just doing LeetCode or some curated sets? The problems are static and you will have to waste time figuring out what to practice. InterviewTraner turns those static problems into a dynamic experience personalized and optimized for you.

I plan on eventually expanding the curriculum beyond coding interviews to anything in the software engineering process that can fit into short and repeatable exercises.

I originally built Trane, the practice engine powering it, to optimize my music practice. The core insight (skills have prerequisites and practice should respect that structure) applies equally well to coding interviews.

Pricing:

- Free lite license (arrays, strings, recursion, hash tables, stacks).

- $10/month for all 1,800+ problems (launch price with LAUNCH code, I plan the normal price to be $20/month).

Happy to answer questions about the deliberate practice approach, the scheduling algorithm, or anything else.

Links:

InterviewTraner: https://interviewtraner.com

Pictures Are For Babies (same engine applied to learning to read and write): https://picturesareforbabies.com

Trane: https://github.com/trane-project/trane

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47300463

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Trane (good post): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31980069

Pictures Are For Babies (lame post): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45290805

I can’t say what the actual process involves with too many details because it’s not appropriate to share with outsiders, but it involves meditating through sleep, which is considered a similar process to death.

The people doing this are good enough to practice through the night that they recognize a certain part of the death process and temporarily abide in it. When they stop, they die for real and their body decomposes.

I learned about the literacy crisis and figured creating a literacy program would be cost-effective and impactful. After researching the science of reading and writing acquisition, I created Pictures Are For Babies, a literacy program that integrates Trane with a full curriculum to teach literacy to the college level and best-in-class pedagogy.

Two products are being released today. A Lite version available for free with no time limits and no payment required. And a Full version that aims to develop true mastery of literacy at the college level and beyond. The Full version is available via a $1000 one-time payment or a $20/month subscription with lifetime software and content updates included.

The first release of the Full version is the first step to accomplishing the ambitious goal of developing literacy to the highest level. It includes the completed curriculum for reading and writing at the symbol, word, and sentence levels. Upcoming releases will add the remaining tracks of the curriculum, focused on reading comprehension of a variety of text types and explicit writing instruction at the sentence and paragraph levels.

The Lite version includes the first levels of the curriculum. The value of the Lite version goes well beyond its content. By integrating the correct pedagogy from the ground up, it serves as a complete and professional tool for detection, prevention, and remediation of reading difficulties in early readers.

From its very first version, Pictures Are For Babies goes beyond all other literacy programs in its scope, depth, and ambition across multiple dimensions:

- By integrating Trane, the student receives a personalized learning experience that enables them to practice at the edge of their current abilities, all at the click of a button. It enables the student to learn more efficiently and the tutor to focus on delivering instruction and support instead of managing scheduling.

- It is one of the few programs that incorporates the concept of orthographic mapping from the ground up. Orthographic mapping is the process by which words are stored in long-term memory for instant retrieval. Programs that incorporate these findings develop true fluency, fix most reading difficulties, and deliver effect sizes that are multiples of those delivered by phonics-only programs.

- It includes a comprehensive and systematic curriculum that covers the entire journey from learning letter names and sounds to reading and writing sentences of college-level complexity. The initial curriculum contains over 1,200 lessons and teaches over 18,000 unique words.

- It includes no pictures, and does not engage in any form of gamification or other distractions. The choice is not arbitrary. Orthographic mapping research shows that reading and writing acquisition are at their core phonological processes. By removing these distractions and focusing on fostering the conditions for deliberate practice, Pictures Are For Babies shows respect for the science and for students as capable learners who can rise to the challenges and learn to love literacy for its own sake.

Let me know what you think! I am happy to answer any questions about the product and about the science behind it. For screenshots of the software, please visit the user interface page at https://picturesareforbabies.com/manual/user-interface/.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45290805

Points: 3

# Comments: 1