It's called the higher good. If she becomes high profile enough then yes, maybe there will be a change in the copyright laws. She might still be screwed, but she managed to help change the system. If she just settles, then the next person does and the next and the next, then these companies can keep extorting people indefinitely for whatever amount they want as long as it is less then what they'll get in court. And since they can get a ridiculous amount in court, this would be a lot of extortion. Don't you see the importance of standing up for what is right even if it isn't going to benefit you personally? Especially if in doing so you might accomplish something for other people. Even if the laws don't change, if everyone went to court and didn't settle, it would cost these companies so much money to continue their campaign that they would have to stop.
The difference isn't in having a complete explanation, it is in the amount of evidence that directly supports the conclusion. Notice that scientists aren't making definitive statements about what caused the big bang, because there isn't enough evidence supporting any particular theory. ID, on the other hand, (which I would like to point out is not incompatible with the big bang theory), is trying to make conclusions which we do not have enough evidence to support, scientifically. The fact that the universe seems fine-tuned to support life isn't much evidence, as any universe we found ourselves in would probably seem fine-tuned for life (considering that we have to be alive in order to examine said universe) regardless of how it was actually created. This concept is sometime call the anthropic principle (although other, more bizarre, ideas go by the same name).
Arguments for and against these lines of reasoning are all perfectly valid, but they are philosophical questions, not scientific ones. Philosophical questions and reasoning are very important, and I think that philosophy should have a much bigger role in schools, especially logic. But trying to group philosophy with science isn't valid. You can talk about the philosophy of science, or the science of philosophy, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
The origins of the universe is a tough question, but what you need to understand is that the big bang theory is only talking about the "how" of things. Scientists are simply describing how it looks like things happened to them, physically. Scientists are not able to explain the "why" of the big bang, and even if they do, there will just be another "why" behind that. No matter how much scientists explain, we will always be able to ask, "Why anything? Why not nothing?". This why can be filled with any theory you feel like (some are more valid than others though) and is a philosophical question, so please people stop making a false dichotomy between ID and the big bang. If you believe that the chain of cause and effect must lead back to a prime mover, so be it. If you believe in an infinite multiverse and that makes sense to you, alright. But this is philosophy, not science. I'm not trying to say that science is above philosophy, but simply that they describe two different things -- most of the time.
Sometimes science and philosophy conflict. This is because science is based on a philosophy called the philosophy of science. There are different formulations of the philosophy of science, but most of them rest on the philosophical concept of logic with a pragmatic leap thrown in. For an example of a common conflict between science and philosophy we can look at the "philosophy" of new-earth creationists. You see, to believe in new-earth creationism you have to have a certain philosophy of science which boils down to not being able to trust your pragmatic observations of the universe. This is a different philosophy of science than actual scientists base their concepts of science on, so there is a fundamental philosophical dispute between the two groups. Personally, I believe that the lack of a pragmatic philosophy of science that is inherent in new-earth creationism is fundamentally flawed (assuming of course that such a thing as flaw exists). To make a long story short, new-earth and science contradict philosophically, but ID and science do not. Any scientist saying otherwise is mistaken.
What I'm trying to get across is that there is a certain philosophy of science. I think that it is a good one. It isn't completely logical, but it is pragmatic. Anyone who disagrees with the philosophy of science, I believe, is making a pretty bold, possibly illogical statement. Illogical is OK, maybe you don't believe in logic, it is just pretty far out there. The philosophy of science isn't an all encompassing philosophy. There are still many, many other things to talk about that the POS cannot ever answer. Like the question of a prime mover, or the question of virtue and morality. Most religious beliefs are n
And why does he only seem to cure diseases which statistically can spontaneously cure themselves, never the amputations?
That is a really weird argument. If "he" cured amputations one in five times, then we would just say that amputations have a 20% chance of "spontaneously" curing themselves. My point is just that we get these "statistics" from how often it happens, not from any fundamental truth of how the diseases work. That is still a little too complicated to understand fully enough to attach percentages.
If giant brain-sucking squids from Voltar are intelligent, then the anthropic principle can't really be used to explain why they aren't "allowed" to attack us, can it? Or are you narrowing the anthropic principle to human life, not just intelligent life? I suppose that might be valid.
That's not the case. No matter what science does, it can't give your life meaning or purpose. I'm just saying whatever purpose or meaning you subscribe to is the "why", and is religion/philosophy. This meaning doesn't necessitate any sort of "prime mover". If you believe in sanctity of life, there is no scientific argument that can even begin to support that -- or dismiss it. And no "prime mover" is necessary for that belief. Now you can argue that for that belief to be "true" there must be a "prime mover" (or nothing matters or whatever), but now you've gone and mixed science and religion in exactly the way my my professor was warning against.
You see, your conclusion that there is no "why" is one you've obviously reached in a "scientific" manner. This is exactly what the quote is talking about. Science can give no conclusions as to the "whys" in the world, and that is where religion/belief/philosophy comes in.
For example, myself, I don't buy into any organized religions, but I do believe that what is important in the world is the potential we have. And I reason from there that it is our duty to impact humanity in a way that increases humanities future potential. Therefor, nuking everyone is bad. Spreading to a new space colony is good. Global warming is bad. Scientific research is good. Trivialized unmotivated society is bad. Promoting creation and creativity is good.
Science cannot make judgments as to whether any of these things are "good" or "bad". If I take a scientific perspective on such questions the answer is that these things just happen. They mean nothing and are of equal value. That answer isn't wrong, but to reach that answer, you've applied the wrong tool. There are more useful tools that gives more meaningful answers then science when we are asking "why?". Those tools are philosophy and belief, and by extension of that, even religion.
Now I'm not arguing that just because science has to stay out of the way that that religion gets a free pass to go uncontested no matter what it may decide. I think that philosophical tools such as reason and logic can still be applied to the framework of religion. I just don't think that the scientific method, with its focus on the concept of one truth that is testable, provable and reproducible is the right tool.
Furthermore, I think that when belief and religion start trying to explain the how of things, (as in the creationism "argument"), once again people are applying the wrong tools. When dealing with things that are provable, reproducible and representative of how the world actually "is", I think science is the right tool.
Now in some cases, we've discovered things that have let us expand the area of what science has been able to prove. For example the empirical existence of time was a philosophical question of note. But with Einstein and his testable, reproducible theories, science has managed to give the existence of time some credit. But I think there are some things that we can reasonably conclude science will never be able to touch.
You see, I believe that both science and religion or belief have an underlying structure of logic and reason. Science is the branch of reasoning about "how" the world is. Philosophy or belief or religion is when you use logic and reasoning to explain the untestable "why".
I have to say that religion tends to be the one that errs more by attempting to cross into the "how", but there are plenty of people, like you, that like to say there is no "why" using "scientific" methods. For example, did a man exist 2000 years ago that died and got resurrected? That is a question for science. Does there exist a benevolent being outside our universe that is omniscient and omnipotent? That is a question for religion or philosophy. Did we evolve from monkeys? A question for science. Does a human life have some inherent property that can be considered non-composite in nature (aka a soul). A question for philosophy.
Personally, to the two "religious" questions above, I answer no. But I don't do it by trying to appeal to science. I do it by appealing to logic and reasoning in a non-scientific setting. Most people call it philosophy. Such appeals do not involve "there is no evidence". That is a scientific argument that misses the point.
The mystery is that the original programmers obfuscated the design in order to make it a mystery. Security through obfuscation doesn't work in the long term, but it'll throw researchers off the scent for a while.
On top of that, the worn can get additional code via online updates, which can't be predicted.
On top of that, ever if we know what it can do, we don't know what purpose the authors will put it towards.
One of my old professors had a very poignant saying:
Science should explain how things happen, religion should explain why things happen. Every time either side has tried to cross this line, they were wrong.
Actually, these bonuses are required pay and they were not performance based. Why are people calling them bonuses then? I have absolutely no idea.
You see, back in 2007 when the CDO market started to bottom out, several of their top traders were considering leaving AIG because they were paid almost entirely basic on a bonus which was a percentage of their earnings for the company. AIG wanted them to stay to help unwind the problem and cut their losses. If they'd known what was going to happen to the entire industry they might have taken another route, but AIG didn't know and they thought these traders were worth keeping.
So AIG struck a deal, that they would continue to get the bonuses they received in 2005/2006 until 2012, as long as they stayed with the company to help cut their losses.
These "bonuses" are basically their pay, and are the only reason they are working there. I don't see how it could possibly be the government's right to take the agreed upon pay away from these people.
Can we complain about this whole deal? Yes. Can we complain about the state of the economy? Yes. Can we complain about inflated pay? Yes. Can we complain about bonuses and all the incentive based connotations that go with it? No. Yet that is what most people are doing.
Once and for all people, these weren't bonuses the way most people think of bonuses. Management didn't decide to reward then, it was pre-agreed upon payment. And it would be horribly immoral for us to take them away from said recipients.
I agree with you completely, I think. Yes, our justice system is made up of people trying to punish "wrongs" and without free will that motive disappears. You can't say someone ought to have done something differently if they could not have. This is summed up as the philosophical sentiment that ought implies can. I'm just trying to point out though that this view of our judicial system isn't the only one. Even if there is no free will, that doesn't mean that the same consequences that morality had can't be reached other ways.
The original statement I am arguing is "if free will does not exist then morally judging a persons behavior is meaningless." Perhaps morally judging a persons behavior is meaningless because you can make the case that morality implies ought implies can. But simply judging a persons behavior is still a valid meaningful thing to do.
I just disagree with the whole "nothing matters without free will" point of view. I'm a bit of a compatibility that way. I'm just trying to point out that even without free will things can still matter. Some basic assumptions about morality and meaning have to be thrown out, but I think we can arrive at reasoned structures which look the same as morality and meaning. And if you are willing to widen your view of what morality and meaning is, I believe that these reasoned structures can easily fit inside their domain.
Thanks for talking to me, you should really have an account so we can totally be like friends like. [/valley girl] (It also make tracking replies to your comments easier.)
It shouldn't be. I was just thinking earlier that I was glad that media storms like AIG blow over slashdot, and I can get different news here then the stuff everyone else is talking about.
This has absolutely nothing to do with tech or nerdiness, and in the grand scheme of things, it isn't that important. I can see no redeeming value, and I hope in the future that/. manages to avoid being run over by "big" stories like this.
I'm not arguing for punishing victimless crime. I don't think is does really promote our safety. I'm just saying that is theoretically how is can be viewed.
And yes, most people believe the justice system works on "truth". And that this belief does affect some laws, like incest and statutory rape. But I think these laws should be stricken regardless of free will.
But the main element of the justice system -- punishing people who threaten our well being -- has the desired effect whether or not free will exists. This is because regardless of free will we care about our safety and don't want to be punished. So criminals are deterred and our safety is increased. These causal connections exist whether or not free will exist. Furthermore our desires exist whether or not free will exists, so don't try to ask "but what does our safety matter if we can't choose anything", because even if we can't choose, we still want safety.
I'm not arguing for or against free will, I'm just saying that people who think morality, justice, utility and desire all depend on free will don't realize that these things still come into play because of simple cause and effect.
You are assuming we put people in jail because they are "bad". That needn't be the case. We can put people in jail to discourage others from preforming similar actions. If there is no "true" morality indicating that what they did is wrong, then there shouldn't be a moral issue with putting them in jail without "true" reason. Cause and effect and utilitarianism still exist in a world without free will.
Furthermore creating a society where certain actions are called "bad" has the effect of those actions not being perpetrated as much. Which gives us reason to call them "bad" even if it isn't "true". Assuming of course we desire those actions not to happen. Which we tend to, regardless of whether we can choose to.
The explanation is simple, even though the crime is victimless, by having it be illegal, and punishing people, they are discouraging the behavior, which is the effect they are going for.
Well, you're missing #4. That we possess within ourselves some mechanism to force our "will" onto the universe. "Will" being some special force that we can purely "choose" which form it takes. This mechanism would be something we haven't detected nor predicted in our scientific models, but it is still a possibility that you've left out.
Assuming such a mechanism is possible in the universe, we then have to ask; Is it likely that we evolved such an ability? I think not. It isn't necessary for survival and reproduction as far as I can tell. It seems to me that a deterministic/random being could survive just as well. Although one might argue that our will is governed by a rationality that would help survival, but that is an interesting statement; what does it mean that our will is governed? I'll gloss over the linguistic nuances for now and move on.
So if we didn't evolve this theoretical ability -- the basis of which hasn't been predicted in our scientific models -- then where did it come from? Did we stumble upon it by chance, or was it given to us by some other power (read god). All possibilities which cannot be ruled out, but they can be reasoned about.
We then have to ask about the evidence we have for believing that we have free will and determine if deterministic/random beings would have the same evidence. Of course we don't have very compelling evidence or free will would me canon in the scientific community.
So far our scientific models have a randomness to then in QM. We don't know if this perceived randomness is actual randomness or a failure on our part to detect/understand the deterministic nature of it. If the universe was wholly deterministic, it seems as though it would be fairly simple to try and find a moment where this determinism was broken and call that evidence of free will. But the randomness of the current model allows for a subtle possibility that our "will" can modify the random outcomes predicted in QM. This interpretation makes our "will" mechanism far, far more complex if you want to assume that our will is meaningful. Modifying the QM randomness in such a way that we choose one decision over another would be quite a feat, if it is even possible. Random QM variations get smaller on larger scales, and it is hard to create a complex system sensitive enough to enact large scale changes based on such small deviations. Some may argue that the brain is very complex, and is a prime candidate for such a device. That is a possibility, but in my opinion the complexity of it all significantly decreases the possibility that this ability is something we gained through random chance.
Which leaves the final possibility that some other being designed us with this complex QM form of free will. I'm going to leave this one alone because it gets a little off track, but I will say this: If we believe something because it is a theoretical possibility that there exists a mechanism, that we haven't detected nor predicted, and then also believe that some other being, which we haven't detected nor predicted, granted us the ability to tap into that mechanism to allow us to impose our will on the universe, which we haven't detected nor predicted -- then I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree.
So you see, your three options don't cover everything. Arguing against the above ideas is valid, and if you did, I would likely agree with you. Stating that the above ideas are not a possibility is a pretty hard sell to make.
No it wouldn't. Just because there isn't free will doesn't mean that there isn't cause and effect. From a utilitarian point of view, having a justice system promotes our safety (because people don't want to be punished) and we care about our safety, so having a justice system is useful. All that has no correlation to whether or not we can choose.
A common theme in these types of discussions is for people to assume that no choice means no cause and effect. That simply isn't the case. It may mean there are no "truths" about things like morality, but our justice system doesn't work on "truth", it works on cause and effect.
It is possible that you have a point. It is possible that the decrease in oil flow will lead to destabilization in the Middle East. That isn't really my concern though. My concern is the tone you choose to set. In general, your Arab sentiment can be boiled down to: the enemy will act in ways we wouldn't expect ourselves to act, fear them. Are you worried that the U.S.'s economic decline may cause us to lash out at an Arab country as we have a history of doing? No, you aren't. Your willingness to assume that other people are going to act in unreasoned ways is what causes most of the misunderstanding in history.
These countries have know for quite a while that their oil reserves are going to run out. I don't see why this would catch them by surprise.
In any case, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I apologize if I am overly emotionally invested but I do really hate how after coming so far in defeating the discrimination of African-Americans, it seems to be largely acceptable today to be racist against Arabs. No insult intended, but your original comments do seem to represent some of the anti-Arab sentiment floating around. If we want to treat Arabs like equals, lets stop considering things as "us vs them". Sure, destabilization may lead to an attack on Israel, but instead of simply vilifying Iran for this and treating them like the enemy, lets try to understand their point of view. Lets acknowledge the wrongs happening in Palestine, lets treat everyone fairly, and them maybe these countries won't feel like they have to treat us like enemies. Unrealistically hopeful? Probably, but I think attempting to empathize with their position is a start.
Fact checks:
Saudi Arabia has a surplus
Oil is only about 40% of the GDP of both Iran and Saudi Arabia
Iran has a good manufacturing industry
Saudi Arabia is building six economic cities (by 2020) to diversify their economy
The discrepancy between how accurate your account on algae is and how ill-considered your analysis of Arabs is, is truly amazing.
Why would you assume that just because the Arab nations are going to run out of money they are going to blatheringly insane? Would you assume that if the U.S. were running out of money we'd go ape-shit? No, you wouldn't. So your assumption shows a racist bias that is both unfounded and disgusting.
For your information, most Arab countries are investing their oil money into both business and infrastructure. They are looking for ways to create a solid, long-lasting presence in business and finance. To think that the wealth will dry up just goes to show that you don't understand the scale of the money being generated. The wealth of countries like Saudi Arabia are far, far beyond critical mass, and will keep growing with or without oil. Saudi Arabia has more than 7 trillion dollars invested in U.S. companies, and they aren't just investing the America. The Saudi surplus is about as large as our deficit, and they only have 1/10th the number of people. As you can imagine, that is enough to do a lot of impressive things. These task are what these Arab nations are going to be focusing on, not lashing out like cornered animals.
Take your paranoid xenophobia and desire to bankrupt entire cultures to some other forum. We don't want you here. For the record, equating Arab nations to terrorists is equivalent to equating the U.S. to the KKK. How stupid would this sentiment sound: Well, the American economy tanking is ultimately the only way to end global racism (the KKK) as a major problem and concern in the world. It would sound pretty damn stupid wouldn't it? Well Mr. Anenome, that is exactly how silly you sound to people who don't view the world through spectacles of discrimination.
Ah brilliant, offtopic is so much more appropriate than flamebait. Would someone help us out here? We're being systematically discriminated against by people who don't want to discuss things like adults.
Thank you. I always assumed the tech crowd tended to be democrats. You know, with its relations to California and tendency to higher education it seems natural. But judging by this (and other) articles and the way things get modded, I have to come to one of two conclusions: Either the tech crowd isn't as democrat as I thought, or the non-democrat techies abuse their modding privileges more then the democrat techies. I'm not making accusations, I'm just saying those are the only two explanations I can think of. I'll try not to go so far as to extrapolate my assumption to the political world in general.
Looks like I'm going to burn all my karma on this article. Sigh.
so he fails us in the most important thing, at the most important moment, in almost half of those he promised us then ?
I hope you are being sarcastic, but you are modded insightful rather than funny, so I'll respond as though you were trying to be insightful. (The mods know all.)
Let me get this right, Obama has the fate of countries in the palm of his hands and a crashing economy to deal with, and the most important thing, the most important moment to you, is your pet copyright issue? I think your priorities are fucked up big time. You do understand that there exists a world outside yourself, don't you?
Furthermore, did you even RTFA? Did you notice that the classification was instantiated by the Bush administration and that Obama has signed memos urging openness on these issues. If Obama hasn't spent enough time on you little pet issue, can you blame him? Don't you think that in light of objective reality he has a few slightly more pressing issues to spend his political capital on?
I bet that you never supported Obama, and now you're pretending like he failed us. Who is us? Are you included in us? Because in actuality, you seem rather eager to assert that Obama has failed. I'm guessing that this stems from the fact that you don't really support Obama and never did. You want to be able to say Obama has failed. You want to go back into your hole of cynicism that lets you justify whatever selfish belief you don't want challenged by a successful Obama.
I call bullshit. When Obama fails to act responsibly in Iraq, then I will acknowledge that he may have failed. When Obama begins turning our foregn policy into a barbaric us-or-them tribute to the dark ages, then I will agree that he has failed. When Obama allows POWs to be tortured and held without due process for years on end, then I will come on these forums and make the accusations you are making. But I don't think Obama is going to do any of these thing. Bush did. And that is change. Yes, change I can believe in.
Perfect response. I don't see why everyone is overreacting. You guys want Obama to fail don't you? You jump on any little thing and scream "see Obama is a failure, he is just as bad as Bush". Well I call bullshit. I think that objectively it is far too soon to make an assessment, but if I were forced to, I would say that Obama has the potential to be a far better leader then Bush.
If nothing else, I think the PR job he has done is part of being a good leader. If you can't get Americans interested in the debate, lobbyists and special interests will run Washington. Furthermore, he is only one man with limited power. If you thought the "change you can believe in" would entail a complete overhaul of the system when he doesn't in fact have power to completely overhaul the system, then it isn't Obama's fault that you failed to understand the domain he was applying the sentiment to. You might try to blame him for misrepresenting his role as president -- but every candidate does that, if you fail to realize that they are talking about doing things within their powers.
Basically, all you people that are moaning that Obama has failed to bring change and was a big fraud are the people that never supported him in the first place. Before he was elected you were saying the same things. Now you're all pretending that you were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but that he failed you and disappointed you. He didn't disappoint you, you were always against him. And despite the fact that he is, at least potentially, on his way to a very successful stint as president, you are going to jump over ever little detail ***THAT WAS ACTUALLY SET IN MOTION BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION*** and yell, "see Obama hasn't fixed all of Bush's fuck-ups in a mere 60 days, he has failed and lied and politics is dead".
To re-iterate the parent:
In one of his first acts as president, Obama signed a memo saying FOIA "should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure."
So Obama hasn't decided to spend political capital to fix this particular mess Bush left him yet... can you blame him? He has a lot of messes to clean up, some of them involve the fate of entire countries, others involve the fate of our economy. Is it so surprising that weighed against those your pet copyright reform issues aren't getting the unrealistic amount of attention you want? Now, if Obama starts taking vacations for entire months at a time, as Bush did August 2001, then I'll start becoming cynical. If Obama hurts the sciences, education and foregn relations with short-sited policies based on stories from thousands of years ago, then I'll call myself a cynic. If Obama panders shamelessly to the richest of the rich when the wealth gap is the highest it has been since the late 1800s, then I will start coming to these forums and launch the types of accusations you guys are making. But I suspect that Obama isn't going to do those things. Bush did. I call that change, and yes, it is change I can believe in.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called the higher good. If she becomes high profile enough then yes, maybe there will be a change in the copyright laws. She might still be screwed, but she managed to help change the system. If she just settles, then the next person does and the next and the next, then these companies can keep extorting people indefinitely for whatever amount they want as long as it is less then what they'll get in court. And since they can get a ridiculous amount in court, this would be a lot of extortion. Don't you see the importance of standing up for what is right even if it isn't going to benefit you personally? Especially if in doing so you might accomplish something for other people. Even if the laws don't change, if everyone went to court and didn't settle, it would cost these companies so much money to continue their campaign that they would have to stop.
The difference isn't in having a complete explanation, it is in the amount of evidence that directly supports the conclusion. Notice that scientists aren't making definitive statements about what caused the big bang, because there isn't enough evidence supporting any particular theory. ID, on the other hand, (which I would like to point out is not incompatible with the big bang theory), is trying to make conclusions which we do not have enough evidence to support, scientifically. The fact that the universe seems fine-tuned to support life isn't much evidence, as any universe we found ourselves in would probably seem fine-tuned for life (considering that we have to be alive in order to examine said universe) regardless of how it was actually created. This concept is sometime call the anthropic principle (although other, more bizarre, ideas go by the same name).
Arguments for and against these lines of reasoning are all perfectly valid, but they are philosophical questions, not scientific ones. Philosophical questions and reasoning are very important, and I think that philosophy should have a much bigger role in schools, especially logic. But trying to group philosophy with science isn't valid. You can talk about the philosophy of science, or the science of philosophy, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
The origins of the universe is a tough question, but what you need to understand is that the big bang theory is only talking about the "how" of things. Scientists are simply describing how it looks like things happened to them, physically. Scientists are not able to explain the "why" of the big bang, and even if they do, there will just be another "why" behind that. No matter how much scientists explain, we will always be able to ask, "Why anything? Why not nothing?". This why can be filled with any theory you feel like (some are more valid than others though) and is a philosophical question, so please people stop making a false dichotomy between ID and the big bang. If you believe that the chain of cause and effect must lead back to a prime mover, so be it. If you believe in an infinite multiverse and that makes sense to you, alright. But this is philosophy, not science. I'm not trying to say that science is above philosophy, but simply that they describe two different things -- most of the time.
Sometimes science and philosophy conflict. This is because science is based on a philosophy called the philosophy of science. There are different formulations of the philosophy of science, but most of them rest on the philosophical concept of logic with a pragmatic leap thrown in. For an example of a common conflict between science and philosophy we can look at the "philosophy" of new-earth creationists. You see, to believe in new-earth creationism you have to have a certain philosophy of science which boils down to not being able to trust your pragmatic observations of the universe. This is a different philosophy of science than actual scientists base their concepts of science on, so there is a fundamental philosophical dispute between the two groups. Personally, I believe that the lack of a pragmatic philosophy of science that is inherent in new-earth creationism is fundamentally flawed (assuming of course that such a thing as flaw exists). To make a long story short, new-earth and science contradict philosophically, but ID and science do not. Any scientist saying otherwise is mistaken.
What I'm trying to get across is that there is a certain philosophy of science. I think that it is a good one. It isn't completely logical, but it is pragmatic. Anyone who disagrees with the philosophy of science, I believe, is making a pretty bold, possibly illogical statement. Illogical is OK, maybe you don't believe in logic, it is just pretty far out there. The philosophy of science isn't an all encompassing philosophy. There are still many, many other things to talk about that the POS cannot ever answer. Like the question of a prime mover, or the question of virtue and morality. Most religious beliefs are n
And why does he only seem to cure diseases which statistically can spontaneously cure themselves, never the amputations?
That is a really weird argument. If "he" cured amputations one in five times, then we would just say that amputations have a 20% chance of "spontaneously" curing themselves. My point is just that we get these "statistics" from how often it happens, not from any fundamental truth of how the diseases work. That is still a little too complicated to understand fully enough to attach percentages.
Newtonian physics is generally thought to encompass Galilean relativity, which does not entail a favored reference system.
I think it is Mercury, not Neptune. Maybe both.
If giant brain-sucking squids from Voltar are intelligent, then the anthropic principle can't really be used to explain why they aren't "allowed" to attack us, can it? Or are you narrowing the anthropic principle to human life, not just intelligent life? I suppose that might be valid.
Haha, I was laughing about finding a "twin earth" too. I don't think anyone else gets the joke.
That's not the case. No matter what science does, it can't give your life meaning or purpose. I'm just saying whatever purpose or meaning you subscribe to is the "why", and is religion/philosophy. This meaning doesn't necessitate any sort of "prime mover". If you believe in sanctity of life, there is no scientific argument that can even begin to support that -- or dismiss it. And no "prime mover" is necessary for that belief. Now you can argue that for that belief to be "true" there must be a "prime mover" (or nothing matters or whatever), but now you've gone and mixed science and religion in exactly the way my my professor was warning against.
You see, your conclusion that there is no "why" is one you've obviously reached in a "scientific" manner. This is exactly what the quote is talking about. Science can give no conclusions as to the "whys" in the world, and that is where religion/belief/philosophy comes in.
For example, myself, I don't buy into any organized religions, but I do believe that what is important in the world is the potential we have. And I reason from there that it is our duty to impact humanity in a way that increases humanities future potential. Therefor, nuking everyone is bad. Spreading to a new space colony is good. Global warming is bad. Scientific research is good. Trivialized unmotivated society is bad. Promoting creation and creativity is good.
Science cannot make judgments as to whether any of these things are "good" or "bad". If I take a scientific perspective on such questions the answer is that these things just happen. They mean nothing and are of equal value. That answer isn't wrong, but to reach that answer, you've applied the wrong tool. There are more useful tools that gives more meaningful answers then science when we are asking "why?". Those tools are philosophy and belief, and by extension of that, even religion.
Now I'm not arguing that just because science has to stay out of the way that that religion gets a free pass to go uncontested no matter what it may decide. I think that philosophical tools such as reason and logic can still be applied to the framework of religion. I just don't think that the scientific method, with its focus on the concept of one truth that is testable, provable and reproducible is the right tool.
Furthermore, I think that when belief and religion start trying to explain the how of things, (as in the creationism "argument"), once again people are applying the wrong tools. When dealing with things that are provable, reproducible and representative of how the world actually "is", I think science is the right tool.
Now in some cases, we've discovered things that have let us expand the area of what science has been able to prove. For example the empirical existence of time was a philosophical question of note. But with Einstein and his testable, reproducible theories, science has managed to give the existence of time some credit. But I think there are some things that we can reasonably conclude science will never be able to touch.
You see, I believe that both science and religion or belief have an underlying structure of logic and reason. Science is the branch of reasoning about "how" the world is. Philosophy or belief or religion is when you use logic and reasoning to explain the untestable "why".
I have to say that religion tends to be the one that errs more by attempting to cross into the "how", but there are plenty of people, like you, that like to say there is no "why" using "scientific" methods. For example, did a man exist 2000 years ago that died and got resurrected? That is a question for science. Does there exist a benevolent being outside our universe that is omniscient and omnipotent? That is a question for religion or philosophy. Did we evolve from monkeys? A question for science. Does a human life have some inherent property that can be considered non-composite in nature (aka a soul). A question for philosophy.
Personally, to the two "religious" questions above, I answer no. But I don't do it by trying to appeal to science. I do it by appealing to logic and reasoning in a non-scientific setting. Most people call it philosophy. Such appeals do not involve "there is no evidence". That is a scientific argument that misses the point.
The mystery is that the original programmers obfuscated the design in order to make it a mystery. Security through obfuscation doesn't work in the long term, but it'll throw researchers off the scent for a while.
On top of that, the worn can get additional code via online updates, which can't be predicted.
On top of that, ever if we know what it can do, we don't know what purpose the authors will put it towards.
Evolution doesn't reject god. Where do people get these ideas?
One of my old professors had a very poignant saying:
Science should explain how things happen, religion should explain why things happen. Every time either side has tried to cross this line, they were wrong.
Actually, these bonuses are required pay and they were not performance based. Why are people calling them bonuses then? I have absolutely no idea.
You see, back in 2007 when the CDO market started to bottom out, several of their top traders were considering leaving AIG because they were paid almost entirely basic on a bonus which was a percentage of their earnings for the company. AIG wanted them to stay to help unwind the problem and cut their losses. If they'd known what was going to happen to the entire industry they might have taken another route, but AIG didn't know and they thought these traders were worth keeping.
So AIG struck a deal, that they would continue to get the bonuses they received in 2005/2006 until 2012, as long as they stayed with the company to help cut their losses.
These "bonuses" are basically their pay, and are the only reason they are working there. I don't see how it could possibly be the government's right to take the agreed upon pay away from these people.
Can we complain about this whole deal? Yes. Can we complain about the state of the economy? Yes. Can we complain about inflated pay? Yes. Can we complain about bonuses and all the incentive based connotations that go with it? No. Yet that is what most people are doing.
Once and for all people, these weren't bonuses the way most people think of bonuses. Management didn't decide to reward then, it was pre-agreed upon payment. And it would be horribly immoral for us to take them away from said recipients.
I agree with you completely, I think. Yes, our justice system is made up of people trying to punish "wrongs" and without free will that motive disappears. You can't say someone ought to have done something differently if they could not have. This is summed up as the philosophical sentiment that ought implies can. I'm just trying to point out though that this view of our judicial system isn't the only one. Even if there is no free will, that doesn't mean that the same consequences that morality had can't be reached other ways.
The original statement I am arguing is "if free will does not exist then morally judging a persons behavior is meaningless." Perhaps morally judging a persons behavior is meaningless because you can make the case that morality implies ought implies can. But simply judging a persons behavior is still a valid meaningful thing to do.
I just disagree with the whole "nothing matters without free will" point of view. I'm a bit of a compatibility that way. I'm just trying to point out that even without free will things can still matter. Some basic assumptions about morality and meaning have to be thrown out, but I think we can arrive at reasoned structures which look the same as morality and meaning. And if you are willing to widen your view of what morality and meaning is, I believe that these reasoned structures can easily fit inside their domain.
Thanks for talking to me, you should really have an account so we can totally be like friends like. [/valley girl] (It also make tracking replies to your comments easier.)
It shouldn't be. I was just thinking earlier that I was glad that media storms like AIG blow over slashdot, and I can get different news here then the stuff everyone else is talking about.
This has absolutely nothing to do with tech or nerdiness, and in the grand scheme of things, it isn't that important. I can see no redeeming value, and I hope in the future that /. manages to avoid being run over by "big" stories like this.
I'm not arguing for punishing victimless crime. I don't think is does really promote our safety. I'm just saying that is theoretically how is can be viewed.
And yes, most people believe the justice system works on "truth". And that this belief does affect some laws, like incest and statutory rape. But I think these laws should be stricken regardless of free will.
But the main element of the justice system -- punishing people who threaten our well being -- has the desired effect whether or not free will exists. This is because regardless of free will we care about our safety and don't want to be punished. So criminals are deterred and our safety is increased. These causal connections exist whether or not free will exist. Furthermore our desires exist whether or not free will exists, so don't try to ask "but what does our safety matter if we can't choose anything", because even if we can't choose, we still want safety.
I'm not arguing for or against free will, I'm just saying that people who think morality, justice, utility and desire all depend on free will don't realize that these things still come into play because of simple cause and effect.
You are assuming we put people in jail because they are "bad". That needn't be the case. We can put people in jail to discourage others from preforming similar actions. If there is no "true" morality indicating that what they did is wrong, then there shouldn't be a moral issue with putting them in jail without "true" reason. Cause and effect and utilitarianism still exist in a world without free will.
Furthermore creating a society where certain actions are called "bad" has the effect of those actions not being perpetrated as much. Which gives us reason to call them "bad" even if it isn't "true". Assuming of course we desire those actions not to happen. Which we tend to, regardless of whether we can choose to.
I'm not sure that made any sense, sorry
The explanation is simple, even though the crime is victimless, by having it be illegal, and punishing people, they are discouraging the behavior, which is the effect they are going for.
Well, you're missing #4. That we possess within ourselves some mechanism to force our "will" onto the universe. "Will" being some special force that we can purely "choose" which form it takes. This mechanism would be something we haven't detected nor predicted in our scientific models, but it is still a possibility that you've left out.
Assuming such a mechanism is possible in the universe, we then have to ask; Is it likely that we evolved such an ability? I think not. It isn't necessary for survival and reproduction as far as I can tell. It seems to me that a deterministic/random being could survive just as well. Although one might argue that our will is governed by a rationality that would help survival, but that is an interesting statement; what does it mean that our will is governed? I'll gloss over the linguistic nuances for now and move on.
So if we didn't evolve this theoretical ability -- the basis of which hasn't been predicted in our scientific models -- then where did it come from? Did we stumble upon it by chance, or was it given to us by some other power (read god). All possibilities which cannot be ruled out, but they can be reasoned about.
We then have to ask about the evidence we have for believing that we have free will and determine if deterministic/random beings would have the same evidence. Of course we don't have very compelling evidence or free will would me canon in the scientific community.
So far our scientific models have a randomness to then in QM. We don't know if this perceived randomness is actual randomness or a failure on our part to detect/understand the deterministic nature of it. If the universe was wholly deterministic, it seems as though it would be fairly simple to try and find a moment where this determinism was broken and call that evidence of free will. But the randomness of the current model allows for a subtle possibility that our "will" can modify the random outcomes predicted in QM. This interpretation makes our "will" mechanism far, far more complex if you want to assume that our will is meaningful. Modifying the QM randomness in such a way that we choose one decision over another would be quite a feat, if it is even possible. Random QM variations get smaller on larger scales, and it is hard to create a complex system sensitive enough to enact large scale changes based on such small deviations. Some may argue that the brain is very complex, and is a prime candidate for such a device. That is a possibility, but in my opinion the complexity of it all significantly decreases the possibility that this ability is something we gained through random chance.
Which leaves the final possibility that some other being designed us with this complex QM form of free will. I'm going to leave this one alone because it gets a little off track, but I will say this: If we believe something because it is a theoretical possibility that there exists a mechanism, that we haven't detected nor predicted, and then also believe that some other being, which we haven't detected nor predicted, granted us the ability to tap into that mechanism to allow us to impose our will on the universe, which we haven't detected nor predicted -- then I'm going to go out on a limb and disagree.
So you see, your three options don't cover everything. Arguing against the above ideas is valid, and if you did, I would likely agree with you. Stating that the above ideas are not a possibility is a pretty hard sell to make.
No it wouldn't. Just because there isn't free will doesn't mean that there isn't cause and effect. From a utilitarian point of view, having a justice system promotes our safety (because people don't want to be punished) and we care about our safety, so having a justice system is useful. All that has no correlation to whether or not we can choose.
A common theme in these types of discussions is for people to assume that no choice means no cause and effect. That simply isn't the case. It may mean there are no "truths" about things like morality, but our justice system doesn't work on "truth", it works on cause and effect.
It is possible that you have a point. It is possible that the decrease in oil flow will lead to destabilization in the Middle East. That isn't really my concern though. My concern is the tone you choose to set. In general, your Arab sentiment can be boiled down to: the enemy will act in ways we wouldn't expect ourselves to act, fear them. Are you worried that the U.S.'s economic decline may cause us to lash out at an Arab country as we have a history of doing? No, you aren't. Your willingness to assume that other people are going to act in unreasoned ways is what causes most of the misunderstanding in history.
These countries have know for quite a while that their oil reserves are going to run out. I don't see why this would catch them by surprise.
In any case, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I apologize if I am overly emotionally invested but I do really hate how after coming so far in defeating the discrimination of African-Americans, it seems to be largely acceptable today to be racist against Arabs. No insult intended, but your original comments do seem to represent some of the anti-Arab sentiment floating around. If we want to treat Arabs like equals, lets stop considering things as "us vs them". Sure, destabilization may lead to an attack on Israel, but instead of simply vilifying Iran for this and treating them like the enemy, lets try to understand their point of view. Lets acknowledge the wrongs happening in Palestine, lets treat everyone fairly, and them maybe these countries won't feel like they have to treat us like enemies. Unrealistically hopeful? Probably, but I think attempting to empathize with their position is a start.
Fact checks:
Saudi Arabia has a surplus
Oil is only about 40% of the GDP of both Iran and Saudi Arabia
Iran has a good manufacturing industry
Saudi Arabia is building six economic cities (by 2020) to diversify their economy
The discrepancy between how accurate your account on algae is and how ill-considered your analysis of Arabs is, is truly amazing.
Why would you assume that just because the Arab nations are going to run out of money they are going to blatheringly insane? Would you assume that if the U.S. were running out of money we'd go ape-shit? No, you wouldn't. So your assumption shows a racist bias that is both unfounded and disgusting.
For your information, most Arab countries are investing their oil money into both business and infrastructure. They are looking for ways to create a solid, long-lasting presence in business and finance. To think that the wealth will dry up just goes to show that you don't understand the scale of the money being generated. The wealth of countries like Saudi Arabia are far, far beyond critical mass, and will keep growing with or without oil. Saudi Arabia has more than 7 trillion dollars invested in U.S. companies, and they aren't just investing the America. The Saudi surplus is about as large as our deficit, and they only have 1/10th the number of people. As you can imagine, that is enough to do a lot of impressive things. These task are what these Arab nations are going to be focusing on, not lashing out like cornered animals.
Take your paranoid xenophobia and desire to bankrupt entire cultures to some other forum. We don't want you here. For the record, equating Arab nations to terrorists is equivalent to equating the U.S. to the KKK. How stupid would this sentiment sound: Well, the American economy tanking is ultimately the only way to end global racism (the KKK) as a major problem and concern in the world. It would sound pretty damn stupid wouldn't it? Well Mr. Anenome, that is exactly how silly you sound to people who don't view the world through spectacles of discrimination.
Ah brilliant, offtopic is so much more appropriate than flamebait. Would someone help us out here? We're being systematically discriminated against by people who don't want to discuss things like adults.
Thank you. I always assumed the tech crowd tended to be democrats. You know, with its relations to California and tendency to higher education it seems natural. But judging by this (and other) articles and the way things get modded, I have to come to one of two conclusions: Either the tech crowd isn't as democrat as I thought, or the non-democrat techies abuse their modding privileges more then the democrat techies. I'm not making accusations, I'm just saying those are the only two explanations I can think of. I'll try not to go so far as to extrapolate my assumption to the political world in general.
Looks like I'm going to burn all my karma on this article. Sigh.
so he fails us in the most important thing, at the most important moment, in almost half of those he promised us then ?
I hope you are being sarcastic, but you are modded insightful rather than funny, so I'll respond as though you were trying to be insightful. (The mods know all.)
Let me get this right, Obama has the fate of countries in the palm of his hands and a crashing economy to deal with, and the most important thing, the most important moment to you, is your pet copyright issue? I think your priorities are fucked up big time. You do understand that there exists a world outside yourself, don't you?
Furthermore, did you even RTFA? Did you notice that the classification was instantiated by the Bush administration and that Obama has signed memos urging openness on these issues. If Obama hasn't spent enough time on you little pet issue, can you blame him? Don't you think that in light of objective reality he has a few slightly more pressing issues to spend his political capital on?
I bet that you never supported Obama, and now you're pretending like he failed us. Who is us? Are you included in us? Because in actuality, you seem rather eager to assert that Obama has failed. I'm guessing that this stems from the fact that you don't really support Obama and never did. You want to be able to say Obama has failed. You want to go back into your hole of cynicism that lets you justify whatever selfish belief you don't want challenged by a successful Obama.
I call bullshit. When Obama fails to act responsibly in Iraq, then I will acknowledge that he may have failed. When Obama begins turning our foregn policy into a barbaric us-or-them tribute to the dark ages, then I will agree that he has failed. When Obama allows POWs to be tortured and held without due process for years on end, then I will come on these forums and make the accusations you are making. But I don't think Obama is going to do any of these thing. Bush did. And that is change. Yes, change I can believe in.
Perfect response. I don't see why everyone is overreacting. You guys want Obama to fail don't you? You jump on any little thing and scream "see Obama is a failure, he is just as bad as Bush". Well I call bullshit. I think that objectively it is far too soon to make an assessment, but if I were forced to, I would say that Obama has the potential to be a far better leader then Bush.
If nothing else, I think the PR job he has done is part of being a good leader. If you can't get Americans interested in the debate, lobbyists and special interests will run Washington. Furthermore, he is only one man with limited power. If you thought the "change you can believe in" would entail a complete overhaul of the system when he doesn't in fact have power to completely overhaul the system, then it isn't Obama's fault that you failed to understand the domain he was applying the sentiment to. You might try to blame him for misrepresenting his role as president -- but every candidate does that, if you fail to realize that they are talking about doing things within their powers.
Basically, all you people that are moaning that Obama has failed to bring change and was a big fraud are the people that never supported him in the first place. Before he was elected you were saying the same things. Now you're all pretending that you were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but that he failed you and disappointed you. He didn't disappoint you, you were always against him. And despite the fact that he is, at least potentially, on his way to a very successful stint as president, you are going to jump over ever little detail ***THAT WAS ACTUALLY SET IN MOTION BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION*** and yell, "see Obama hasn't fixed all of Bush's fuck-ups in a mere 60 days, he has failed and lied and politics is dead".
To re-iterate the parent:
In one of his first acts as president, Obama signed a memo saying FOIA "should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure."
So Obama hasn't decided to spend political capital to fix this particular mess Bush left him yet... can you blame him? He has a lot of messes to clean up, some of them involve the fate of entire countries, others involve the fate of our economy. Is it so surprising that weighed against those your pet copyright reform issues aren't getting the unrealistic amount of attention you want? Now, if Obama starts taking vacations for entire months at a time, as Bush did August 2001, then I'll start becoming cynical. If Obama hurts the sciences, education and foregn relations with short-sited policies based on stories from thousands of years ago, then I'll call myself a cynic. If Obama panders shamelessly to the richest of the rich when the wealth gap is the highest it has been since the late 1800s, then I will start coming to these forums and launch the types of accusations you guys are making. But I suspect that Obama isn't going to do those things. Bush did. I call that change, and yes, it is change I can believe in.