C and C++ are not one of these formatting based languages that associates or differentiates based on indenting, do as thy will and put everything on a single line.
but the message was "free software"... if the messenger had been Bill Gates or Steve Jobs... people would have looked at the messenger and thought "bull shit" and "what's really in it for him?"
RMS is the right messenger for his wierd ass message. In the eighties when I was firt looking at EMACS and this wierd screed on software that was (and -remains-) RMS' message, his point was mind boggling. That the messenger is also mind boggling and indominatable were and are nec. parts of that.
The message of the GPL requires that you think the messenger is truly committed and oriented to the idea they present--- it requires RMS.
Actually, I'm starting to prefer the definition you use, partially because I have a weakness for etymological analysis, and "meta" does not imply a separation it implies one level of abstraction, as in meta-language. (Note: I don't think words mean what they etymologically mean, I support usage based definitions --- however, the historical meanings of words are often, imho, still packed in underneath the current, surface meaning ("skeptic" is an interesting example of this). Also etymology can be useful if you are trying to increase the clarity of a term... reinterpret it with a clear meaning for technical usage.
Metaphysical as "non-physical" is really somewhat trivial, a category of unknowable things, and it's really only very useful when trying to argue against conclusions (religious or otherwise) that claim "it's just a matter of faith".
Re: personal identity
I think it's a cool topic which is both very tangible (e.g. to non-philosophers) and subtle. Especially in the aspect of time. I'm thinking of the example of the ship that sets out with a full supply of replacement parts, replaces every part en voyage and builds a second boat from the freed up parts. Which is the "original" boat? being the question. The fact that the example is stretched out over time accentuates the sense of confusion. That example is very accessible to anybody, it's quite effective way to get "refular" people to discuss philosophy. After all people FEEL their own identitity, or think they do. It's a ripe area of counter intuitive truths (my favorite) that have direct mental impacts (also nice) - good luck with your thesis.
to the degree alchemy and shamanism can be shown responsible for advancement --- it does validate them and their associated perspectives. In fact, there are lots of good things about shamanism and alchemy.
However, philosophy is directly responsible for modern science, the scientific method, and indeed, the entire field of logic! So it is especially well proven relevant.
That doesn't mean any particular philospher (including me) is worth more than the water the mostly consist of.
Marketing is closer to my meaning than syncretism. Maybe it was just syncretism, but I think it was more overt than that, that it was an overt coopting to make Christianity more attractive. BUT: I can't defend that, you give me reason to research support for my thesis. Perhaps it's simply syncretism.
But, personal identity is metaphysics?! Certainly you interact with the physical world, yes? I think the problem may be an over strict definition of metaphysics. I take a Nietzschean view of metaphysics, it's by definition regarding things that can't/don't interact with the physical world.
Since you must be studying this closely right now:
On Personal Identity: let me just ask you this. What I didn't like about the view on personal identity that I was taught in school was the idea that it was a search for an "unchanging something". I thought the idea of a wave's identity was a much better model for personal identity, able to take into account the material changes that take place underneath one's sense of identity.
What's your take on that? Sorry, this may be akin to asking you to post your thesis on slashdot... yes, would you ?:)
I just love the "religious implications" of the "Easter Bunny". I mean... religions cross breed is the implication.
Same with the Christmas Tree. Pagan rituals embraced for purely practical marketing reasons.
"Paul, we can't seem to get anyone to celebrate Jesus' birth day."
"Um, ok, take a memo, move his birthday to the Winter Soltice and tell everyone they're celebrating his birth, they won't know the difference."
"But what about the Spring Fertility festival, we can't get them to stop having that, it's just toal mayhem, it's bunnies, it's well, you know, evil fertility related stuff, terrible!"
"ok, let's see... I know... 'Easter' Bunny! Yeah, that's it, tell them that's one of ours too. Say that the chocolate like, I don't know, represents the wood of the cross* or something. Now could you leave me alone, I have an Inquisition to plan."
believe, me, I'm sorry to be on popular side of this, I much prefer being a wild outcast, but such is life.
(1) you talk about different biological families... why do you ignore biological families. The chimpanzees share 98% DNA similarity with us. Not similar enough? People used to think they were quite distinct.
(2) Assuming your correct about DNA between, say, bird and reptiles, I don't see a creator as a likely reason. In fact, quite the opposite. When the book "Primary Colors" was written, the author was discovered because he was a journalist and his style was compared to other works... that is, what we know of creation: Creations bear ideomatic marks identifying their common creator. Tool marks, design styles, etc. A common creator would code eyes the same way. Maybe God is actually a committee, or a loose association of developers? Or maybe over time the DNA is refactored for local optimizations?
(3) if the biologists are the priests of religion then let's compare them and their mission to regular priests. They have to change their mind when new evidence arrises. They are bound to look at the natural world and let it's appearance dictate their beliefs. They are bound to have their ideas reviewed by their peers and by those that follow. They have no authority but the confirmations they can demonstrate. It's much more sensible to have faith in the processes they follow than the heirarchical authority chain of priests who have none of the obligations, checks, or self-evaluative requirments. Authority of priests is just a given.
I would agree with you... I'm a skeptic (pyrrho, hint hint) too.
Theories are never proved right... however, remember as you said, they can be proven wrong. So the possibilities are not endless, while nothing as probability of 1 (100%), many things have probability 0, so the field of possibility is reduced by process of elimination. Therefore theries can be compared and contrasted and, especially important, can their predictions can be shown to be accurate to some degree.
Newton's laws of gravitation might be updated again (one solution for "dark matter"), but Newton's laws won't be "less accurate", the new law will merely be "more accurate".
However, the theory of evolution does make creationism "less accurate". Indeed the internal coherency of creationism (which it's lacking) implies to me it's probability is 0. The only exception are hybrid theories, i.e. a New Creationism, that says... "well, god started evolution", and the like.
I've got a degree in Philosophy from Berkeley, I did study my epistemology and my, oh wait, metaphysics isn't studied as philosophy anymore because it's beyond the scope of human reason, still I studied it on my own...
Can I talk to you now? Please? What I would say is, "the validity of evolution is not based on belief".
btw, which came first, the tiny pink dragon or the drinking problem? just a little joke/joke there, I presume the little devil drove you to drink... quite understandable.
(answer) hydrothermal vents. Ok, but a bit evasive.
Actually, I just wanted to say in general that if you believe in evolution, clearly the egg came first, as it was present in the chickens ancestors before the chicken evolved.
Actually, I think that's true even if you don't believe in evolution, since not believing in evolution doesn't make it less true.
I like the part in the bible where the Easter Bunny is hopping allong and runs in to Jesus and says, "Hey... I'm a pagan symbol, can I join your church so that you can market to my demographic? I stand for fertility and chocolate."
It trumps only in the technical context. In the "common usage" context, then actual usage trumps.
btw: Isn't the "technical" way to discuss begging the question to talk about "assuming what you were to prove" and via the concept of "circular" reasoning?
"Begging the question" is really pretty vague in comparison. Breaking down the phrase, looking for meaning, which will happen in common usage certainly, I don't really understand how the question is "begged". It is more sensible to use the concept "to beg" to talk about a situation where the presentation strongly implies an important question that is not made-- the presentation "begs" for a question to be asked.
Also, I do not think that it's important to edit your work just because it's in public. That is very time consuming. You should edit exactly enough to serve the complexity of the idea you are presenting and the purpose of your post. I spend a lot of time editing proffessional writing, little on a forum, it's not worth it. Although I care, if you, for example, can understand my point, rigorous editing is not nec. to accomplish that.
Spelling is least important, grammer is important if it is a matter of comprehension, and proper use of idiomatic expressions... I actually agree that's more important as idiomatic expressions carry a lot of implications and if missused they bring a lot of erroneous connotations.
e.g. in the case of this article if someone really thought that the phrase meant to call into question the reasoning used, the missuse becomes a false lead... which reasoning? that the estimate assumed 40G$ rather than calculated it?
I doubt there was much missundertanging, however, since this is a common use of this phrase.
still, I couldn't help but pick this nit of mine because languages are living things, and what they are is defined by how they are used, not what scholars of the language have abstracted about it so far. The purposes of a language are many.
you are right. And yet, I think this use of the phrase, while totally incompatible with the "circular reasoning" use, is common. Common use beats the dictionary and web links...
I mean, the image is right... it's a statement that strongly implies a question.
hmmm... sounds like you are bitter at being an outcast from the outcasts.
your little rant could be true, or maybe the Anti-MS nature of slashdot just reflects the statistical opinion of the people that post on slashdot? maybe it's their opinion. The pathetic thing is how deep you dig to try to grasp why they don't agree with you.
I say "they", because I'm the opposite of a zealot. I will use any tool that I have time to try out. yet I'm sick and tired of MS -- for good reason.
Our software could go on baby mulching machines and all we want is "credit"! "Baby Mulching Machine by Theo"? Getting credit is more important than not having baby mulching machines?
Einstien in the anti-verse: "I don't mind you using my ideas to create gigantic bombs, but I insist my name be printed on every one".
This idea is a bit pointless, perhaps, but frankly I like the idea that oppressive regimes may have another reason they could be pulled to court if they happen to be submitting to copyright. A country like China or the USA would like to say they obey IP law, and that would expose the possibility that their human rights records might be brought up in court. It's actually much more important than "credit" and is also the real problem in the world today, and a bunch of pampered americans -can- be expected to know this.
Re:Oh, someone explain to me
on
Equilibrium
·
· Score: 2
because, why should language be predictable when it can be pedantic! I vote for consistency over historical rules. Especially consider there ARE NO RULES of language. As if we all went to the english teachers and said, could you make us a language? No, the language was there, and they deduce the rules. Well, one of the rules they never learned was, "we reserve the right to change the rules and speak however we like, fnard!"
And to think I swimmed all the way across the oceon for this!
Language is changing. And now the Oxford Dictionary says I can end a sentence a preposition with. Also, if to merrily split infinitives I wish, allowed am I.
Thank goodness too, otherwise we'd be speaking Old English.
Slashdot Mirror
C and C++ are not one of these formatting based languages that associates or differentiates based on indenting, do as thy will and put everything on a single line.
but the message was "free software"... if the messenger had been Bill Gates or Steve Jobs... people would have looked at the messenger and thought "bull shit" and "what's really in it for him?"
RMS is the right messenger for his wierd ass message. In the eighties when I was firt looking at EMACS and this wierd screed on software that was (and -remains-) RMS' message, his point was mind boggling. That the messenger is also mind boggling and indominatable were and are nec. parts of that.
The message of the GPL requires that you think the messenger is truly committed and oriented to the idea they present--- it requires RMS.
re: metaphysics
Actually, I'm starting to prefer the definition you use, partially because I have a weakness for etymological analysis, and "meta" does not imply a separation it implies one level of abstraction, as in meta-language. (Note: I don't think words mean what they etymologically mean, I support usage based definitions --- however, the historical meanings of words are often, imho, still packed in underneath the current, surface meaning ("skeptic" is an interesting example of this). Also etymology can be useful if you are trying to increase the clarity of a term... reinterpret it with a clear meaning for technical usage.
Metaphysical as "non-physical" is really somewhat trivial, a category of unknowable things, and it's really only very useful when trying to argue against conclusions (religious or otherwise) that claim "it's just a matter of faith".
Re: personal identity
I think it's a cool topic which is both very tangible (e.g. to non-philosophers) and subtle. Especially in the aspect of time. I'm thinking of the example of the ship that sets out with a full supply of replacement parts, replaces every part en voyage and builds a second boat from the freed up parts. Which is the "original" boat? being the question. The fact that the example is stretched out over time accentuates the sense of confusion. That example is very accessible to anybody, it's quite effective way to get "refular" people to discuss philosophy. After all people FEEL their own identitity, or think they do. It's a ripe area of counter intuitive truths (my favorite) that have direct mental impacts (also nice) - good luck with your thesis.
hmmmm.... it is a bit slow at the moment... ug, thumbnail won't load... I. refuse. to. believe.
"Sir, the little people are a-swarm at the gates."
"Then Close The Gate."
--- ah, there, the thumbnail loaded... see... only a flesh wound.
.gov
to the degree alchemy and shamanism can be shown responsible for advancement --- it does validate them and their associated perspectives. In fact, there are lots of good things about shamanism and alchemy.
However, philosophy is directly responsible for modern science, the scientific method, and indeed, the entire field of logic! So it is especially well proven relevant.
That doesn't mean any particular philospher (including me) is worth more than the water the mostly consist of.
Marketing is closer to my meaning than syncretism. Maybe it was just syncretism, but I think it was more overt than that, that it was an overt coopting to make Christianity more attractive. BUT: I can't defend that, you give me reason to research support for my thesis. Perhaps it's simply syncretism.
I won't differ with you.
:)
But, personal identity is metaphysics?! Certainly you interact with the physical world, yes? I think the problem may be an over strict definition of metaphysics. I take a Nietzschean view of metaphysics, it's by definition regarding things that can't/don't interact with the physical world.
Since you must be studying this closely right now:
On Personal Identity: let me just ask you this. What I didn't like about the view on personal identity that I was taught in school was the idea that it was a search for an "unchanging something". I thought the idea of a wave's identity was a much better model for personal identity, able to take into account the material changes that take place underneath one's sense of identity.
What's your take on that? Sorry, this may be akin to asking you to post your thesis on slashdot... yes, would you ?
I just love the "religious implications" of the "Easter Bunny". I mean... religions cross breed is the implication.
Same with the Christmas Tree. Pagan rituals embraced for purely practical marketing reasons.
"Paul, we can't seem to get anyone to celebrate Jesus' birth day."
"Um, ok, take a memo, move his birthday to the Winter Soltice and tell everyone they're celebrating his birth, they won't know the difference."
"But what about the Spring Fertility festival, we can't get them to stop having that, it's just toal mayhem, it's bunnies, it's well, you know, evil fertility related stuff, terrible!"
"ok, let's see... I know... 'Easter' Bunny! Yeah, that's it, tell them that's one of ours too. Say that the chocolate like, I don't know, represents the wood of the cross* or something. Now could you leave me alone, I have an Inquisition to plan."
* stolen from Izzard.
believe, me, I'm sorry to be on popular side of this, I much prefer being a wild outcast, but such is life.
(1) you talk about different biological families... why do you ignore biological families. The chimpanzees share 98% DNA similarity with us. Not similar enough? People used to think they were quite distinct.
(2) Assuming your correct about DNA between, say, bird and reptiles, I don't see a creator as a likely reason. In fact, quite the opposite. When the book "Primary Colors" was written, the author was discovered because he was a journalist and his style was compared to other works... that is, what we know of creation: Creations bear ideomatic marks identifying their common creator. Tool marks, design styles, etc. A common creator would code eyes the same way. Maybe God is actually a committee, or a loose association of developers? Or maybe over time the DNA is refactored for local optimizations?
(3) if the biologists are the priests of religion then let's compare them and their mission to regular priests. They have to change their mind when new evidence arrises. They are bound to look at the natural world and let it's appearance dictate their beliefs. They are bound to have their ideas reviewed by their peers and by those that follow. They have no authority but the confirmations they can demonstrate. It's much more sensible to have faith in the processes they follow than the heirarchical authority chain of priests who have none of the obligations, checks, or self-evaluative requirments. Authority of priests is just a given.
I would agree with you... I'm a skeptic (pyrrho, hint hint) too.
Theories are never proved right... however, remember as you said, they can be proven wrong. So the possibilities are not endless, while nothing as probability of 1 (100%), many things have probability 0, so the field of possibility is reduced by process of elimination. Therefore theries can be compared and contrasted and, especially important, can their predictions can be shown to be accurate to some degree.
Newton's laws of gravitation might be updated again (one solution for "dark matter"), but Newton's laws won't be "less accurate", the new law will merely be "more accurate".
However, the theory of evolution does make creationism "less accurate". Indeed the internal coherency of creationism (which it's lacking) implies to me it's probability is 0. The only exception are hybrid theories, i.e. a New Creationism, that says... "well, god started evolution", and the like.
good idea!
I doubt you would really bet.
Philosophers invented logic.
They invented geometry and math.
They invented physics and science.
It's been fairly useful stuff, when you grow up, I suggest you check it out, it's one of the interesting things in the world.
This just goes to show your beliefs have little impact on what really occurred.
but what really occurred has a great deal of impact on my beliefs.
I've got a degree in Philosophy from Berkeley, I did study my epistemology and my, oh wait, metaphysics isn't studied as philosophy anymore because it's beyond the scope of human reason, still I studied it on my own...
Can I talk to you now? Please? What I would say is, "the validity of evolution is not based on belief".
btw, which came first, the tiny pink dragon or the drinking problem? just a little joke/joke there, I presume the little devil drove you to drink... quite understandable.
Why did the fish cross the road ??????
to get to the other tide?
So, which came first, the chicken or the egg.
(answer) hydrothermal vents. Ok, but a bit evasive.
Actually, I just wanted to say in general that if you believe in evolution, clearly the egg came first, as it was present in the chickens ancestors before the chicken evolved.
Actually, I think that's true even if you don't believe in evolution, since not believing in evolution doesn't make it less true.
I like the part in the bible where the Easter Bunny is hopping allong and runs in to Jesus and says, "Hey... I'm a pagan symbol, can I join your church so that you can market to my demographic? I stand for fertility and chocolate."
Jesus says, "Show unto me a bunch of free eggs."
It trumps only in the technical context. In the "common usage" context, then actual usage trumps.
btw: Isn't the "technical" way to discuss begging the question to talk about "assuming what you were to prove" and via the concept of "circular" reasoning?
"Begging the question" is really pretty vague in comparison. Breaking down the phrase, looking for meaning, which will happen in common usage certainly, I don't really understand how the question is "begged". It is more sensible to use the concept "to beg" to talk about a situation where the presentation strongly implies an important question that is not made-- the presentation "begs" for a question to be asked.
Also, I do not think that it's important to edit your work just because it's in public. That is very time consuming. You should edit exactly enough to serve the complexity of the idea you are presenting and the purpose of your post. I spend a lot of time editing proffessional writing, little on a forum, it's not worth it. Although I care, if you, for example, can understand my point, rigorous editing is not nec. to accomplish that.
Spelling is least important, grammer is important if it is a matter of comprehension, and proper use of idiomatic expressions... I actually agree that's more important as idiomatic expressions carry a lot of implications and if missused they bring a lot of erroneous connotations.
e.g. in the case of this article if someone really thought that the phrase meant to call into question the reasoning used, the missuse becomes a false lead... which reasoning? that the estimate assumed 40G$ rather than calculated it?
I doubt there was much missundertanging, however, since this is a common use of this phrase.
still, I couldn't help but pick this nit of mine because languages are living things, and what they are is defined by how they are used, not what scholars of the language have abstracted about it so far. The purposes of a language are many.
it's a "high rate".
Many things have ratings. Was it a high rate of "homelessness"... a high rate of "failure"? No... it was a high rate, of speed.
you are right. And yet, I think this use of the phrase, while totally incompatible with the "circular reasoning" use, is common. Common use beats the dictionary and web links...
I mean, the image is right... it's a statement that strongly implies a question.
99% safe... does that mean a potentially life threatening problem one of every 100 days? Those extra nines mean a lot.
hmmm... sounds like you are bitter at being an outcast from the outcasts.
your little rant could be true, or maybe the Anti-MS nature of slashdot just reflects the statistical opinion of the people that post on slashdot? maybe it's their opinion. The pathetic thing is how deep you dig to try to grasp why they don't agree with you.
I say "they", because I'm the opposite of a zealot. I will use any tool that I have time to try out. yet I'm sick and tired of MS -- for good reason.
your argument seems to show that someone needs to do to MS what MS did to IBM... force the commoditization of their wares as they become mature.
maybe they are about the wrong things then.
Our software could go on baby mulching machines and all we want is "credit"! "Baby Mulching Machine by Theo"? Getting credit is more important than not having baby mulching machines?
Einstien in the anti-verse: "I don't mind you using my ideas to create gigantic bombs, but I insist my name be printed on every one".
This idea is a bit pointless, perhaps, but frankly I like the idea that oppressive regimes may have another reason they could be pulled to court if they happen to be submitting to copyright. A country like China or the USA would like to say they obey IP law, and that would expose the possibility that their human rights records might be brought up in court. It's actually much more important than "credit" and is also the real problem in the world today, and a bunch of pampered americans -can- be expected to know this.
because, why should language be predictable when it can be pedantic! I vote for consistency over historical rules. Especially consider there ARE NO RULES of language. As if we all went to the english teachers and said, could you make us a language? No, the language was there, and they deduce the rules. Well, one of the rules they never learned was, "we reserve the right to change the rules and speak however we like, fnard!"
And to think I swimmed all the way across the oceon for this!
Language is changing. And now the Oxford Dictionary says I can end a sentence a preposition with. Also, if to merrily split infinitives I wish, allowed am I.
Thank goodness too, otherwise we'd be speaking Old English.
Yes, and they had these right long enough to have had the game before the movies and to have been ready to rake it in.
Sierra seriously has had some disfunctional years, even by game industry standards.