It seems that the subconscious makes the decision to move the hand, then the consciousness rationalizes this into a "decision" afterwards.
This is only true if you accept a 1980's version of psychology predicated upon the concept of unified consciousness. That idea was tossed out some time ago, as we now know that what we perceive as 'unified' is actually based on consensus.
To put it in layman's terms, what you think of as the 'self' - a single person, you - is actually a conglomerate of disparate 'mini-selves' with varying goals and motives. What you think of as 'you' is actually the sum total of these selves, in essence 'voting' to decide what 'you' will do. This in no way strips you of free will, if you're wondering about the philosophical implications; it's just that you aren't a single, discrete, easily described 'program' of consciousness.
This model of human thought is now fairly well accepted, no doubt in large part because it explains why people sometimes do things that're completely out of character - and that they themselves can't really explain afterwards (although they almost always attempt to rationalize a motive after the fact). While the mini-selves generally act in a predictable, consensual manner, sometimes the conflict results in an atypical 'vote' - followed by atypical action.
The experiment in question isn't really ground-breaking. All it does is bolster this view. In this case, the decision to move the hand was indeed reached by conscious decision, but the realization of that decision didn't occur at the 'unified' level until a brief time after the fact. This can actually be replicated in a number of different ways, through different experiments. Think of the decision having to pass through a layer of administrative bureaucracy before management stamps it for approval, even though the lower echelons have already implemented the decision in question.
You still have free will. It's just that 'you' aren't a single person, but alot of little persons acting together. Or at odds, as the case may be, with the biggest voting block winning control for that particular decision.
...and consider that 'no cars' would be a royal pain in the ass, because no matter how good a public transportation system you have it will never compare to having your own personal rain-free vehicle (an important consideration when you live in a place where it rains 9 months out of the year - nonstop).
Cars are good, mmkay? And no, I feel no obligation whatsoever to sacrifice my own personal convenience for 'the greater good'. If you want me to give up my car you have to offer me something better - otherwise, forget it.
Another holier-than-thou asshole shits all over the web. Wasn't there just an article posted decrying the signal to noise ratio?
Mayhap you should get off your aluminum steed for a moment - and out of those stupid-looking biker shorts that show all the ladies just how itsy-bitsy your package *really* is - and consider that your way isn't the One True Way(TM).
Or maybe not. Anyone who wears those idiotic biking clothes has *got* to be braindead....
If ever there was an indication that the empire is in decline, this is it. During the worst recession in more than 20 years, in the state with the highest unemployment rate, my taxes go to support the hiring of some geeky twit who speaks a made-up language from a second-rate sci-fi TV show.
If I had a shadow of a hope that America might somehow regain its senses and do away with the recent orgy of idiocies it seems to revel in, this has pretty much quashed it. Any society which does something this incredibly stupid is a goner.
Anyone who'd actually do what you describe is a sick, sad loser who's in desperate need of therapy. But hell, anyone who'd play this game over and over and over again probably fits the bill anyway.
Well, at least you aren't out strangling hookers or sacrificing babies. I suppose it could be worse.
Look, it's really quite simple: if you can't wrap the very limited brainpower some of you have around the ordering of the linux filesystem, you can always go crawling back to Windows.
I don't have any problem with improving linux. However, I do *not* see how making linux more like Windows can be considered an 'improvement'.
Linux isn't for fuckwits who can barely locate the 'on' button. Said fuckwits have Windows for that. If linux is just too tough for you to master then you know which OS is for you.
Riiiight. Given our recent actions, I rather think the purpose of the Department of War is conquest, colonialism, and proving that the President has a large willie.
Morse's company, Razorpoint Security Technologies does not employ hackers who've decided to come in from the cold.
Exactly how the hell would he know? If you get caught, you weren't a terribly good hacker to begin with. If you don't get caught, then Morse wouldn't know dick one way or another what it is that you've done in the past, except for those things you decide to put on your resume.
YOU are a liability if you have a criminal record.
Funny, I thought it was a criminal nature was a requirement for advancement into management these days.
Not to mention politics. You do know that almost 50% of Congress has a criminal record? And that our own President was a criminal (drug user) at one point? The fact that he wasn't convicted and sent to jail does nothing to diminish the crime itself.
Your own justification for humans as power sources is itself full of holes. The human body will always consume more energy than it produces; humans are losers in terms of energy production, and highly inefficient losers at that.
There are at least a dozen different power sources I could name that would've made more sense than what was described in the move. It would've been much more logical to assume that the Matrix was, in fact, an extension of the current internet - one that gained a life of its own, but in Futureland couldn't exist without the continued processor power of 6 billion human brains, connected. Now *this* I could've bought, even if it strained my credulity more than I normally allow.
Use this and you have a definite reason why the Matrix needs humans and can't give them up. Without all those human brains for processing power it becomes lobotomized and dies.
I suppose you're so eager to belittle "The Matrix" since it means people can get access to certain ideas that you had to learn in a more painful manner.
Oh please. The Matrix was loads of fun - but that's all. Nobody could possibly learn the first thing about philosophy from a movie like this, unless your idea of 'learning' in this case consisted of smoking a few joints before going to the theater, or perhaps dropping a hit or two of acid instead.
The 'philosophy', such as it was, just sets up the theme of the movie and rationalizes Neo's godlike powers at the end. Great - that works! But to claim that the hackneyed, sophomoric concepts bandied about constitute anything more than intellectual masturbation is absurd.
The philosophical musings of the first one weren't any deeper than you'd find in the ramblings of a wet-behind-the-ears freshman taking a required first-year course in the subject.
Really, the 'philosophy' of the Matrix was just a set up for the theme of the movie. There was nothing at all 'deep' to it, unless your normal fare of this stuff consists of the questions Seinfeld asks during his stand-up routine at the end of his horrid show.
What's depressing is that so many people seem to think the crap that was in The Matrix consisted of Important Questions About Existence(TM). That says more about the educational system than anything else.
But I wouldn't sweat it. The Matrix was great, brainless fun, and that's exactly as it should be.
What're you talking about??? I just went and checked this site out with Opera, Linux version 7.1.0 B1 and didn't have any trouble at all with popups.
There was an annoying animated ad on the right, but I didn't bother to disable animation or Java. I could do that, if I chose, and that problem would be solved as well.
but expecting all the interesting stuff on the web to be free because you paid for your computer and ISP connection is a little silly.
Expecting all the 'interesting stuff' (whatever the hell that means) to think I'm going to put up with this crap is even sillier. But hey, if Joe Loser wants to lose control over his machine so he can get a cut-rate video snippet of Britney strutting her stuff, that's fine by me.
I'll just wander on over to Gnutella and download the full video for free.
Ashcroft who has done a great job preventing further terrorist attacks in the USA...
Liar! Fiend! Terrorist! It isn't Ashcroft that's prevented 'further terrorist attacks in the USA', it's my magic rock here. What? You say my rock does nothing? But my proof is that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 - where's your proof that I'm wrong?
It's far more likely that some power-hungry schmuck about to lose an election, and the much more intelligent puppeteers who support him behind the scenes, will 'acquire' a nuke from Kazakhstan and set it off themselves, blaming 'evil terrorists' for the act while they declare a national emergency and suspend elections 'until the crisis has passed'.
It's amazing how many yahoos think that making a nuke is a piece of cake, even on a national level. And that smuggling one in is also easy. If a nuke goes off in America, I won't be looking for dark-skinned turban-wearing furriners - I'll be looking for the asshole who bought them the nuke and allowed them to walk into the country in the first place.
And I'm willing to bet those assholes will be good ol' Americans.
Given that a number of black voters in Florida were disenfranchised for no real reason whatsoever (this is a matter of record, and not one of unsubstantiated fact) there's hardly anything 'fair' about the outcome of the election. Florida had quite a few more irregularities than simple voter confusion or bad ballots, and no reasonable person can dismiss these irregularities, especially in light of how close the vote was.
Not that I think things would be any better with Gore in office. All three candidates (yes, I think Nader is just as bad as the rest) were absolutely awful. Both Bush and Gore are party tools who'd sell their own mothers to monied interests, while Nader is a totalitarian freak who thinks that the answer to battling 'evil corporations' is the creation of an even bigger and more overwhelming government than we already have.
So while I believe that ol' Jeb fucked with the results to make sure his no-good brother got the nod, essentially all three stood for the same thing: stripping individuals of their rights.
A terrible election, overall. In sheer desperation I would've taken Perot over those three losers, and that's saying something.
Amen, brother. The thing I find most offensive about this conversation is that one bloke (in this case, Perens) thinks he has the authority to declare another bloke (Taylor) 'unqualified' to represent open source.
Fact is, *no one* is qualified to represent open source - by definition. That's how things work. We listen to some people more than others, and those that gain our respect will often be able to sway our opinion. But the moment bloke #1 (Perens) goes around claiming that he gets to decide whether Taylor is 'qualified' or not, what little respect I have for the man disappears altogether.
Bruce Perens is just a guy, like any other. He is no more 'qualified' than I am to 'represent' open source, if such a thing could even be done. The moment he exalts himself is the moment I choose not to listen to him at all anymore. And because this is open source, that's the only coin he can use for influence - no election, no endorsement, no rave reviews from other self-important folks are of any value in this strange little world.
The strength of open source is precisely that there is no self-important fuckwit calling himself 'our' leader, nor a host of other self-important fuckwits insisting that I agree with him or 'be cast out, vile heathen!'
Anyone who wants a command structure, CEO, or anything 'official' when it comes to open source, simply doesn't belong in open source. For them the world of Windows and other closed source OSs and apps awaits; and that's precisely where they should go.
The only reason pistols exist is to kill people. Thats all. I see no reason why Americans feel the need to carry around a device capable of killing many people with a simple flick of the finger.
You apparently didn't read my post. In the United States of America, the mere possession of a firearm is enough to prevent at least 200,000, and possibly 800,000, crimes a year - most of those against women, who for the most part aren't capable of physically resisting the average man.
You can talk all you like about how violent America is, and I won't gainsay you. But quite clearly, it is a matter of record, a matter of fact, produced by one of the most anti-gun law enforcement agencies in the U.S., that the possession of guns by intended victims prevent crime. This isn't open to interpretation or word play, it's simple truth.
Wail, gnash your teeth, do whatever you like. But don't sit there and tell me that pistols are only good for killing folks, and that their mere possession somehow casts doubts upon the humanity of the possessor. Those 200,000 folks or more who defended themselves are proof enough that such a statement is utter bullshit.
As for your claim of 'disproprotionate rate of gun homocide', that's a lie. We have a very high murder rate overall; how a person is killed is of no consequence - they're still dead, whether you shoot them, stab them, or beat them. And banning guns would have no effect on the murder rate *because guns aren't the cause of violence*. That is so self-evident I can't begin to imagine the pathetic self-loathing required to claim anything to the contrary.
Your reasoning on the Canadian ban on handguns is ludicrous. People don't deprive one another of weapons because they trust their neighbor not to use them; they do so out of fear their neighbors *WILL*. If anything, the ban on guns shows that Canadians are even more afraid of each other than Americans are afraid of other Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that the subconscious makes the decision to move the hand, then the consciousness rationalizes this into a "decision" afterwards.
This is only true if you accept a 1980's version of psychology predicated upon the concept of unified consciousness. That idea was tossed out some time ago, as we now know that what we perceive as 'unified' is actually based on consensus.
To put it in layman's terms, what you think of as the 'self' - a single person, you - is actually a conglomerate of disparate 'mini-selves' with varying goals and motives. What you think of as 'you' is actually the sum total of these selves, in essence 'voting' to decide what 'you' will do. This in no way strips you of free will, if you're wondering about the philosophical implications; it's just that you aren't a single, discrete, easily described 'program' of consciousness.
This model of human thought is now fairly well accepted, no doubt in large part because it explains why people sometimes do things that're completely out of character - and that they themselves can't really explain afterwards (although they almost always attempt to rationalize a motive after the fact). While the mini-selves generally act in a predictable, consensual manner, sometimes the conflict results in an atypical 'vote' - followed by atypical action.
The experiment in question isn't really ground-breaking. All it does is bolster this view. In this case, the decision to move the hand was indeed reached by conscious decision, but the realization of that decision didn't occur at the 'unified' level until a brief time after the fact. This can actually be replicated in a number of different ways, through different experiments. Think of the decision having to pass through a layer of administrative bureaucracy before management stamps it for approval, even though the lower echelons have already implemented the decision in question.
You still have free will. It's just that 'you' aren't a single person, but alot of little persons acting together. Or at odds, as the case may be, with the biggest voting block winning control for that particular decision.
Max
...and consider that 'no cars' would be a royal pain in the ass, because no matter how good a public transportation system you have it will never compare to having your own personal rain-free vehicle (an important consideration when you live in a place where it rains 9 months out of the year - nonstop).
Cars are good, mmkay? And no, I feel no obligation whatsoever to sacrifice my own personal convenience for 'the greater good'. If you want me to give up my car you have to offer me something better - otherwise, forget it.
Max
Another holier-than-thou asshole shits all over the web. Wasn't there just an article posted decrying the signal to noise ratio?
Mayhap you should get off your aluminum steed for a moment - and out of those stupid-looking biker shorts that show all the ladies just how itsy-bitsy your package *really* is - and consider that your way isn't the One True Way(TM).
Or maybe not. Anyone who wears those idiotic biking clothes has *got* to be braindead....
Max
If everyone uses free software, and nothing but free software...where do all the programmers go?
As a geek, you could use your extensive knowledge of Klingon to get a job in Oregon.
Max
If ever there was an indication that the empire is in decline, this is it. During the worst recession in more than 20 years, in the state with the highest unemployment rate, my taxes go to support the hiring of some geeky twit who speaks a made-up language from a second-rate sci-fi TV show.
If I had a shadow of a hope that America might somehow regain its senses and do away with the recent orgy of idiocies it seems to revel in, this has pretty much quashed it. Any society which does something this incredibly stupid is a goner.
Max
Anyone who'd actually do what you describe is a sick, sad loser who's in desperate need of therapy. But hell, anyone who'd play this game over and over and over again probably fits the bill anyway.
Well, at least you aren't out strangling hookers or sacrificing babies. I suppose it could be worse.
Max
Look, it's really quite simple: if you can't wrap the very limited brainpower some of you have around the ordering of the linux filesystem, you can always go crawling back to Windows.
I don't have any problem with improving linux. However, I do *not* see how making linux more like Windows can be considered an 'improvement'.
Linux isn't for fuckwits who can barely locate the 'on' button. Said fuckwits have Windows for that. If linux is just too tough for you to master then you know which OS is for you.
Max
Nah, screwing your girlfriend on the altar of a church is a desecration. Collecting bloody, scorched pieces of the Columbia is just in bad taste.
Max
Hey, just because we can last longer than 2 minutes and the ladies know it....
Max
Purpose of DoD - Defending the Nation.
Riiiight. Given our recent actions, I rather think the purpose of the Department of War is conquest, colonialism, and proving that the President has a large willie.
Max
Morse's company, Razorpoint Security Technologies does not employ hackers who've decided to come in from the cold.
Exactly how the hell would he know? If you get caught, you weren't a terribly good hacker to begin with. If you don't get caught, then Morse wouldn't know dick one way or another what it is that you've done in the past, except for those things you decide to put on your resume.
Max
YOU are a liability if you have a criminal record.
Funny, I thought it was a criminal nature was a requirement for advancement into management these days.
Not to mention politics. You do know that almost 50% of Congress has a criminal record? And that our own President was a criminal (drug user) at one point? The fact that he wasn't convicted and sent to jail does nothing to diminish the crime itself.
Max
Your own justification for humans as power sources is itself full of holes. The human body will always consume more energy than it produces; humans are losers in terms of energy production, and highly inefficient losers at that.
There are at least a dozen different power sources I could name that would've made more sense than what was described in the move. It would've been much more logical to assume that the Matrix was, in fact, an extension of the current internet - one that gained a life of its own, but in Futureland couldn't exist without the continued processor power of 6 billion human brains, connected. Now *this* I could've bought, even if it strained my credulity more than I normally allow.
Use this and you have a definite reason why the Matrix needs humans and can't give them up. Without all those human brains for processing power it becomes lobotomized and dies.
Max
I suppose you're so eager to belittle "The Matrix" since it means people can get access to certain ideas that you had to learn in a more painful manner.
Oh please. The Matrix was loads of fun - but that's all. Nobody could possibly learn the first thing about philosophy from a movie like this, unless your idea of 'learning' in this case consisted of smoking a few joints before going to the theater, or perhaps dropping a hit or two of acid instead.
The 'philosophy', such as it was, just sets up the theme of the movie and rationalizes Neo's godlike powers at the end. Great - that works! But to claim that the hackneyed, sophomoric concepts bandied about constitute anything more than intellectual masturbation is absurd.
Max
The philosophical musings of the first one weren't any deeper than you'd find in the ramblings of a wet-behind-the-ears freshman taking a required first-year course in the subject.
Really, the 'philosophy' of the Matrix was just a set up for the theme of the movie. There was nothing at all 'deep' to it, unless your normal fare of this stuff consists of the questions Seinfeld asks during his stand-up routine at the end of his horrid show.
What's depressing is that so many people seem to think the crap that was in The Matrix consisted of Important Questions About Existence(TM). That says more about the educational system than anything else.
But I wouldn't sweat it. The Matrix was great, brainless fun, and that's exactly as it should be.
Max
What're you talking about??? I just went and checked this site out with Opera, Linux version 7.1.0 B1 and didn't have any trouble at all with popups.
There was an annoying animated ad on the right, but I didn't bother to disable animation or Java. I could do that, if I chose, and that problem would be solved as well.
Max
but expecting all the interesting stuff on the web to be free because you paid for your computer and ISP connection is a little silly.
Expecting all the 'interesting stuff' (whatever the hell that means) to think I'm going to put up with this crap is even sillier. But hey, if Joe Loser wants to lose control over his machine so he can get a cut-rate video snippet of Britney strutting her stuff, that's fine by me.
I'll just wander on over to Gnutella and download the full video for free.
Max
I think he was talking about the France that rolled over and spread its ass-cheeks for the Germans some 60-odd years ago. *That* France.
Max
You're right, it would. And doing that would get MS back in antitrust court even if Gates was President.
And they'd get off again, even if Nader were president. What, were you sleeping through the last trial?
Max
Ashcroft who has done a great job preventing further terrorist attacks in the USA...
Liar! Fiend! Terrorist! It isn't Ashcroft that's prevented 'further terrorist attacks in the USA', it's my magic rock here. What? You say my rock does nothing? But my proof is that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 - where's your proof that I'm wrong?
Max
It's far more likely that some power-hungry schmuck about to lose an election, and the much more intelligent puppeteers who support him behind the scenes, will 'acquire' a nuke from Kazakhstan and set it off themselves, blaming 'evil terrorists' for the act while they declare a national emergency and suspend elections 'until the crisis has passed'.
It's amazing how many yahoos think that making a nuke is a piece of cake, even on a national level. And that smuggling one in is also easy. If a nuke goes off in America, I won't be looking for dark-skinned turban-wearing furriners - I'll be looking for the asshole who bought them the nuke and allowed them to walk into the country in the first place.
And I'm willing to bet those assholes will be good ol' Americans.
Max
Given that a number of black voters in Florida were disenfranchised for no real reason whatsoever (this is a matter of record, and not one of unsubstantiated fact) there's hardly anything 'fair' about the outcome of the election. Florida had quite a few more irregularities than simple voter confusion or bad ballots, and no reasonable person can dismiss these irregularities, especially in light of how close the vote was.
Not that I think things would be any better with Gore in office. All three candidates (yes, I think Nader is just as bad as the rest) were absolutely awful. Both Bush and Gore are party tools who'd sell their own mothers to monied interests, while Nader is a totalitarian freak who thinks that the answer to battling 'evil corporations' is the creation of an even bigger and more overwhelming government than we already have.
So while I believe that ol' Jeb fucked with the results to make sure his no-good brother got the nod, essentially all three stood for the same thing: stripping individuals of their rights.
A terrible election, overall. In sheer desperation I would've taken Perot over those three losers, and that's saying something.
Max
Amen, brother. The thing I find most offensive about this conversation is that one bloke (in this case, Perens) thinks he has the authority to declare another bloke (Taylor) 'unqualified' to represent open source.
Fact is, *no one* is qualified to represent open source - by definition. That's how things work. We listen to some people more than others, and those that gain our respect will often be able to sway our opinion. But the moment bloke #1 (Perens) goes around claiming that he gets to decide whether Taylor is 'qualified' or not, what little respect I have for the man disappears altogether.
Bruce Perens is just a guy, like any other. He is no more 'qualified' than I am to 'represent' open source, if such a thing could even be done. The moment he exalts himself is the moment I choose not to listen to him at all anymore. And because this is open source, that's the only coin he can use for influence - no election, no endorsement, no rave reviews from other self-important folks are of any value in this strange little world.
Max
The strength of open source is precisely that there is no self-important fuckwit calling himself 'our' leader, nor a host of other self-important fuckwits insisting that I agree with him or 'be cast out, vile heathen!'
Anyone who wants a command structure, CEO, or anything 'official' when it comes to open source, simply doesn't belong in open source. For them the world of Windows and other closed source OSs and apps awaits; and that's precisely where they should go.
Max
The only reason pistols exist is to kill people. Thats all. I see no reason why Americans feel the need to carry around a device capable of killing many people with a simple flick of the finger.
You apparently didn't read my post. In the United States of America, the mere possession of a firearm is enough to prevent at least 200,000, and possibly 800,000, crimes a year - most of those against women, who for the most part aren't capable of physically resisting the average man.
You can talk all you like about how violent America is, and I won't gainsay you. But quite clearly, it is a matter of record, a matter of fact, produced by one of the most anti-gun law enforcement agencies in the U.S., that the possession of guns by intended victims prevent crime. This isn't open to interpretation or word play, it's simple truth.
Wail, gnash your teeth, do whatever you like. But don't sit there and tell me that pistols are only good for killing folks, and that their mere possession somehow casts doubts upon the humanity of the possessor. Those 200,000 folks or more who defended themselves are proof enough that such a statement is utter bullshit.
As for your claim of 'disproprotionate rate of gun homocide', that's a lie. We have a very high murder rate overall; how a person is killed is of no consequence - they're still dead, whether you shoot them, stab them, or beat them. And banning guns would have no effect on the murder rate *because guns aren't the cause of violence*. That is so self-evident I can't begin to imagine the pathetic self-loathing required to claim anything to the contrary.
Your reasoning on the Canadian ban on handguns is ludicrous. People don't deprive one another of weapons because they trust their neighbor not to use them; they do so out of fear their neighbors *WILL*. If anything, the ban on guns shows that Canadians are even more afraid of each other than Americans are afraid of other Americans.
Max