In this regard, my beliefs violate Occam's razor. Rather than believing that the mind/soul is an emergent property of a functional brain, I believe that the mind/soul underlies the brain and that a functional brain is necessary for the expression of consciousness and will. It is not that a person's identity changes or ceases to be when the brain is damaged but that the physical capacity of that person's brain to express his or her identity has changed.
I think that neither option that you presented is accurate. I attribute consciousness and will to the influence of God. In the absence of a deific source of these qualities, I believe them to be illusory traits that happen to be beneficial to the survival of the species. If consciousness and will are fictitious, then the notion of morality is also fictious. In the absence of God, I perceive the universe as intrinsically amoral.
I would, in fact let go. Unfortunately, I would also become a very, very bad person. In the absence of God, we're just very advanced animals and I DO believe in survival of the fittest. Obviously, I probably wouldn't have to kill anybody to get ahead and a lifetime of conditioning in moral behaviour would inhibit me, but I would very likely become a greedier, more selfish person.
Here is how I reconcile: I hold that faith applies to notions outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. I accept, on faith, that some unprovable, untestable ideas are truthful. I do not, however, consider ALL unprovable, untestable ideas to be truthful. I choose what to believe. I happen to choose to believe in a faith that is based on a long-established canon that is grounded, to some degree or another, in historical events. (This is why I believe that Christianity's claims are more credible than Pastafarianism's, for example. They are not provable, but they contain elements of documentary evidence.)
In this regard, I consider myself to be arational, but not irrational. Here is why:
When faith and reason conflict, I side with reason. I closely examine apparent conflicts between them. After I have carefully defined terms and established that the claims between the two are genuinely contradictory, I will reassess my interpretation of scripture based on what reason tells me must be true. Reason is absolute. My faith, on the other hand, is based on my ability to interpret a document that has undergone many translations and which requires a holistic understanding to grasp. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that my capacity to interpret scriptures is woefully limited.
This does not mean, however, that I will change my faith whimsically. Give me the benefit of the doubt, at least, and accept (as some do not) that I make a genuine effort to maintain the integrity of my faith within the boundaries of reality, as I know it. My philosophy is generally that there is only one truth and that reason and faith both pursue it. Part of my faith is that I accept reason as a gift from God that I am to use to enjoy creation and to refine my faith.
The solution is extremely idealistic, but optimally, a programmer who has been ordered to do something that he knows is detrimental to the end-user of the software should refuse to obey the order. He'll probably be fired, possibly without recourse. It is small comfort to anybody that he'd have done the right thing. The fact of the matter is, our society promotes "success" so much that there are plenty of unethical people out there who would be perfectly willing to use irresponsible practices to maintain low costs.
In an ethics seminar, it's easy to cite the correct course of action, disobey one's boss, and then sue for wrongful termination. In the real world, the weeks or months of unemployment, the stigma of being a problem employee, and the possibility that one will lose one's wrongful termination suit are enough to make a lot of people swallow their objections and just do as they're told.
I have not read the article, so shame on me if this is incorrect. It sounded, however, like the paper was only being used as an inexpensive and flexible substrate. It would be neat to use regular paper if you actually wanted to print these, as described in the summary. On the other hand, if greater durability is required, I imagine that you could use cardstock, fabric, or some hybrid, like the paper used to make money.
The question then becomes: Should an online purchase of music, something that recording companies desperately want us to believe is equivalent to acquiring a CD, be treated like the purchase of a gift certificate? The model here allowed a customer unlimited and indefinite use of a particular song or video, but requires Google's participation to make the media usable.
I suppose that in a lot of ways, this is more like a pricey unlimited membership to a video rental shop. Unlike that situation, however, users here paid "full" price for each piece of content to which they wanted unlimited access. That suggests a situation much closer to acquiring an actual CD or DVD. Although transferring that value to Google Checkout probably works adequately for most of their customers, this situation still highlights weaknesses both of DRM and of online purchases of media in general.
Whether I'm streaming media or purchasing media encumbered with digital rights management, the seller has a mechanism that makes me dependent upon them to continue receiving what I've paid for. Unless I work around their locks and protections, I never retain an actual copy of the media for myself. That is dissimilar to the situation in meatspace. If I buy a CD, I have a CD.
It is my opinion, as trollish as it may seem, that persons possessing both common sense and strong principles don't even want to be in a position with that much power. Common sense, after all, dictates that the demands of such a position would frequently put one in a position where one's principles are difficult, painful, or illegal to uphold.
Just to offer a slight counterpoint to your claim that the industry wants everybody to listen to the same pop crap... Although the station to which I most frequently listen probably does not qualify as 'industry,' I have found that the local classical music station is top notch. It's a Minnesota Public Radio station and I recently donated $120 to their membership drive. There are almost no commercials (what passes for a commercial on that channel is one of the DJ's reading a cue) and they play a huge variety of classical music. Even better, none of the other stations in the area that play music that I enjoy (mostly country/western, in my case) has reception anywhere near as good. I suppose my point is that hope may lie in public radio.
The problem with the incentive model that you're describing is that it would need to be universally implemented or the prize has to be comparable to the profits the researching company could expect to earn from the discovery. If the incentive is tied to a clause that requires a particular pricing model, then the company will always look to see whether they can make a greater profit by declining the prize and using the same pricing models they've been using.
I disagree. Work, in moderation, is satisfying. Granted, if I retire at 40 as a wealthy man, I could still volunteer 30 hours per week with Habitat for Humanity or something. I like having something worthwhile and useful to do with my time, though.
I agree with you about "blog." It is such an ugly word. It sounds like the noise one makes when vomiting. The parent term, "weblog," sounds so much more appealing. The idea of a log book is, in my opinion, very charming. Is one syllable really worth turning a pleasant and elegant word into a belch?
I would just like to provide a shred of anecdotal evidence that not everybody is like that. I, for one, love the iTunes music store. I don't even own an iPod (although my family is buying me one for my birthday.) I just like being able to buy the songs that I like (and only the songs that I like) at a reasonable price per track.
Canceling one's subscription will result in one losing all of the work that one has invested into one's character. If one cancels now and then comes back later, one will be at a greater disadvantage than if one had continued to pay while demanding change. It is my understanding that this is especially relevant in EVE, where a character's position may represent hundreds or thousands of hours of work. I suspect that many of the complaints are coming from people who neither want to forfeit their investment of time nor for that investment to be meaningless.
See, I laughed because he implied that Mr. Ballmer is a large, ape-like creature. Although this technically describes many human beings, it is nonetheless amusing to apply it thus.
It seems that way only because nobody is willing to do it. I vote with my heart (although if I agree with one of the big two parties 70% and a smaller party 85%, I'll probably still vote for the large party.) I don't do so because I expect my party to win but because I have no other way of expressing my opinion. I'm proud to vote for smaller parties when I agree with them. I want others to see that and to realize that the only way to really throw away your vote is not to cast it. I vote for the party of which I approve not because I expect a better present but because I think it is the key to a better future.
We haven't observed much life, but we do know quite a bit about chemistry. There is good reason to believe that the complexity of life requires delicate chemistry which can be conducted easily in water. This is one of the prime arguments I've heard against silicon-based life, for example. The molecules are too fragile to form chemical constructs analogous to those found in carbon-based life. Likewise, life that does not use water as a solvent would have to overcome some very basic chemical obstacles to developing molecules of sufficient complexity to qualify as life-forms.
In theory, anyways, the demographic should be closer to 50/50. The fact that it is not suggests that something about existing CS programs is hostile to women entrants. The "nerd factor" mentioned in the article may not just be a matter of self-image, but rather self-perpetuating discrimination. If the stereotype of an unpleasant and misogynistic CS major is even a little bit accurate, then it serves as a discriminatory barrier to entry for women interested in the field.
You're neglecting the third corner of the triangle. They can design a high-tech, low-maintenance space suit, but it will be monstrously expensive.
Re:Does it matter?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
I understand the point that you're trying to get across, but in the case of Jesus, to those who believe the message, the message and the messenger are one-and-the-same. It's a subtle, but important point (one that is difficult to swallow by a secular audience who would prefer to perceive Jesus merely as a very good man.)
I think I might have enjoyed Black and White a great deal more if the controls hadn't been so poor. The motion to throw something seems so intuitive with a mouse, but that flick-of-the-wrist motion is really hard with a trackball. I consider that a severe weakness Black and White. It had a fascinating control mechanism that assumed you had a particular controller. At one point, I was supposed to lob fireballs at my enemy's village and I tried for three or four minutes before the game let me move on (with the enemy village still intact.) That was the first and last time I played Black and White. I'm just glad that I bought it off the bargain rack.
It isn't a bad analogy at all. Stating that something is illegal because there's a law forbidding it is tautological. You could state that something is wrong because there's a law against it but I wouldn't accept that either. I hold that there it works the other way around. There is a law against it because it is wrong. (It doesn't always work that way, but I believe that is the case in this instance.) Just because there isn't a law against something (and another person who responded to you suggested that there is a law against this) doesn't mean that it isn't wrong.
I agree with your assessment that the Harry Potter books are juvenile fiction, but they are also a refreshing deviation from the spineless stories that have passed for juvenile fiction for years. They are, furthermore, entertaining enough to be enjoyable light reading for adults. Although they may be targeted at adolescents, they appeal to a larger audience, which is a noteworthy attribute. In my opinion, the Harry Potter books are a model of quality juvenile fiction. They are literary enough and bold enough that they are likely to inspire readers to continue reading even after they've grown out of juvenile fiction. Previously, I was of the opinion that most juvenile fiction set kids up for disappointment when they found failure, death, and other unhappy endings in more adult fiction.
Your argument against bicycles is accurate but it also highlights an unfortunate secondary trend. Despite being spread far apart, why shouldn't it be feasible to bicycle to work? We are a fat nation and we're getting fatter. Furthermore, we are impatient and lazy. Encouraging people to bicycle to work would contribute to the solution to these problems. We would cut down on emissions of CO2 and other pollutants, we would get more exercise, and we may foster a less rushed, impatient attitude. I just started a new job in a new city and I think that my commute may actually be bicycle-friendly. I'm really looking forward to the weather warming up (currently, the daily highs are below freezing) so that I can try bicycling to work. (Even though it's ~10 miles and I have to be to work at 7:00 in the morning.)
Slashdot Mirror
In this regard, my beliefs violate Occam's razor. Rather than believing that the mind/soul is an emergent property of a functional brain, I believe that the mind/soul underlies the brain and that a functional brain is necessary for the expression of consciousness and will. It is not that a person's identity changes or ceases to be when the brain is damaged but that the physical capacity of that person's brain to express his or her identity has changed.
I think that neither option that you presented is accurate. I attribute consciousness and will to the influence of God. In the absence of a deific source of these qualities, I believe them to be illusory traits that happen to be beneficial to the survival of the species. If consciousness and will are fictitious, then the notion of morality is also fictious. In the absence of God, I perceive the universe as intrinsically amoral.
I would, in fact let go. Unfortunately, I would also become a very, very bad person. In the absence of God, we're just very advanced animals and I DO believe in survival of the fittest. Obviously, I probably wouldn't have to kill anybody to get ahead and a lifetime of conditioning in moral behaviour would inhibit me, but I would very likely become a greedier, more selfish person.
Here is how I reconcile:
I hold that faith applies to notions outside of the scope of scientific inquiry. I accept, on faith, that some unprovable, untestable ideas are truthful. I do not, however, consider ALL unprovable, untestable ideas to be truthful. I choose what to believe. I happen to choose to believe in a faith that is based on a long-established canon that is grounded, to some degree or another, in historical events. (This is why I believe that Christianity's claims are more credible than Pastafarianism's, for example. They are not provable, but they contain elements of documentary evidence.)
In this regard, I consider myself to be arational, but not irrational. Here is why:
When faith and reason conflict, I side with reason. I closely examine apparent conflicts between them. After I have carefully defined terms and established that the claims between the two are genuinely contradictory, I will reassess my interpretation of scripture based on what reason tells me must be true. Reason is absolute. My faith, on the other hand, is based on my ability to interpret a document that has undergone many translations and which requires a holistic understanding to grasp. I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that my capacity to interpret scriptures is woefully limited.
This does not mean, however, that I will change my faith whimsically. Give me the benefit of the doubt, at least, and accept (as some do not) that I make a genuine effort to maintain the integrity of my faith within the boundaries of reality, as I know it. My philosophy is generally that there is only one truth and that reason and faith both pursue it. Part of my faith is that I accept reason as a gift from God that I am to use to enjoy creation and to refine my faith.
The solution is extremely idealistic, but optimally, a programmer who has been ordered to do something that he knows is detrimental to the end-user of the software should refuse to obey the order. He'll probably be fired, possibly without recourse. It is small comfort to anybody that he'd have done the right thing. The fact of the matter is, our society promotes "success" so much that there are plenty of unethical people out there who would be perfectly willing to use irresponsible practices to maintain low costs.
In an ethics seminar, it's easy to cite the correct course of action, disobey one's boss, and then sue for wrongful termination. In the real world, the weeks or months of unemployment, the stigma of being a problem employee, and the possibility that one will lose one's wrongful termination suit are enough to make a lot of people swallow their objections and just do as they're told.
I have not read the article, so shame on me if this is incorrect. It sounded, however, like the paper was only being used as an inexpensive and flexible substrate. It would be neat to use regular paper if you actually wanted to print these, as described in the summary. On the other hand, if greater durability is required, I imagine that you could use cardstock, fabric, or some hybrid, like the paper used to make money.
The question then becomes: Should an online purchase of music, something that recording companies desperately want us to believe is equivalent to acquiring a CD, be treated like the purchase of a gift certificate? The model here allowed a customer unlimited and indefinite use of a particular song or video, but requires Google's participation to make the media usable.
I suppose that in a lot of ways, this is more like a pricey unlimited membership to a video rental shop. Unlike that situation, however, users here paid "full" price for each piece of content to which they wanted unlimited access. That suggests a situation much closer to acquiring an actual CD or DVD. Although transferring that value to Google Checkout probably works adequately for most of their customers, this situation still highlights weaknesses both of DRM and of online purchases of media in general.
Whether I'm streaming media or purchasing media encumbered with digital rights management, the seller has a mechanism that makes me dependent upon them to continue receiving what I've paid for. Unless I work around their locks and protections, I never retain an actual copy of the media for myself. That is dissimilar to the situation in meatspace. If I buy a CD, I have a CD.
I get to make out with my date in public. That's worth the price of admission.
It is my opinion, as trollish as it may seem, that persons possessing both common sense and strong principles don't even want to be in a position with that much power. Common sense, after all, dictates that the demands of such a position would frequently put one in a position where one's principles are difficult, painful, or illegal to uphold.
Just to offer a slight counterpoint to your claim that the industry wants everybody to listen to the same pop crap... Although the station to which I most frequently listen probably does not qualify as 'industry,' I have found that the local classical music station is top notch. It's a Minnesota Public Radio station and I recently donated $120 to their membership drive. There are almost no commercials (what passes for a commercial on that channel is one of the DJ's reading a cue) and they play a huge variety of classical music. Even better, none of the other stations in the area that play music that I enjoy (mostly country/western, in my case) has reception anywhere near as good. I suppose my point is that hope may lie in public radio.
The problem with the incentive model that you're describing is that it would need to be universally implemented or the prize has to be comparable to the profits the researching company could expect to earn from the discovery. If the incentive is tied to a clause that requires a particular pricing model, then the company will always look to see whether they can make a greater profit by declining the prize and using the same pricing models they've been using.
I disagree. Work, in moderation, is satisfying. Granted, if I retire at 40 as a wealthy man, I could still volunteer 30 hours per week with Habitat for Humanity or something. I like having something worthwhile and useful to do with my time, though.
I agree with you about "blog." It is such an ugly word. It sounds like the noise one makes when vomiting. The parent term, "weblog," sounds so much more appealing. The idea of a log book is, in my opinion, very charming. Is one syllable really worth turning a pleasant and elegant word into a belch?
I would just like to provide a shred of anecdotal evidence that not everybody is like that. I, for one, love the iTunes music store. I don't even own an iPod (although my family is buying me one for my birthday.) I just like being able to buy the songs that I like (and only the songs that I like) at a reasonable price per track.
Canceling one's subscription will result in one losing all of the work that one has invested into one's character. If one cancels now and then comes back later, one will be at a greater disadvantage than if one had continued to pay while demanding change. It is my understanding that this is especially relevant in EVE, where a character's position may represent hundreds or thousands of hours of work. I suspect that many of the complaints are coming from people who neither want to forfeit their investment of time nor for that investment to be meaningless.
See, I laughed because he implied that Mr. Ballmer is a large, ape-like creature. Although this technically describes many human beings, it is nonetheless amusing to apply it thus.
It seems that way only because nobody is willing to do it. I vote with my heart (although if I agree with one of the big two parties 70% and a smaller party 85%, I'll probably still vote for the large party.) I don't do so because I expect my party to win but because I have no other way of expressing my opinion. I'm proud to vote for smaller parties when I agree with them. I want others to see that and to realize that the only way to really throw away your vote is not to cast it. I vote for the party of which I approve not because I expect a better present but because I think it is the key to a better future.
We haven't observed much life, but we do know quite a bit about chemistry. There is good reason to believe that the complexity of life requires delicate chemistry which can be conducted easily in water. This is one of the prime arguments I've heard against silicon-based life, for example. The molecules are too fragile to form chemical constructs analogous to those found in carbon-based life. Likewise, life that does not use water as a solvent would have to overcome some very basic chemical obstacles to developing molecules of sufficient complexity to qualify as life-forms.
In theory, anyways, the demographic should be closer to 50/50. The fact that it is not suggests that something about existing CS programs is hostile to women entrants. The "nerd factor" mentioned in the article may not just be a matter of self-image, but rather self-perpetuating discrimination. If the stereotype of an unpleasant and misogynistic CS major is even a little bit accurate, then it serves as a discriminatory barrier to entry for women interested in the field.
You're neglecting the third corner of the triangle. They can design a high-tech, low-maintenance space suit, but it will be monstrously expensive.
I understand the point that you're trying to get across, but in the case of Jesus, to those who believe the message, the message and the messenger are one-and-the-same. It's a subtle, but important point (one that is difficult to swallow by a secular audience who would prefer to perceive Jesus merely as a very good man.)
I think I might have enjoyed Black and White a great deal more if the controls hadn't been so poor. The motion to throw something seems so intuitive with a mouse, but that flick-of-the-wrist motion is really hard with a trackball. I consider that a severe weakness Black and White. It had a fascinating control mechanism that assumed you had a particular controller. At one point, I was supposed to lob fireballs at my enemy's village and I tried for three or four minutes before the game let me move on (with the enemy village still intact.) That was the first and last time I played Black and White. I'm just glad that I bought it off the bargain rack.
It isn't a bad analogy at all. Stating that something is illegal because there's a law forbidding it is tautological. You could state that something is wrong because there's a law against it but I wouldn't accept that either. I hold that there it works the other way around. There is a law against it because it is wrong. (It doesn't always work that way, but I believe that is the case in this instance.) Just because there isn't a law against something (and another person who responded to you suggested that there is a law against this) doesn't mean that it isn't wrong.
I agree with your assessment that the Harry Potter books are juvenile fiction, but they are also a refreshing deviation from the spineless stories that have passed for juvenile fiction for years. They are, furthermore, entertaining enough to be enjoyable light reading for adults. Although they may be targeted at adolescents, they appeal to a larger audience, which is a noteworthy attribute. In my opinion, the Harry Potter books are a model of quality juvenile fiction. They are literary enough and bold enough that they are likely to inspire readers to continue reading even after they've grown out of juvenile fiction. Previously, I was of the opinion that most juvenile fiction set kids up for disappointment when they found failure, death, and other unhappy endings in more adult fiction.
Your argument against bicycles is accurate but it also highlights an unfortunate secondary trend. Despite being spread far apart, why shouldn't it be feasible to bicycle to work? We are a fat nation and we're getting fatter. Furthermore, we are impatient and lazy. Encouraging people to bicycle to work would contribute to the solution to these problems. We would cut down on emissions of CO2 and other pollutants, we would get more exercise, and we may foster a less rushed, impatient attitude. I just started a new job in a new city and I think that my commute may actually be bicycle-friendly. I'm really looking forward to the weather warming up (currently, the daily highs are below freezing) so that I can try bicycling to work. (Even though it's ~10 miles and I have to be to work at 7:00 in the morning.)