Nokia makes...oh shit, no one in the general public can tell you a single model number of a Nokia.
People know that Nokia makes phones. The model numbers are irrelevant. I'd bet that more people know that Nokia makes phones, than know that Apple makes phones. You might as well complain that people can't name a particular model of Macintosh, or a particular model of a Dell PC.
No one "cares" about their Nokia, people "love" their iPhones.
Most people care about their phone. There just seems to be something peculiar about the Iphone and Slashdot that makes some people hype it up as something better than all other phones ever.
And, hell, Android? Man, no one has even heard of it.
So what? Last time I looked, people had heard of Google. And unlike Apple or most other companies, they seem to have achieved massive brand awareness with hardly any advertising.
Pedantically, you are correct, but you that's about as far as it goes.
"Pedantically" as in "Using the words in their correct manner"?
You can pass off someone else's work as your own. You can deprive them of income, and make income off images that you do not have permission to use. Is that better phrasing?
Sure, all those are fine. But people who refer to copyright infringement as stealing do not use such phrasing, and furthermore, they typically refer to any illegal copying, not just those cases.
As another UK poster, same here. I've never seen one, I don't know anyone who has one. I know someone who thought about maybe getting either an Iphone or another phone, but that's it.
And yes, we can happily use our phones to browse the web, send emails, listen to music, use 3G, and have done for years. We also send pictures, do video recording, run generic applications that are compatible across most phones, and don't have to retype manually if we want to copy some text. That's on cheapo phones, before you even get to smart phones. I've heard that phone technology isn't as good in the US - perhaps that's why I don't understand what all the Iphone hype is about.
An interesting article - though not just specific to Linux, I think all modern platforms have a lot in common with the Amiga (as for users, well, there are plenty of "smug" OS X users, and many such as myself moved onto Windows).
Did I back the wrong choice by using the Amiga in the 80s/90s whilst others chose a DOS based single-tasking machine where "multimedia" was an optional add on? Yet here I am using machines with multitasking GUIs, fast graphics hardware via dedicated chips as standard. (Introductions to Windows 9x programming articles that were written in the 90s are rather amusing - they are obviously written for DOS users, having to hand-hold the reader through "new" concepts such as multitasking.)
In an alternative world, it might have been another company that bought the Amiga trademark, bought the rights to NeXT, and used it to build a new platform (Amiga OS X?) Instead, it was produced by Apple, and branded a "Mac" - but who cares about being stuck to a particular brandname, I'd rather stick with what works in the way I know. And the experience of modern platforms is at least as close to the Amiga as it is to classic MacOS, and I'd say more so than it is to DOS.
New Amigas were released years ago - sure, not a "comeback", but big deal. Platforms like Linux and even MacOS have never been the dominant home desktop platform at all.
You also might as well complain that we're still waiting for the comeback of Classic MacOS or DOS / Windows 9x - most of the contemporaries are now long dead, and live on in trademark names only.
It depends on what you consider 'space'. You can't have more than three spatial dimensions(length, depth, width),
By "space", I mean that it shares the same properties as the three we know the Universe has. There is no reason why there should only be three spatial dimensions (certainly mathematically, one can describe any number of spatial dimensions). Either way though, the dimensions of string theory have nothing to do with what that YouTube video and book talk about.
The many-worlds interpretation, on the other hand, is something completely different, you're right in saying that it's QM, and not ST. However, what prevents the two from being valid simultaneously?
Sure, they could both be true. But the parallel worlds aren't the fifth dimension. And his explanation of dimensions beyond that get even more whacky and make little sense scientifically (e.g., the way that he labels the 3rd dimension as a "fold", and then uses that every 3 dimensions).
String theory is a cosmological theory, explaining the structure of the universe and matter. Quantum mechanics is another theory, which, however, has nothing to do with cosmology, it explains microscale and atomic scale phenomena, which string theory is simply not designed for. They are completely unrelated to each other.
String theory is also a theory of the very small (strings are tiny, after all!) - it's intended to be a unified theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics.
I've seen that before - it's a complete load of rubbish. The extra dimensions in string theory are spatial dimensions. They are nothing to do with the many-worlds "parallel universes" interpretation of quantum mechanics, nor any of the other explanations for higher dimensions that he makes up.
I'm not sure what's worse - that he has a book out selling this misinformation, or that so many people (judging by all the comments I see on forums, at least) seem to think this is an actual description of string theory, or indeed has any scientific basis at all.
So in other words, there aren't "an infinite number of universes located in the 7th dimension", and I see nothing particularly wrong with the GP post.
There is a difference though. Whilst string theory is currently unfalsifiable, it is (AIUI) at least consistent with our current observations of how things behave, it's just that it doesn't add new testable predicitons to distinguish it from existing theories (the standard model).
The problem with a lot of religious claims is that they do make testable claims about the real world which seem unsupported by evidence (for example, that Jesus rose from the dead, or that he didn't have a human father).
In particular, you are confusing theories (models that explain facts) with facts themselves (things that we observe to happen).
It's one thing to come up with a different model to explain the same facts with no way to test that model - it's quite another to suggest that something is factual when we have no evidence for that, and indeed, all the evidence we have suggests that things like people rising from the dead or a virgin birth do not happen.
String theory is less of a theory than the theory of flying pigs, because this theory predicts that pigs fly, which is a statement that can be falsified.
And it has been falsified.
Yes, a falsifiable theory is better than an unfalsifiable one. But one that's been falsified is just plain wrong, and clearly isn't better! (For the pedants: yes, in some cases, falsified theories can still be useful approximations, e.g., Newtonian mechanics, but this doesn't apply to a flying pig theory.)
You literally misunderstood every single one of my statements. And I had a tough time deciding whether you just plain disagree with me or you are inept at comprehending what I'm saying. The second would not have warranted a reply. But since I think it is both you not understanding the subject matter and not wanting to agree with me I will indeed respond.
Ah, I see you cannot debate without resorting to ad hominems. But let's continue:
What we want has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. We want things regardless if we have free will or not.
I never said otherwise. My question was, why do people's brains "want to believe that we are all unique"?
Consciousness has nothing to do with what I said. When I say "not separate from the environment", I mean that we are byproducts of it, and that the things that drive us (call it soul, spirit, consciousness, whatever), is essentially made up of the same deterministic particles that make everything else mindless automatons.
I agree. What does this have to do with free will?
If you mean to say "A and B are made of the same stuff, and B are mindless automatons, therefore A are mindless automatons", then that is a fallacy (my point was to replace "mindless automatons" with not being conscious - though there are all sorts of counter argumnents to this argument). If that isn't your argumnent, my apologies, but then my question is how this relates to an argument against free will?
Consciousness is not a passive observer, because again you are mixing around definitions. See, what you are basically saying is that consciousness is a passive observer if we have no free will. However, we have consciousness regardless if we have free will or not. Just because the universe is deterministic doesn't mean we don't play a part in it, because we do. We play the part that was determined by everything that created and shaped us. You need to read up on your definitions.
I think you need to stop assuming that there is only one definition of free will, and anyone who disagrees "nees to read up". I have read up on it, bu I have no idea which of several definitions you are using. Yes, the problem with these debates is that often people use different definitions, so the question becomes rather meaningless.
The question that interests me is: Do we - as in our consciousness - have an influence on events in our brain?
That is one definition of free will, and by this definition, determinism and free will are incompatible. Compatibilists believe that they are compatible - however, this is simply a case of redefining free will to mean something different (that an action is "free" if, e.g., not constrained by another person). If you are using this definition, but are not saying that consciousness has no influence on the brain, then we are in agreement, and there is no need to suggest people's belief in free will is spawned from religion, when they might be using a different definition to you.
In what sense are you interpretting the question of free will? (Don't ask me to "read up", because I already know there are multiple definitions, and would rather avoid guessing which is yours.)
Uh, no, that probably isn't a good idea. If you find prior art that someone else has patented, you've exposed the company to willful infringement, as other replies have pointed out.
Why is that a bad idea for him? If the company thinks that patents are right and proper, it should be more than happy to pay other companies for using their IP, right?
But note that A is a definition put forward at least as much who assert we don't have free will even if the world is non-deterministic: the claim that there is some difference between "free will" and "random".
There's already considerable evidence that humans don't have free will
Obviously your brain was determined to make that post without providing any references for this rather bold claim. My brain has decided to reply, in the hopes of causing your body to come up with some.
(If you mean the "people are aware of their decisions after brain activity occurs", that proves nothing other than the fact that consciousness is distributed throughout the brain as opposed to being a single entity. Even with free will, it would obviously make sense from an evolutionary point of view that taking decisions is given higher priority to our short term memory being filled with having done so; it doesn't show that the decision wasn't free will in the first place, it only disproves straw man versions of "free will", e.g., those that claim existence of a soul.)
The quesion of evolution is an interesting one. What is the evolutionary reason for consciousness? If our conscious thoughts are caused by our consciousness (i.e., we have free will), then it seems that it's our consciousness that allows us to reason, to think complex thoughts as opposed to being governed by instinct. We aren't restricted to our instinctive "programs", but can override them, and come up with new thoughts to solve any kind of problem. So there's an evolutionary advantage.
But supposing all this was part of a deterministic unconscious decision making process in the brains. What is the evolutionary advantage of consciousness - if consciousness is simply a passive observer, why does it matter?
When people use the term "free will", they mean some kind of mystical power that is not subject to anything, not something they perceive. In that sense, determinism is incompatible with free will.
Your second sentence is correct, but no, they don't claim it is mystical. They certainly don't claim "is not subject to anything, not something they perceive". There is nothing mystical about a non-deterministic world (that is, after all, the current prevailing scientific viewpoint).
Free will just means that decisions and thoughts can be influenced by one's consciousness. Or do you think we aren't conscious either, and that's just "some kind of mystical power" too?
and quantum noise is not the answer. (As it only would lead to "random" will, not "free" will)
And what's the difference between random will and free will?
Sure, in a deterministic universe, anything that could sensibly be referred to as "free will" doesn't exist. But beyond that, unless you can come up with a testable distinction between randomness and free will, I'm not sure that it is meaningful to worry about whether we do or don't have free will. My brain as a whole makes decisions, and I (my consciousness) is an intrinsic property of that brain (as opposed to being something supernatural like a soul). So it seems meaningless to me to suggest that I am not really in charge of my actions, simply based on some untestable distinction between "random" and "free".
We really need a better understanding of what consciousness really is to be able to say anything more - whether it is simply a passive observer, or not.
We, people, want to believe that we are all unique
If we don't have free will, then _we_ don't choose to believe anything. So the question is, why does the deterministic decision making process in the brain construct a belief for our consciousness to experience that we are all unique?
This dates back to when philosophers starting separating humans from everything else, which they dubbed "mindless automatons". We humans are supposed to have a "soul".
Firstly, whether or not there is free will, there is still the difference of consciousness. I don't think this means we have a soul - it's still part of our brain. Which means it's also part of the thing which makes our decisions. I would say that not having free will means that our consciousness is more likely to be separate from our brain. That could be the case, but one wonders what the evolutionary reason for consciousness was, if it is merely a passive observer?
Determinism takes all that away from us and simply tells us that we really are not separate from the environment, because we're made of the same things. Free will was spawned by the same thing that spawned religion.
I don't think determinism has anything to do with that: in a non-deterministic world, we can still not be separate from the environment and be made from the same things. Or you could have a deterministic world where we were separate and made from different things.
Moreover, it was the deterministic viewpoint that what the classical view of the world, and in part inspired by religion ("God made everything happen in perfect order, and everything is caused by everything else"). This has now been replaced by a non-deterministic viewpoint of the world, that was spawned from the scientific method, not religion.
Evidence that human brains are entirely deterministic? If they are, then I would agree that would mean free will doesn't exist (unless it's redefined to mean something different, as some people do), but I don't think this is known.
There is no evidence or suggestion that human decision making (moral, religious or otherwise) is anything other than the product of chemical reactions occuring in the brain. Eventually we'll be able to perfectly model the human brain and if it doesn't function then we'll be able to effectively determine that humans do not have free will and that the source of the unpredictability is chaos and happenstance not some super-natural decision making agent which transmits decisions to the meat. (Personally I would argue that alcohol and other physical decision impairing forces are proof that our brain and not some supernatural morality engine is the source of our decisions.)
There is nothing about free will that means it is anything other than the product of chemical reactions, or that it is anything to do with supernatural. You appear to be arguing against the concept of a soul, or some other straw man version of "free will".
Obviously free will is hard to define, but a key part of it I would say is that a person's consciousness is responsible for their thoughts and some of their actions (as opposed to being some kind of passive observer where they just think they are responsible). There's nothing about the supernatural in any of this. If free will exists, I'm sure it's as much a part of the natural universe as consciousness is.
One thing to consider: if free will doesn't exist, then it means even our thoughts are not under our conscious control. But the link between our thoughts and our consciousness is very much a two way process - not only are we aware of our thoughts, but the thing which makes "our" thoughts and decisions seems aware of our consciousness: the very fact that we can have these discussions about our consciousness and whether we have free will.
Indeed, trying to seperate consciousness out into a separate entity sounds more "supernatural" to me (the idea that consciousness is separate to the brain - I don't think it is).
Ray tracing, in addition to being more realistic is also a lot easier to implement and very easy to paralize. I think it will be a relieve for developers to get *all* lighting and shadow on *all* objects with one relatively simple alorithm.
Note that current rasterisation algorithms are also very easy to parallelise (consider that a GTX 280 has 240 stream processors). It's also possible to get all lighting and shadow on all objects with one relatively simple algorithm - the reason shortcuts are taken is because of performance. But general shadowing and dynamic lighting algorithms for rasterisation have been used for a few years now.
But thanks to biased reporting and a good ol' FUD summary typical of this/. editor, we have droves of people assuming that these were innocent and peaceful protesters just 'camping' and living the happy hippy life and getting bullied by mean police officers.
The article and summary says hardly anything of the protesters. My information comes from multiple sources, and first hand witnesses. You are the only one spreading unsourced FUD, presumably based on some prejudice that protesters must imply criminal acts.
And my post is to say that your presumption is based on speculation.
If you can find a reference that pretty clearly indicates they were minding their own business, I'll happily accept that this was an abuse of police power.
Personally I prefer innocent until proven guilty. See my other comment that I linked to above for references showing that at the least, there exist other suspicious uses of police power. If you want to say that "presumably" someone was planning on breaking in, then either provide a reference, or quit risking libel.
I mean, if someone said "presumably" you were planning on raping someone, would you say such a statement was fine unless it could be proven "pretty clearly" with references that it wasn't true? Of course not - clearly, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, whether or not they stick a "presumably" in front of it.
Static geometry makes it easier to determine which particular parts of the world are visible from any given viewpoint. And this would be true for raytracing also.
I mean, ask yourself why there aren't any raytracing games with dynamic worlds, if it's so much better?
Slashdot Mirror
Nokia makes...oh shit, no one in the general public can tell you a single model number of a Nokia.
People know that Nokia makes phones. The model numbers are irrelevant. I'd bet that more people know that Nokia makes phones, than know that Apple makes phones. You might as well complain that people can't name a particular model of Macintosh, or a particular model of a Dell PC.
No one "cares" about their Nokia, people "love" their iPhones.
Most people care about their phone. There just seems to be something peculiar about the Iphone and Slashdot that makes some people hype it up as something better than all other phones ever.
And, hell, Android? Man, no one has even heard of it.
So what? Last time I looked, people had heard of Google. And unlike Apple or most other companies, they seem to have achieved massive brand awareness with hardly any advertising.
Pedantically, you are correct, but you that's about as far as it goes.
"Pedantically" as in "Using the words in their correct manner"?
You can pass off someone else's work as your own. You can deprive them of income, and make income off images that you do not have permission to use. Is that better phrasing?
Sure, all those are fine. But people who refer to copyright infringement as stealing do not use such phrasing, and furthermore, they typically refer to any illegal copying, not just those cases.
As another UK poster, same here. I've never seen one, I don't know anyone who has one. I know someone who thought about maybe getting either an Iphone or another phone, but that's it.
And yes, we can happily use our phones to browse the web, send emails, listen to music, use 3G, and have done for years. We also send pictures, do video recording, run generic applications that are compatible across most phones, and don't have to retype manually if we want to copy some text. That's on cheapo phones, before you even get to smart phones. I've heard that phone technology isn't as good in the US - perhaps that's why I don't understand what all the Iphone hype is about.
An interesting article - though not just specific to Linux, I think all modern platforms have a lot in common with the Amiga (as for users, well, there are plenty of "smug" OS X users, and many such as myself moved onto Windows).
Did I back the wrong choice by using the Amiga in the 80s/90s whilst others chose a DOS based single-tasking machine where "multimedia" was an optional add on? Yet here I am using machines with multitasking GUIs, fast graphics hardware via dedicated chips as standard. (Introductions to Windows 9x programming articles that were written in the 90s are rather amusing - they are obviously written for DOS users, having to hand-hold the reader through "new" concepts such as multitasking.)
In an alternative world, it might have been another company that bought the Amiga trademark, bought the rights to NeXT, and used it to build a new platform (Amiga OS X?) Instead, it was produced by Apple, and branded a "Mac" - but who cares about being stuck to a particular brandname, I'd rather stick with what works in the way I know. And the experience of modern platforms is at least as close to the Amiga as it is to classic MacOS, and I'd say more so than it is to DOS.
New Amigas were released years ago - sure, not a "comeback", but big deal. Platforms like Linux and even MacOS have never been the dominant home desktop platform at all.
You also might as well complain that we're still waiting for the comeback of Classic MacOS or DOS / Windows 9x - most of the contemporaries are now long dead, and live on in trademark names only.
It depends on what you consider 'space'. You can't have more than three spatial dimensions(length, depth, width),
By "space", I mean that it shares the same properties as the three we know the Universe has. There is no reason why there should only be three spatial dimensions (certainly mathematically, one can describe any number of spatial dimensions). Either way though, the dimensions of string theory have nothing to do with what that YouTube video and book talk about.
The many-worlds interpretation, on the other hand, is something completely different, you're right in saying that it's QM, and not ST. However, what prevents the two from being valid simultaneously?
Sure, they could both be true. But the parallel worlds aren't the fifth dimension. And his explanation of dimensions beyond that get even more whacky and make little sense scientifically (e.g., the way that he labels the 3rd dimension as a "fold", and then uses that every 3 dimensions).
String theory is a cosmological theory, explaining the structure of the universe and matter.
Quantum mechanics is another theory, which, however, has nothing to do with cosmology, it explains microscale and atomic scale phenomena, which string theory is simply not designed for.
They are completely unrelated to each other.
String theory is also a theory of the very small (strings are tiny, after all!) - it's intended to be a unified theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics.
For a really good educational video on how dimensions work in string theory, check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7JIjQLJYm8
I've seen that before - it's a complete load of rubbish. The extra dimensions in string theory are spatial dimensions. They are nothing to do with the many-worlds "parallel universes" interpretation of quantum mechanics, nor any of the other explanations for higher dimensions that he makes up.
I'm not sure what's worse - that he has a book out selling this misinformation, or that so many people (judging by all the comments I see on forums, at least) seem to think this is an actual description of string theory, or indeed has any scientific basis at all.
So in other words, there aren't "an infinite number of universes located in the 7th dimension", and I see nothing particularly wrong with the GP post.
There is a difference though. Whilst string theory is currently unfalsifiable, it is (AIUI) at least consistent with our current observations of how things behave, it's just that it doesn't add new testable predicitons to distinguish it from existing theories (the standard model).
The problem with a lot of religious claims is that they do make testable claims about the real world which seem unsupported by evidence (for example, that Jesus rose from the dead, or that he didn't have a human father).
In particular, you are confusing theories (models that explain facts) with facts themselves (things that we observe to happen).
It's one thing to come up with a different model to explain the same facts with no way to test that model - it's quite another to suggest that something is factual when we have no evidence for that, and indeed, all the evidence we have suggests that things like people rising from the dead or a virgin birth do not happen.
String theory is less of a theory than the theory of flying pigs, because this theory predicts that pigs fly, which is a statement that can be falsified.
And it has been falsified.
Yes, a falsifiable theory is better than an unfalsifiable one. But one that's been falsified is just plain wrong, and clearly isn't better! (For the pedants: yes, in some cases, falsified theories can still be useful approximations, e.g., Newtonian mechanics, but this doesn't apply to a flying pig theory.)
You literally misunderstood every single one of my statements. And I had a tough time deciding whether you just plain disagree with me or you are inept at comprehending what I'm saying. The second would not have warranted a reply. But since I think it is both you not understanding the subject matter and not wanting to agree with me I will indeed respond.
Ah, I see you cannot debate without resorting to ad hominems. But let's continue:
What we want has absolutely nothing to do with determinism. We want things regardless if we have free will or not.
I never said otherwise. My question was, why do people's brains "want to believe that we are all unique"?
Consciousness has nothing to do with what I said. When I say "not separate from the environment", I mean that we are byproducts of it, and that the things that drive us (call it soul, spirit, consciousness, whatever), is essentially made up of the same deterministic particles that make everything else mindless automatons.
I agree. What does this have to do with free will?
If you mean to say "A and B are made of the same stuff, and B are mindless automatons, therefore A are mindless automatons", then that is a fallacy (my point was to replace "mindless automatons" with not being conscious - though there are all sorts of counter argumnents to this argument). If that isn't your argumnent, my apologies, but then my question is how this relates to an argument against free will?
Consciousness is not a passive observer, because again you are mixing around definitions. See, what you are basically saying is that consciousness is a passive observer if we have no free will. However, we have consciousness regardless if we have free will or not. Just because the universe is deterministic doesn't mean we don't play a part in it, because we do. We play the part that was determined by everything that created and shaped us. You need to read up on your definitions.
I think you need to stop assuming that there is only one definition of free will, and anyone who disagrees "nees to read up". I have read up on it, bu I have no idea which of several definitions you are using. Yes, the problem with these debates is that often people use different definitions, so the question becomes rather meaningless.
The question that interests me is: Do we - as in our consciousness - have an influence on events in our brain?
That is one definition of free will, and by this definition, determinism and free will are incompatible. Compatibilists believe that they are compatible - however, this is simply a case of redefining free will to mean something different (that an action is "free" if, e.g., not constrained by another person). If you are using this definition, but are not saying that consciousness has no influence on the brain, then we are in agreement, and there is no need to suggest people's belief in free will is spawned from religion, when they might be using a different definition to you.
In what sense are you interpretting the question of free will? (Don't ask me to "read up", because I already know there are multiple definitions, and would rather avoid guessing which is yours.)
I note that criticism of Apple is often modded down here on /. - but starting with "I love Apple, but" seems a guaranteed way to avoid this.
Uh, no, that probably isn't a good idea. If you find prior art that someone else has patented, you've exposed the company to willful infringement, as other replies have pointed out.
Why is that a bad idea for him? If the company thinks that patents are right and proper, it should be more than happy to pay other companies for using their IP, right?
But note that A is a definition put forward at least as much who assert we don't have free will even if the world is non-deterministic: the claim that there is some difference between "free will" and "random".
There's already considerable evidence that humans don't have free will
Obviously your brain was determined to make that post without providing any references for this rather bold claim. My brain has decided to reply, in the hopes of causing your body to come up with some.
(If you mean the "people are aware of their decisions after brain activity occurs", that proves nothing other than the fact that consciousness is distributed throughout the brain as opposed to being a single entity. Even with free will, it would obviously make sense from an evolutionary point of view that taking decisions is given higher priority to our short term memory being filled with having done so; it doesn't show that the decision wasn't free will in the first place, it only disproves straw man versions of "free will", e.g., those that claim existence of a soul.)
The quesion of evolution is an interesting one. What is the evolutionary reason for consciousness? If our conscious thoughts are caused by our consciousness (i.e., we have free will), then it seems that it's our consciousness that allows us to reason, to think complex thoughts as opposed to being governed by instinct. We aren't restricted to our instinctive "programs", but can override them, and come up with new thoughts to solve any kind of problem. So there's an evolutionary advantage.
But supposing all this was part of a deterministic unconscious decision making process in the brains. What is the evolutionary advantage of consciousness - if consciousness is simply a passive observer, why does it matter?
When people use the term "free will", they mean some kind of mystical power that is not subject to anything, not something they perceive. In that sense, determinism is incompatible with free will.
Your second sentence is correct, but no, they don't claim it is mystical. They certainly don't claim "is not subject to anything, not something they perceive". There is nothing mystical about a non-deterministic world (that is, after all, the current prevailing scientific viewpoint).
Free will just means that decisions and thoughts can be influenced by one's consciousness. Or do you think we aren't conscious either, and that's just "some kind of mystical power" too?
and quantum noise is not the answer. (As it only would lead to "random" will, not "free" will)
And what's the difference between random will and free will?
Sure, in a deterministic universe, anything that could sensibly be referred to as "free will" doesn't exist. But beyond that, unless you can come up with a testable distinction between randomness and free will, I'm not sure that it is meaningful to worry about whether we do or don't have free will. My brain as a whole makes decisions, and I (my consciousness) is an intrinsic property of that brain (as opposed to being something supernatural like a soul). So it seems meaningless to me to suggest that I am not really in charge of my actions, simply based on some untestable distinction between "random" and "free".
We really need a better understanding of what consciousness really is to be able to say anything more - whether it is simply a passive observer, or not.
and particularly one where processes of Chemistry and Physics imply there is no true free will possible
What part of physics implies this?
We, people, want to believe that we are all unique
If we don't have free will, then _we_ don't choose to believe anything. So the question is, why does the deterministic decision making process in the brain construct a belief for our consciousness to experience that we are all unique?
This dates back to when philosophers starting separating humans from everything else, which they dubbed "mindless automatons". We humans are supposed to have a "soul".
Firstly, whether or not there is free will, there is still the difference of consciousness. I don't think this means we have a soul - it's still part of our brain. Which means it's also part of the thing which makes our decisions. I would say that not having free will means that our consciousness is more likely to be separate from our brain. That could be the case, but one wonders what the evolutionary reason for consciousness was, if it is merely a passive observer?
Determinism takes all that away from us and simply tells us that we really are not separate from the environment, because we're made of the same things. Free will was spawned by the same thing that spawned religion.
I don't think determinism has anything to do with that: in a non-deterministic world, we can still not be separate from the environment and be made from the same things. Or you could have a deterministic world where we were separate and made from different things.
Moreover, it was the deterministic viewpoint that what the classical view of the world, and in part inspired by religion ("God made everything happen in perfect order, and everything is caused by everything else"). This has now been replaced by a non-deterministic viewpoint of the world, that was spawned from the scientific method, not religion.
Evidence that human brains are entirely deterministic? If they are, then I would agree that would mean free will doesn't exist (unless it's redefined to mean something different, as some people do), but I don't think this is known.
There is no evidence or suggestion that human decision making (moral, religious or otherwise) is anything other than the product of chemical reactions occuring in the brain. Eventually we'll be able to perfectly model the human brain and if it doesn't function then we'll be able to effectively determine that humans do not have free will and that the source of the unpredictability is chaos and happenstance not some super-natural decision making agent which transmits decisions to the meat. (Personally I would argue that alcohol and other physical decision impairing forces are proof that our brain and not some supernatural morality engine is the source of our decisions.)
There is nothing about free will that means it is anything other than the product of chemical reactions, or that it is anything to do with supernatural. You appear to be arguing against the concept of a soul, or some other straw man version of "free will".
Obviously free will is hard to define, but a key part of it I would say is that a person's consciousness is responsible for their thoughts and some of their actions (as opposed to being some kind of passive observer where they just think they are responsible). There's nothing about the supernatural in any of this. If free will exists, I'm sure it's as much a part of the natural universe as consciousness is.
One thing to consider: if free will doesn't exist, then it means even our thoughts are not under our conscious control. But the link between our thoughts and our consciousness is very much a two way process - not only are we aware of our thoughts, but the thing which makes "our" thoughts and decisions seems aware of our consciousness: the very fact that we can have these discussions about our consciousness and whether we have free will.
Indeed, trying to seperate consciousness out into a separate entity sounds more "supernatural" to me (the idea that consciousness is separate to the brain - I don't think it is).
Ray tracing, in addition to being more realistic is also a lot easier to implement and very easy to paralize. I think it will be a relieve for developers to get *all* lighting and shadow on *all* objects with one relatively simple alorithm.
Note that current rasterisation algorithms are also very easy to parallelise (consider that a GTX 280 has 240 stream processors). It's also possible to get all lighting and shadow on all objects with one relatively simple algorithm - the reason shortcuts are taken is because of performance. But general shadowing and dynamic lighting algorithms for rasterisation have been used for a few years now.
But thanks to biased reporting and a good ol' FUD summary typical of this /. editor, we have droves of people assuming that these were innocent and peaceful protesters just 'camping' and living the happy hippy life and getting bullied by mean police officers.
The article and summary says hardly anything of the protesters. My information comes from multiple sources, and first hand witnesses. You are the only one spreading unsourced FUD, presumably based on some prejudice that protesters must imply criminal acts.
That's why I said 'presumably'
And my post is to say that your presumption is based on speculation.
If you can find a reference that pretty clearly indicates they were minding their own business, I'll happily accept that this was an abuse of police power.
Personally I prefer innocent until proven guilty. See my other comment that I linked to above for references showing that at the least, there exist other suspicious uses of police power. If you want to say that "presumably" someone was planning on breaking in, then either provide a reference, or quit risking libel.
I mean, if someone said "presumably" you were planning on raping someone, would you say such a statement was fine unless it could be proven "pretty clearly" with references that it wasn't true? Of course not - clearly, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, whether or not they stick a "presumably" in front of it.
Static geometry makes it easier to determine which particular parts of the world are visible from any given viewpoint. And this would be true for raytracing also.
I mean, ask yourself why there aren't any raytracing games with dynamic worlds, if it's so much better?