I completely think that we never had free will, that everything that we do is because of all the circumstances that came before it.
There is at the very least a small random element in our choices as well. However, I think that most people define free will in such a way that it is mutually exclusive with science -- if you can explain it, it's not free will, but if you can't explain it, it's not science.
This is something I've been struggling with for a while. I don't think free will is scientific -- if we know how it works, its not free will, and if we don't know how it works, its not scince.
Lots of scientists. That's why people study identical twins, for example, especially those that grew up in different environments. Right off the bat, I remember that genetics and upbringing contributed about equally to a person's intelligence.
I hope one day we grow up as a race and stop trying to kill one another.
If nothing else it is just such a stupid, pointless, waste of resources.
Hey, you think natural selection is a waste of resources? I'm sure that there's a few legitimate reasons to go to war as well, and seems to have done somewhat to spread some cultures (anglo-saxon, anyone?). And as other posters pointed out, war tends to cause a lot of resources to be invested in science, which results in scientific advancement. Not sure where the money would have gone otherwise, though.
Active scans of people working on a problem or engaged in a specific endeavor have shown repeatedly that extra brain activity is not a good thing. It means you're floundering. The more activity the worse you're doing. Your best results are when just that tiny minimum necessary bit of the brain lights up.
I'm a programmer; I could have told you that. I measure how well a program does by how much "computer activity" it causes.
I don't love MS either. But when was the last time you got a BSOD on XP?
I got fed up with the BSOD in win95, but got win98 anyways. By then I had switched to Linux, so that I have very little experience with XP (use it a bit every several months, though, on college computers, without BSOD). I'm sure others have done so as well, and this is partially the reason why the meme won't die.
When, exactly (or even generally!), is Microsoft supposed to buckle under the pressure?
When Linux starts looking like a threat, and microsoft can't deal with them in ary other way than to lower prices. I'm pretty sure that Linux was an influence in MS deciding to fix their BSOD. If Linux ever starts gaining marketshare in business (or even homes) due to pricing, MS is going to lower their prices. When that might be, I don't know, but if Longhorn isn't all MS is touting, they might get into some deep shit real soon.
Are you sure? In some countries, I think Japan is one, people have to pay for obscuring the sunlight to someone else's house. I don't know how much this is, but a city full of skyscrapers blocks a lot of sunlight.
What is real doesn't change depending on perception.
For some definitions of perception, it does. If you want to "percieve" (measure) a quantum state, reality will be changed so that it matches what you saw. How's that for cool?
I think that the point is that Google is finding it expensive to pay for their phat pipes. Putting these babies at the peering points will allow them to avoid some middleman and make for a quicker connection as well.
Quick question: how do you deduce anything about morality from a physical mechanism?
America's morality is based, to a large extent, on the Bible, and the theory of evolution rather removes that base (if you say otherwise, don't forget Occam's Razor). Then if our basis for morality is no longer there, we must get a new one (or not have morals).
Also, according to the theory of evolution, we are "designed" to have as many surviving offspring as possible. In fact, that is the only purpose in life, for any living creature. I'm sure you can draw some moral conclusions from this.
Besides, bringing up a moral dimension of evolutionary teaching is like saying that free markets cannot work because they rely upon people pursuing their perceived interests, which is morally wrong, so that they must not be believed to work.
First, your parallel is a bit off. The purpose of the free market is to use people's greed for the benefit of everyone, and I'm sure you will find that noone believes that people are all saints. What the free market does do is encourage such greedy behavior, by making it socially acceptable and outcompeting those that are not looking out for #1. This is indeed a moral issue with the free market, which should be taken into account when deciding if it is superior to the other alternatives. However, I am sure the alternatives have issues as well.
When you look at the great inventions, people mostly didn't do it for the money.
But when you count the inventions, I'm sure you will find that most of them were paid for by a company. Your avarage hired reasearcher far outnumbers the genious inventor.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely think that we never had free will, that everything that we do is because of all the circumstances that came before it.
There is at the very least a small random element in our choices as well. However, I think that most people define free will in such a way that it is mutually exclusive with science -- if you can explain it, it's not free will, but if you can't explain it, it's not science.
Please define free will... It's a fuzzy term at most....
The ability to act in such a way that science cannot explain, describe, or predict?
How soon before we can blame everything we do on genetics?
How soon before we can start killing those bastards whose genes make them do stuff my genes don't like?
This is something I've been struggling with for a while. I don't think free will is scientific -- if we know how it works, its not free will, and if we don't know how it works, its not scince.
That, and the fact that the Windows-based missle kept blowing up mid-flight...
I thought interceptor missiles were supposed to crash?
Who says everything isn't to blame on genetics?
Lots of scientists. That's why people study identical twins, for example, especially those that grew up in different environments. Right off the bat, I remember that genetics and upbringing contributed about equally to a person's intelligence.
Are they implying that linux crashes more than windows?
I hope one day we grow up as a race and stop trying to kill one another.
If nothing else it is just such a stupid, pointless, waste of resources.
Hey, you think natural selection is a waste of resources? I'm sure that there's a few legitimate reasons to go to war as well, and seems to have done somewhat to spread some cultures (anglo-saxon, anyone?). And as other posters pointed out, war tends to cause a lot of resources to be invested in science, which results in scientific advancement. Not sure where the money would have gone otherwise, though.
--
Make love not war -- rape and pillage!
Active scans of people working on a problem or engaged in a specific endeavor have shown repeatedly that extra brain activity is not a good thing. It means you're floundering. The more activity the worse you're doing. Your best results are when just that tiny minimum necessary bit of the brain lights up.
I'm a programmer; I could have told you that. I measure how well a program does by how much "computer activity" it causes.
I don't love MS either. But when was the last time you got a BSOD on XP?
I got fed up with the BSOD in win95, but got win98 anyways. By then I had switched to Linux, so that I have very little experience with XP (use it a bit every several months, though, on college computers, without BSOD). I'm sure others have done so as well, and this is partially the reason why the meme won't die.
When, exactly (or even generally!), is Microsoft supposed to buckle under the pressure?
When Linux starts looking like a threat, and microsoft can't deal with them in ary other way than to lower prices. I'm pretty sure that Linux was an influence in MS deciding to fix their BSOD. If Linux ever starts gaining marketshare in business (or even homes) due to pricing, MS is going to lower their prices. When that might be, I don't know, but if Longhorn isn't all MS is touting, they might get into some deep shit real soon.
yes, but can you tell the difference between "listen to this odd story" and "I did this, and so do several thousand others"?
Tanning Booths outselling Sunlight!
Are you sure? In some countries, I think Japan is one, people have to pay for obscuring the sunlight to someone else's house. I don't know how much this is, but a city full of skyscrapers blocks a lot of sunlight.
Goatse man is just a homosexual asshole.
*Geeks are getting laid!*
relevant link
What is real doesn't change depending on perception.
For some definitions of perception, it does. If you want to "percieve" (measure) a quantum state, reality will be changed so that it matches what you saw. How's that for cool?
I think that the point is that Google is finding it expensive to pay for their phat pipes. Putting these babies at the peering points will allow them to avoid some middleman and make for a quicker connection as well.
Slashdot = fark + 3-day - comments
Quick question: how do you deduce anything about morality from a physical mechanism?
America's morality is based, to a large extent, on the Bible, and the theory of evolution rather removes that base (if you say otherwise, don't forget Occam's Razor). Then if our basis for morality is no longer there, we must get a new one (or not have morals).
Also, according to the theory of evolution, we are "designed" to have as many surviving offspring as possible. In fact, that is the only purpose in life, for any living creature. I'm sure you can draw some moral conclusions from this.
Besides, bringing up a moral dimension of evolutionary teaching is like saying that free markets cannot work because they rely upon people pursuing their perceived interests, which is morally wrong, so that they must not be believed to work.
First, your parallel is a bit off. The purpose of the free market is to use people's greed for the benefit of everyone, and I'm sure you will find that noone believes that people are all saints. What the free market does do is encourage such greedy behavior, by making it socially acceptable and outcompeting those that are not looking out for #1. This is indeed a moral issue with the free market, which should be taken into account when deciding if it is superior to the other alternatives. However, I am sure the alternatives have issues as well.
When you look at the great inventions, people mostly didn't do it for the money.
But when you count the inventions, I'm sure you will find that most of them were paid for by a company. Your avarage hired reasearcher far outnumbers the genious inventor.
I always wonder what youin the West would do in the face of true evil. Soil your panties and faint, I imagine.
Perhaps you'll find that "true evil" can turn wusses into heroes. We sit on our fat asses, because we can.
Of course if his salary permits, he could use silver. It is much classier and a much better conducter. Myself, I like copper.
What makes this even funnier, of course, is that tin foil hats won't stop them.
Wasn't the government going to line the new RFID passports with tin foil to appease the critics?
Hey, get your act together, this was on Digg 3 days ago!
Bad Caps have been a problem since 2002 at least.
I THOUGHT COMPUTERS WITH BAD CAPS WAS A PROBLEM SINCE THEY INVENTED CHAT. That has to have been well before 2002.