But to be a good little empiricist you can only accept sensory data as a basis for "truth." Untestable assumptions generally belong in metaphysics, not neuroscience!
That's neat. You don't think though that it would reduce down to some deterministic model of the mind? Input, output...Observe, orient, decide, act...Ad nauseum?
I don't think that the idea of the mind as separate from the brain is any kind of magical thinking...anymore than the assumption that it isn't. But so far as I know, outside of serious academia, potheads, and slashdot (or the intersection of all three) there are no really good counter-examples:)
Seems like I should go review the literature some more...
Oh, eliminating bias is a whole 'nother animal. I'm fairly confident that statistically speaking we can repeat measurements and compensate for "bias." But this has absolutely nothing to do with the question of where experience occurs.
Again, the idea that the mind is a construction of the brain is an assumption, nothing more; a useful assumption, with a lot of explanatory power, but as yet no data to back it up. Consider: we say that the brain makes the mind, based on some data. What apprehends the data? The mind. Circular logic does not a theory make.
Of course, when we get down to the nitty gritty this is probably irrelevant; despite these interesting thought problems we continue to make analyses of the world that are not encumbered by drastic subjectivity. But this doesn't mean we've solved them, only circumvented them.
Yah. In science as in other disciplines, we have to think in layers, so that's not a bad counter-example. I suppose on some level you can define a broken connection in terms of a failure of bits to flow...but how helpful is that? What does that tell us about the experience? How does it enrich us in any way?
I read recently that there is a ton of processing that goes on before we "experience" things. Like when you flick your eyes around the room--you don't "see" what exists between Point A and Point B; but your eyes do. Weird.
Sensory experience is a huge part of neural activity, and if deprived of it long enough -- so that the only activity is the spontaneous activity mentioned above -- the brain enters a degenerate state. Or, to put it another way, you go insane.
So, we have this idea of the "brain." When we say "brain" we'll just assume that it includes all data ever gathered about the brain by anyone on this planet, ever.
How did we get that info? Well, we used the senses we have at our disposal...but those are mediated in the brain. And they do not always reflect what we think of as "objective" reality. This is not about subjectivity; this is about our experience being distant from actual events, like how chemical data can be transmitted as either taste or as pain depending on which particular neuron binds to the stimulus molecule.
So IMO in order to say that the mind is a function of the brain you have to make a lot of assumptions about what the brain are, what the mind are, how they function, etc. I think they are obviously interrelated, but as yet poorly defined and poorly understood concepts.
It means "the mind is not a result of the action of the brain" but rather "the brain is a construct that exists in your mind" (along with the rest of experienced reality).
Think of this...you have nerves that tell you when you are damaged by detecting the contents of cells (which can be released through necrosis, gross cellular damage, etc.). The experience of this information is "pain." Where does the experience occur?
If you attend the symphony, they make all the vibrations that tickle the mechanical receptors in your ear. Where does the experience of enjoying the sound of the cello occur?
The debate over whether reality exists independent of our ability to perceive it is nontrivial, IMO. Do we assume that reality exists and that we're just apprehending it through our sensors? Even when what the sensors detect isn't really the same as what we experience? How do we prove the assumption true?
I don't see it that way. Did you see the article recently about the 1995 Honda Civic with 930,000 miles on it? It was in excellent shape. Sure, the guy spent thousands of dollars over the past 12 years on maintenance (4 clutches, etc.), but to me it's senseless to say "Well, you could have gotten 4 new vehicles in that time." Why? Where's the added value in replacing when you can just mend?
All you do is fill up the landfill. If a device works and it just needs $50 in repairs, why spend $60 for something new?
Over the long term, you end up spending substantially less if you simply take good care of your posessions and repair them, rather than wear them out and replace them when they get "old." This is especially true in my situation (where I have a Mom & Pop to turn to) because Pops isn't counting the minutes. He might spend 15 minutes diagnosing your problem, but for us there's value in jawing about computers or football or whatever while this is going on. So IMO there's more than just "economics" at work--or at least more than merely monetary value in play.
They aren't disposable to everyone, for a few reasons--money being the least important. I figure, why fill up the landfill with "broken" toasters when you can open her up, solder something, and be back up & running in a few minutes? Why would you prefer to drive to the store, pay more money, throw away all the new packaging, etc.? To me, THAT is wasteful.
To me it's just an issue of living with a bunch of disposable commodities. I don't NEED to buy a new toaster, the old one is serviceable. It's less "bother" to simply fix the items I own rather than to go out for new ones.
Totally disagree. Geeks are the most likely out of anyone I know to have a superiority complex and lord it over people who know less than they do. Now stick that geek in a shitty, low-paying job where people who can shit out $1000 for an overpriced Dell come in saying "My internet is broken," and every once in a while they'll dick someone over.
I also don't know what you mean about companies peddling geeks on the cheap. Geek Squad, for example, are not cheap. If you want cheap, in my area, you go to the Mom & Pop store (we actually are lucky enough to have a genuine independently run computer sales & service store, run by a genuine mom and pop) and they fix stuff on the cheap. They solder and go way, way down into the physical layer...when was the last time geeks.com checked your power supply with a multimeter? They also do great training, which you'd think would torpedo their business, but no.
Oddly enough, they don't consider themselves "geeks." They are retirees and grandparents who like to tinker. Weird, but true.
The JPEG handler is not "supposed" to run code; but, absolutely any program that receives data, processes it, and is expected to come to some kind of outcome with it can potentially be exploited if the programmers didn't have the foresight to check for buffer overruns and other exploitable conditions.
The best way to handle these is to sandbox applications--that is, limiting what they can do on the system. You can go really extreme and absolutely lock down what programs can do what, but there's a tradeoff between security and useability.
You get either the high-quality version they offer ($80) or you get a version that sounds ok on your ipod earbuds. Those are your options, and they remove any justification for downloading it from somewhere else.
The option is between lo-fi downloads on the cheap (depending on your definition of a fair price) and hi-fi recordings for $80. So, if you do not want the hi-fi recordings, you don't have to buy them. This is called "capitalism."
If they are being cool and releasing un-DRM'd music at a fair price (by definition, fair, since you get to negotiate) then you really have no excuse for downloading it from somewhere else and throwing them a bone, unless you're just a dick.
Yah this has more to do with your changing standard of living, don't you think? If you're pulling in, after taxes, ~$5k/month AUD that has got to be enough for a mortgage, car, utilities, retirement plan, etc. If it's not, then you're living beyond your means.
My new job (starting next Monday, w00t!) is paying about EUR 10,000 per month and half that would be more money than I would know what to do with. I only need a studio apartment and some Ikea furniture and I'm happy...if you can, maybe you should consider downshifting a bit.
You're totally right--it would be at the very least ignorant and, at worst, incredibly sexist to try to "push" women towards "manly" jobs. But as it stands, there is a clear cultural bias against them; that means that on some level they lack the opportunity to get into these jobs unless they push back really, really hard.
As I told another poster who complained about how hard it was being a geek since society (the sophisticated, wildly sexually attractive part of it, anyhow) is so down on geeks--imagine that, only worse, and that's what it's like for women.
Consider this: plenty of women do nothing more than raise kids. That's their life, they go to college (or not), get married, and pop out a sprog or three. And I'm pretty sure that motherhood is fulfilling on multiple levels (mom said so, anyway). But think about the circumstances under which women make career decisions: they are acting rationally but within a different social framework from yours or mine. So it's not like they're just making these decisions in a vacuum.
Again, this is a bias in the whole culture and we're all soaking in it. I would guess that it has a lot more to do with that than "natural differences." And ask yourself this--where is this research on "natural differences?" Where's the data? All we're operating on when we make suppositions like that is--drum roll--cultural bias. Bigotry. Sexism.
The fact that women can get the same salary for the same job is a huge leap in equality over the past 50 years. When any random teenage girl looking at career paths is totally free to choose among "fashion model" or "chemical engineer" then we'll be a hell of a lot closer.
I happen to agree that, in the end, happiness is the number one factor to consider. I'm at a stage now where, honestly, I'd rather be a chef or something. But instead I'm a security consultant making a ridiculous salary, and, y'know, that's alright, I guess, there are worse things. But I also recognize that I had the freedom to choose this path and a lot of women don't. All I ask is that you (everyone) think about it a bit more.
Yes. I hate to throw around feminist terms but this is not an issue of "geek culture," so much as an issue of "the whole culture" (the term is "patriarchy").
So far as positive discrimination goes, consider this from a bottom-up perspective--a woman has to fight an uphill battle to get to the same level as a man in male-dominated fields. So because the playing field isn't level, it does make sense to give them an extra "push." The thing to do is to offer incentives or something without compromising on merits. I think at the university level is the last place to do this--free scholarships for women in science, or extra opportunities for knowledge transfer or independent work. By the time they get to the workplace, it's dog-eat-dog.
A lot of guys will moan about this kind of idea--"Why can't it be based on merit?"--without realizing that on top of their no doubt considerable merit, they also enjoy extra privileges that lots of women lack, solely because of cultural bias against it. And these are the same geeks who complain that, hey, society IS against them and their career choice! Well, imagine that, only worse, and you have the woman's position.
Well, again, "nice" only means "inoffensive," and "nice guys" are only employing a beta male reproductive strategy (as opposed to the "asshole" alpha male strategy). It's based on coercion and manipulation and so isn't really "nice" below the surface.
In reality there are options out there besides "asshole" and "manipulative dork." There are men who actually like and respect women. So the trick for women is to look for that guy and not lower their standards or settle for a jerk who gets their pilot light lit or a manipulative doofus who pays the bills.
Yah. They are making that decision. But consider the context in which they make the decision and the fact that the playing field is already tilted against them.
Other posters have already noted that this starts really early: boys get erector sets, girls get dollies to play with. This is the cultural bias and we are ALL soaking in it, and we ALL contribute to it in some way. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say "Well, they are just deciding for themselves not to become engineers."
To use your metaphor, women are told repeatedly that they don't want to get on the train, and if they do, then there's something wrong with them. So by the time it pulls up, of course they are going to say "Nah, I'll wait for a different one." And if you're not telling them "Hey, actually, y'know, you can get on that train. You might like where it goes,"--if you're only saying "Get on or not, it's up to you," then you're also contributing to the problem.
I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist or that social norms don't push people toward certain career paths, but what's more sexist? Thinking woman are the ones being socially discriminated/pressured because more of them don't choose higher paying, more stressful jobs or that jobs which provide greater personal and career satisfaction, low stress, and flexible work hours are "lesser work" because they don't pay more?
Why the followon question? If you accept that sexism exists and that society pressures women to avoid risk and long hours, then there's work to be done. We don't need to convince women that answering phones is just as "fulfilling" as being a heart surgeon, we need to convince them that, if they want to be, they probably can become a heart surgeon.
One problem I see with women today is that they are operating rationally but with a far different set of circumstances and expectations from those of men. If we start them early saying "The most important thing for you is to be attractive to men," then we set them up for failure from the get-go.
This is why I don't plan on giving my kids any "useless" toys. They are going to get toys they can build stuff with, make things out of (chemistry sets?) and of course all the books they can read.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say "point at a product you think is better." I said, specifically, how you would go about improving an AV product?
Huh. So, how would you improve an antivirus product? What do you think is a fair price point?
But to be a good little empiricist you can only accept sensory data as a basis for "truth."
Untestable assumptions generally belong in metaphysics, not neuroscience!
That's neat. You don't think though that it would reduce down to some deterministic model of the mind? Input, output...Observe, orient, decide, act...Ad nauseum?
:)
I don't think that the idea of the mind as separate from the brain is any kind of magical thinking...anymore than the assumption that it isn't. But so far as I know, outside of serious academia, potheads, and slashdot (or the intersection of all three) there are no really good counter-examples
Seems like I should go review the literature some more...
Oh, eliminating bias is a whole 'nother animal. I'm fairly confident that statistically speaking we can repeat measurements and compensate for "bias." But this has absolutely nothing to do with the question of where experience occurs.
Again, the idea that the mind is a construction of the brain is an assumption, nothing more; a useful assumption, with a lot of explanatory power, but as yet no data to back it up. Consider: we say that the brain makes the mind, based on some data. What apprehends the data? The mind. Circular logic does not a theory make.
Of course, when we get down to the nitty gritty this is probably irrelevant; despite these interesting thought problems we continue to make analyses of the world that are not encumbered by drastic subjectivity. But this doesn't mean we've solved them, only circumvented them.
Yah. In science as in other disciplines, we have to think in layers, so that's not a bad counter-example. I suppose on some level you can define a broken connection in terms of a failure of bits to flow...but how helpful is that? What does that tell us about the experience? How does it enrich us in any way?
I read recently that there is a ton of processing that goes on before we "experience" things. Like when you flick your eyes around the room--you don't "see" what exists between Point A and Point B; but your eyes do. Weird.
Sensory experience is a huge part of neural activity, and if deprived of it long enough -- so that the only activity is the spontaneous activity mentioned above -- the brain enters a degenerate state. Or, to put it another way, you go insane.
I prefer the term "rampant," thank you very much.
So, we have this idea of the "brain." When we say "brain" we'll just assume that it includes all data ever gathered about the brain by anyone on this planet, ever.
How did we get that info? Well, we used the senses we have at our disposal...but those are mediated in the brain. And they do not always reflect what we think of as "objective" reality. This is not about subjectivity; this is about our experience being distant from actual events, like how chemical data can be transmitted as either taste or as pain depending on which particular neuron binds to the stimulus molecule.
So IMO in order to say that the mind is a function of the brain you have to make a lot of assumptions about what the brain are, what the mind are, how they function, etc. I think they are obviously interrelated, but as yet poorly defined and poorly understood concepts.
It means "the mind is not a result of the action of the brain" but rather "the brain is a construct that exists in your mind" (along with the rest of experienced reality).
Think of this...you have nerves that tell you when you are damaged by detecting the contents of cells (which can be released through necrosis, gross cellular damage, etc.). The experience of this information is "pain." Where does the experience occur?
If you attend the symphony, they make all the vibrations that tickle the mechanical receptors in your ear. Where does the experience of enjoying the sound of the cello occur?
The debate over whether reality exists independent of our ability to perceive it is nontrivial, IMO. Do we assume that reality exists and that we're just apprehending it through our sensors? Even when what the sensors detect isn't really the same as what we experience? How do we prove the assumption true?
We didn't discover that. We assumed it.
I don't see it that way. Did you see the article recently about the 1995 Honda Civic with 930,000 miles on it? It was in excellent shape. Sure, the guy spent thousands of dollars over the past 12 years on maintenance (4 clutches, etc.), but to me it's senseless to say "Well, you could have gotten 4 new vehicles in that time." Why? Where's the added value in replacing when you can just mend?
All you do is fill up the landfill. If a device works and it just needs $50 in repairs, why spend $60 for something new?
Over the long term, you end up spending substantially less if you simply take good care of your posessions and repair them, rather than wear them out and replace them when they get "old." This is especially true in my situation (where I have a Mom & Pop to turn to) because Pops isn't counting the minutes. He might spend 15 minutes diagnosing your problem, but for us there's value in jawing about computers or football or whatever while this is going on. So IMO there's more than just "economics" at work--or at least more than merely monetary value in play.
They aren't disposable to everyone, for a few reasons--money being the least important. I figure, why fill up the landfill with "broken" toasters when you can open her up, solder something, and be back up & running in a few minutes? Why would you prefer to drive to the store, pay more money, throw away all the new packaging, etc.? To me, THAT is wasteful.
To me it's just an issue of living with a bunch of disposable commodities. I don't NEED to buy a new toaster, the old one is serviceable. It's less "bother" to simply fix the items I own rather than to go out for new ones.
That sounded like you could spin it into a lawyer joke.
Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
A: One is a scum-sucking bottom-feeder, and the other is a fish.
Totally disagree. Geeks are the most likely out of anyone I know to have a superiority complex and lord it over people who know less than they do. Now stick that geek in a shitty, low-paying job where people who can shit out $1000 for an overpriced Dell come in saying "My internet is broken," and every once in a while they'll dick someone over.
I also don't know what you mean about companies peddling geeks on the cheap. Geek Squad, for example, are not cheap. If you want cheap, in my area, you go to the Mom & Pop store (we actually are lucky enough to have a genuine independently run computer sales & service store, run by a genuine mom and pop) and they fix stuff on the cheap. They solder and go way, way down into the physical layer...when was the last time geeks.com checked your power supply with a multimeter? They also do great training, which you'd think would torpedo their business, but no.
Oddly enough, they don't consider themselves "geeks." They are retirees and grandparents who like to tinker. Weird, but true.
See http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS04-028.mspx.
The JPEG handler is not "supposed" to run code; but, absolutely any program that receives data, processes it, and is expected to come to some kind of outcome with it can potentially be exploited if the programmers didn't have the foresight to check for buffer overruns and other exploitable conditions.
The best way to handle these is to sandbox applications--that is, limiting what they can do on the system. You can go really extreme and absolutely lock down what programs can do what, but there's a tradeoff between security and useability.
Where are you going to get it legally?
You get either the high-quality version they offer ($80) or you get a version that sounds ok on your ipod earbuds. Those are your options, and they remove any justification for downloading it from somewhere else.
The option is between lo-fi downloads on the cheap (depending on your definition of a fair price) and hi-fi recordings for $80. So, if you do not want the hi-fi recordings, you don't have to buy them. This is called "capitalism."
If they are being cool and releasing un-DRM'd music at a fair price (by definition, fair, since you get to negotiate) then you really have no excuse for downloading it from somewhere else and throwing them a bone, unless you're just a dick.
Yah this has more to do with your changing standard of living, don't you think? If you're pulling in, after taxes, ~$5k/month AUD that has got to be enough for a mortgage, car, utilities, retirement plan, etc. If it's not, then you're living beyond your means.
My new job (starting next Monday, w00t!) is paying about EUR 10,000 per month and half that would be more money than I would know what to do with. I only need a studio apartment and some Ikea furniture and I'm happy...if you can, maybe you should consider downshifting a bit.
You're totally right--it would be at the very least ignorant and, at worst, incredibly sexist to try to "push" women towards "manly" jobs. But as it stands, there is a clear cultural bias against them; that means that on some level they lack the opportunity to get into these jobs unless they push back really, really hard.
As I told another poster who complained about how hard it was being a geek since society (the sophisticated, wildly sexually attractive part of it, anyhow) is so down on geeks--imagine that, only worse, and that's what it's like for women.
Consider this: plenty of women do nothing more than raise kids. That's their life, they go to college (or not), get married, and pop out a sprog or three. And I'm pretty sure that motherhood is fulfilling on multiple levels (mom said so, anyway). But think about the circumstances under which women make career decisions: they are acting rationally but within a different social framework from yours or mine. So it's not like they're just making these decisions in a vacuum.
Again, this is a bias in the whole culture and we're all soaking in it. I would guess that it has a lot more to do with that than "natural differences." And ask yourself this--where is this research on "natural differences?" Where's the data? All we're operating on when we make suppositions like that is--drum roll--cultural bias. Bigotry. Sexism.
The fact that women can get the same salary for the same job is a huge leap in equality over the past 50 years. When any random teenage girl looking at career paths is totally free to choose among "fashion model" or "chemical engineer" then we'll be a hell of a lot closer.
I happen to agree that, in the end, happiness is the number one factor to consider. I'm at a stage now where, honestly, I'd rather be a chef or something. But instead I'm a security consultant making a ridiculous salary, and, y'know, that's alright, I guess, there are worse things. But I also recognize that I had the freedom to choose this path and a lot of women don't. All I ask is that you (everyone) think about it a bit more.
Yes. I hate to throw around feminist terms but this is not an issue of "geek culture," so much as an issue of "the whole culture" (the term is "patriarchy").
So far as positive discrimination goes, consider this from a bottom-up perspective--a woman has to fight an uphill battle to get to the same level as a man in male-dominated fields. So because the playing field isn't level, it does make sense to give them an extra "push." The thing to do is to offer incentives or something without compromising on merits. I think at the university level is the last place to do this--free scholarships for women in science, or extra opportunities for knowledge transfer or independent work. By the time they get to the workplace, it's dog-eat-dog.
A lot of guys will moan about this kind of idea--"Why can't it be based on merit?"--without realizing that on top of their no doubt considerable merit, they also enjoy extra privileges that lots of women lack, solely because of cultural bias against it. And these are the same geeks who complain that, hey, society IS against them and their career choice! Well, imagine that, only worse, and you have the woman's position.
Well, again, "nice" only means "inoffensive," and "nice guys" are only employing a beta male reproductive strategy (as opposed to the "asshole" alpha male strategy). It's based on coercion and manipulation and so isn't really "nice" below the surface.
In reality there are options out there besides "asshole" and "manipulative dork." There are men who actually like and respect women. So the trick for women is to look for that guy and not lower their standards or settle for a jerk who gets their pilot light lit or a manipulative doofus who pays the bills.
Yah. They are making that decision. But consider the context in which they make the decision and the fact that the playing field is already tilted against them.
Other posters have already noted that this starts really early: boys get erector sets, girls get dollies to play with. This is the cultural bias and we are ALL soaking in it, and we ALL contribute to it in some way. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say "Well, they are just deciding for themselves not to become engineers."
To use your metaphor, women are told repeatedly that they don't want to get on the train, and if they do, then there's something wrong with them. So by the time it pulls up, of course they are going to say "Nah, I'll wait for a different one." And if you're not telling them "Hey, actually, y'know, you can get on that train. You might like where it goes,"--if you're only saying "Get on or not, it's up to you," then you're also contributing to the problem.
I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist or that social norms don't push people toward certain career paths, but what's more sexist? Thinking woman are the ones being socially discriminated/pressured because more of them don't choose higher paying, more stressful jobs or that jobs which provide greater personal and career satisfaction, low stress, and flexible work hours are "lesser work" because they don't pay more?
Why the followon question? If you accept that sexism exists and that society pressures women to avoid risk and long hours, then there's work to be done. We don't need to convince women that answering phones is just as "fulfilling" as being a heart surgeon, we need to convince them that, if they want to be, they probably can become a heart surgeon.
Yah.
One problem I see with women today is that they are operating rationally but with a far different set of circumstances and expectations from those of men. If we start them early saying "The most important thing for you is to be attractive to men," then we set them up for failure from the get-go.
This is why I don't plan on giving my kids any "useless" toys. They are going to get toys they can build stuff with, make things out of (chemistry sets?) and of course all the books they can read.
At some point, you'll get over this. It's a maturity thing.
Having women for friends is not only possible, it's great. Requires you to stop seeing them as objects first, though.