"If you're in Eden, everything is certain and you don't have to work for anything but you have no free will. Eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (weighing choices against each other, etc.) and you get free will but you have to live in the face of uncertainty and hardship."
Nonsense.
To the best of my knowledge those that ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil *did* were in Eden by then so by your account they had not free will and as such they were not able to freely choose to eat the fruit or not. But if they had no choice, how could God punish them for their unavoidable actions?
"So now we're back to the Judeo-Christian concept of suffering and error being the price of free will."
How can this be a "Judeo-Christian" matter any more than a plain common sense one? As long as you have the ability to choice and there's at least one choice to be done between something positive and something negative, error is the unavoidable output of free will; intelligence will modulate the relative proportions of suffering and error versus good choices but free will will make suffering and error an always present outcome.
"I have free will because as far as I can tell I exercise it. Free from what? That's the real question."
Still that's a valid operational assertion. I remember Asimov thinking about humankind in related terms: the argument of some of his tales (specially Bicentennial Man) is the if you can ask to be consider a free human being, then you deserve to be considered a free human being. On the same line of thought if you consider yourself to own a free will, then you should be considered to in fact have it. After all, who can falsify your claims?
"Since we are in a scientific context: What experiment would falsify the thesis that "free will is real"?"
No one since you ask for an exception. Just ask yourself what experiment would falsify the thesis that "there are black stars". No "black stars" have been ever observed still you state them as an 'a priori' and ask for a falsify argument, no wonder nobody can provide it. Just the same, you accept an unprobed object (free will -everybody seems to know what is it, but the fact is nobody in whole History can point to something and say "that's an undoubful case of free will") and still you ask for a probe of its unexistance. That's not a scientific problem but a logical one -related to the "evil question".
Still, you can have it as an operational 'a priori' related to Ockham's principle: since nobody can point to something and say "that's real free will in action" let's assume that there's no such a thing as "free will" and see what happens. Now you have a working and falsable principle since "there's no such a thing as free will" is easily falsable: you just need an undebatable example of free will. The fact that there's probably no real ability to produce the experiment to test for "an undebatable example of free will" -you probably would need a time machine, is not a problem theoretically-wise.
"I've never seen a definition of "free will" that would be empirically testable."
That's because it can't be empirically testable (thus science is out of the loop about testing it as acceptable or not).
On one hand, "free will" means that you can choose "this or that" on a freely concious manner untangled to any real world influence (I did this because *I* wanted that way -of course, it implies we can define what "I" in fact is in a way untangled to reality -Plato's two riders myth). On the other hand, Heraclitus in the phylosophical front and quantum mechanics in the physical one both state that "you can't step into the same river twice", so there's no way to make the experiment where all the external conditions are the same and yet, out of an exercise of concious voluntas, the experimental subject once choose "A" and "B" the other try.
"I once had someone argue to me that free will was a necessary condition to make an arbitrary choice, so that was a test."
The ability to make an arbitrary choice is a necessary condition for a free will, but not a sufficient one or else, as you stated, an electron would have free will. In order to be considered "out of free will" a choice should be arbitrary and concious of such arbitrarity.
"if your actions are just determined randomly I'm not sure why you'd call that a "will". "
That's the "conciuos" part. On one extreme we have your electron example: arbitrary choice without will; on the other extreme is Buridan's dork: unconcius will unable to take an arbitrary choice.
The difficult part is "testing", even on a phylosophical ground, both extremes: arbitrary choice and concious willness. The typical example is based on some kind of decision logically undefensible (since choices logically backed can be assumed to be a product of our intelligence instead of our free will). In (a typical) example: an heroic soldier, despite of obvious danger to his own safety choices to do something in others' favor. It seems "free will" but would any other heroic character do anything different in the very same scenario? Even more, would the very same person be able to do anything else in the very same circumnstances? Obviously in order to test this we would need to fast-rearward time to put the same person in the same situation and ask him to do different without our asking altering the environment (the quantic situation of the observer mangling the observed by the very fact that he is observing).
That's not the problem: he could cite Penrose's "Emperor's new mind". The point is "a mathematician almost absolutly unkowledgeable about not only neurophysiology but even basic biology makes some non sustainable assertions (quite on-line to those of René Thom -a mathematician too)... so what?
"Car's aren't autonomous typically they are controlled by human beings."
Your logical understandment seems to be so keen (I even took the time to look for your posts at ~Veterax/comments) I'm really looking forward to subscribe to your mail list. Really.
Yeah, well, I tend to define a four wheeled autonomous vehicle as a "chair" but people insist on calling it a "car", oh pity me.
"For one thing, a web site is more than a single page."
I never thought your on-line courses being just one static page.
"Another might be that a web site doesn't require a plugin in order to operate correctly. If it requires a plugin, it's something other than a web site."
Most commercial sites that include some form of flash presentations, on-line videos, etc. are web sites no more, just like those from TV channels or even www.youtube.com are web sites no more. Good to know.
"If _any_ government employee makes a mistake, all opposition politicians and media outlets might bitch about it for months"
In order to avoid such mischieving government employees have develop the strategy... of doing nothing!!! This way nobody can make a mistake. Brrrrilliant!!!
"This training piece is no more of a web site than a PDF document is a web site. When people describe everything online as a "web site", it does irk me."
-Is it its main access mech an HTTP-based URL? -Is it intended to be accessed on-line? -Does it start within a browser at the reach of an URL or is it marked for download?
I bet your honest answer to the previous questions will mark it as undoubtly a web site. A Flash-based on-line training-intended web site, but still a web site.
"Can you *guarantee* that the app you writing now will run smoothly on a new OS after 5 years?"
Surely not. But if I, as a VAR, am testing the new OS releases when still alpha, beta and "for limited distribution only", you can bet I'll be able to anticipate if my programs will run or not on them prior to their public launch.
"I find I spend _much_ longer with my work uncommitted in a system like svn, where typically I'm not allowed to submit partial changes which would break the unit tests or even compilation."
That's a matter of policy, of a wrong policy, I may add.
Each commit must make sense by itself but there's a lot of things that make sense that still won't compile. On the other hand, I've seen quite a lot of times that even with "commit only when compiles" policies in place, it is the developer at fault trying to make cathedrals when huts were asked. Should I have to enforce a "commit only when compiles" policy (if it indeed makes sense it must be because limitations on the SCM tool) you can bet it wouldn't come alone but aside with a "and you must commit at least once a day" one.
"Making and publishing a developer/project-specific branch is what distributed version control systems were designed for."
Not. They were designed to allow disconnected/independent traced development. Not a thing I see valuable for a single company project most of the time. On the other hand, per-developer branches is a clear indicator something is not working properly on the development process. Per-feature branches? usually OK, Per-developer? Ask why and ask it twice (while, obviously, the ocasion may arise where one feature is developed by a single person). And usually, too much branches are again symtompt of poor development processes (like trying to make the tip of the main branch to always compile).
"What sort of [managerial] constraints? Just wondering. [...] Losing one developers 'couple of days' work usually isn't a big concern. It's common for svn users to also have several days worth of work uncommitted."
*That* kind of managerial constraints. Losing 'couple of days' of development work *is* a concern; having several days worth of work uncommitted *is* a concern.
"you want to be able to play about with your local version before pushing to the server"
Maybe your manager doesn't want you working with your local version and then your work being unaccountable. Maybe your manager preferes you working on a personal branch on the centrallized repo.
"I take it that this is a passing reference to the financial meltdown on Wall Street?"
Don't. Take it as how most companies don't pay dividends to their stakeholders or, if they do, it is a non-significant part when compared with its trading volatility: a company doesn't grow its value x2 in a week but still its stocks do. That's the way the stock market works disregarding any crisis.
"Bottom line, when the smoke and mirrors fail, every sumbitch in the company, from the floor sweeper to the high and mighty CEO depends on the customer base."
True (almost), but: 1) Maybe its real user-base is not what it seems to be. As in Apple's iPhone userbase is not the guy with the shiny terminal but the telco subsidizing it. And 2) Depending on a userbase is quite different to depending on a *satisfied* userbase: there are other, demonstrately more effective ways to leech the mass. And finally, 3) The CEO doesn't depende on his company's userbase *at all*: he depends on his contract terms and his ability to sell his participations on the company prior to the shit hitting the fan. As, yes, the last financial meltdown has clearly demonstrated, as was clear in the eighties and its shark-like CEOs too.
"Apple puts themselves into danger of anti-trust scrutiny when they start blocking competitors. Do they want to be the next Microsoft?"
Why they wouldn't? Microsoft was not only in danger but effectively prosecuted. Wait, not only prosecuted but actually convicted... but look at its (by your account so important) userbase as well as its stocks, so what?
"Both Apple and Google ultimately work for the CUSTOMER."
No, they don't. Both Apple and Google ultimately work for the CEO. I was going to say "...for the stakeholders" but even this is false nowadays as the recent economical crisis and the millionaire bail out clauses for their higher ranks demonstrates. The customer is not a high priority for any company but a nuisance at most.
"If the customer wants such and such, then the customer should get such and such"
Unless, of course, we can lock them in by other (and cheaper and more surer) means like closed data formats, or blatant FUD, or by passing abusing laws, or by making them wanting what we offer by means of marketing campaigns, or by making invisible our competitors so there's no apparent choice (or buying them out, or burying them in patent claims, or...).
"allow me to quickly point out that the customer's dollars pay the stockholder's investment returns"
What will be your next fairy tale? That the "invisible hand" regulates the market? It's quite a lot of time ago that stockholder's investment is not covered by the customers but by the trade market which may or may not be related to the commercial success of a company.
"They are not 'blatand liars,' because the contract clearly states that there is a fair use policy"
And what's the unfair part on using the service in the terms chosen and advertised by the provider? (24x7 X upload Y download)? What is unfair is advertising something and then capping it to 1/3 because a percentage as meagre as 10% of its users are using it by the full contract terms.
The provider may have legal grounds to defend its position but the fact that they advertise what they have not the slightest intention to acomplish makes them nothing but blatant liars.
"Well I mean, come on, if ten people leech all day and you and 989 others can't read slashdot anymore because of that. Obviously, it costs way too much money to upgrade the network for those 10 people. Then 990 people pay extra for those 10 people. That's not fair, is it?"
Of course not! They advertise that the 1000 of them could use the full advertised bandwith but then, when only 10% of its users is effectively using it, they call it "abuse" and break their contract terms. Yes: I do call that abuse.
"Now if it really is one percent of the users who abuse it, go after them, not everyone else."
They point being that since it's the ISP the one that configures speed limits and router negotiation I can't see a way to abuse it but sort of cracking their routers and I don't think that's what the "1 per cent" they are talking about are in fact doing.
If they promise 24x7 X upload/Y download bandwith, they well damn provide that and there's no abuse when I in fact use what they promised me. If they can't stand by their promises then the proper thing is not doing them, not calling it "abuse".
"For instance, someone who downloads more than so many GB a day can be throttled or capped individually. That shouldn't be too hard, I think."
For instance, they could be compliant with the fucking contract we both agreed on that says 24x7 X bandwith upload Y bandwith download. If they can't stand by those terms (that, contrary to me, they were absolutly free to choose), then they can change for their next contract agreement or upon renoval at termination of mine. Then they could be not blatant liers and stand for their contracts so I can freely choose among providers on good faith and knowledge. That shouldn't be too hard, either.
"Nevermind that UNIX, a popular operating system from the same era was commercial."
Nevermind that though trademarks belonged to AT&T its development and real-world usage was so similar to per-license open source that you got both the BSD distribution on top of it (real open source) and a lost trial when they tried to enforce its license due to obvious open source-like usage and interbreeding.
Slashdot Mirror
"To Whom It May Concern:
No it's not."
Of course it may concern to Whom. But that won't make him less dead if he's in fact dead and I can say Whom hasn't shown here to prove him alive.
"Even if we have no free will the illusion of free will is hard to break."
Then why is it that Conway's ants don't produce even the slightest illusion of free will?
"If you're in Eden, everything is certain and you don't have to work for anything but you have no free will.
Eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (weighing choices against each other, etc.) and you get free will but you have to live in the face of uncertainty and hardship."
Nonsense.
To the best of my knowledge those that ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil *did* were in Eden by then so by your account they had not free will and as such they were not able to freely choose to eat the fruit or not. But if they had no choice, how could God punish them for their unavoidable actions?
"So now we're back to the Judeo-Christian concept of suffering and error being the price of free will."
How can this be a "Judeo-Christian" matter any more than a plain common sense one? As long as you have the ability to choice and there's at least one choice to be done between something positive and something negative, error is the unavoidable output of free will; intelligence will modulate the relative proportions of suffering and error versus good choices but free will will make suffering and error an always present outcome.
"Free will is the result of not being able to accurately predict the best action."
That's not free will: that's ignorance.
Free will is the ability to choose something despite being accurately concious of it not being the best curse of action.
"If you know what the best action is, then you will follow that course of action. "
Or not. If you really own a free will, that is.
"I have free will because as far as I can tell I exercise it.
Free from what? That's the real question."
Still that's a valid operational assertion. I remember Asimov thinking about humankind in related terms: the argument of some of his tales (specially Bicentennial Man) is the if you can ask to be consider a free human being, then you deserve to be considered a free human being. On the same line of thought if you consider yourself to own a free will, then you should be considered to in fact have it. After all, who can falsify your claims?
"Since we are in a scientific context: What experiment would falsify the thesis that "free will is real"?"
No one since you ask for an exception. Just ask yourself what experiment would falsify the thesis that "there are black stars". No "black stars" have been ever observed still you state them as an 'a priori' and ask for a falsify argument, no wonder nobody can provide it. Just the same, you accept an unprobed object (free will -everybody seems to know what is it, but the fact is nobody in whole History can point to something and say "that's an undoubful case of free will") and still you ask for a probe of its unexistance. That's not a scientific problem but a logical one -related to the "evil question".
Still, you can have it as an operational 'a priori' related to Ockham's principle: since nobody can point to something and say "that's real free will in action" let's assume that there's no such a thing as "free will" and see what happens. Now you have a working and falsable principle since "there's no such a thing as free will" is easily falsable: you just need an undebatable example of free will. The fact that there's probably no real ability to produce the experiment to test for "an undebatable example of free will" -you probably would need a time machine, is not a problem theoretically-wise.
"I've never seen a definition of "free will" that would be empirically testable."
That's because it can't be empirically testable (thus science is out of the loop about testing it as acceptable or not).
On one hand, "free will" means that you can choose "this or that" on a freely concious manner untangled to any real world influence (I did this because *I* wanted that way -of course, it implies we can define what "I" in fact is in a way untangled to reality -Plato's two riders myth). On the other hand, Heraclitus in the phylosophical front and quantum mechanics in the physical one both state that "you can't step into the same river twice", so there's no way to make the experiment where all the external conditions are the same and yet, out of an exercise of concious voluntas, the experimental subject once choose "A" and "B" the other try.
"I once had someone argue to me that free will was a necessary condition to make an arbitrary choice, so that was a test."
The ability to make an arbitrary choice is a necessary condition for a free will, but not a sufficient one or else, as you stated, an electron would have free will. In order to be considered "out of free will" a choice should be arbitrary and concious of such arbitrarity.
"if your actions are just determined randomly I'm not sure why you'd call that a "will". "
That's the "conciuos" part. On one extreme we have your electron example: arbitrary choice without will; on the other extreme is Buridan's dork: unconcius will unable to take an arbitrary choice.
The difficult part is "testing", even on a phylosophical ground, both extremes: arbitrary choice and concious willness. The typical example is based on some kind of decision logically undefensible (since choices logically backed can be assumed to be a product of our intelligence instead of our free will). In (a typical) example: an heroic soldier, despite of obvious danger to his own safety choices to do something in others' favor. It seems "free will" but would any other heroic character do anything different in the very same scenario? Even more, would the very same person be able to do anything else in the very same circumnstances? Obviously in order to test this we would need to fast-rearward time to put the same person in the same situation and ask him to do different without our asking altering the environment (the quantic situation of the observer mangling the observed by the very fact that he is observing).
"[citation needed]"
That's not the problem: he could cite Penrose's "Emperor's new mind". The point is "a mathematician almost absolutly unkowledgeable about not only neurophysiology but even basic biology makes some non sustainable assertions (quite on-line to those of René Thom -a mathematician too)... so what?
"Car's aren't autonomous typically they are controlled by human beings."
Your logical understandment seems to be so keen (I even took the time to look for your posts at ~Veterax/comments) I'm really looking forward to subscribe to your mail list. Really.
"That's not how I define "web site"."
Yeah, well, I tend to define a four wheeled autonomous vehicle as a "chair" but people insist on calling it a "car", oh pity me.
"For one thing, a web site is more than a single page."
I never thought your on-line courses being just one static page.
"Another might be that a web site doesn't require a plugin in order to operate correctly. If it requires a plugin, it's something other than a web site."
Most commercial sites that include some form of flash presentations, on-line videos, etc. are web sites no more, just like those from TV channels or even www.youtube.com are web sites no more. Good to know.
Now, let me get my chair to commute to work.
"If _any_ government employee makes a mistake, all opposition politicians and media outlets might bitch about it for months"
In order to avoid such mischieving government employees have develop the strategy... of doing nothing!!! This way nobody can make a mistake. Brrrrilliant!!!
"This training piece is no more of a web site than a PDF document is a web site. When people describe everything online as a "web site", it does irk me."
-Is it its main access mech an HTTP-based URL?
-Is it intended to be accessed on-line?
-Does it start within a browser at the reach of an URL or is it marked for download?
I bet your honest answer to the previous questions will mark it as undoubtly a web site. A Flash-based on-line training-intended web site, but still a web site.
"Can you *guarantee* that the app you writing now will run smoothly on a new OS after 5 years?"
Surely not. But if I, as a VAR, am testing the new OS releases when still alpha, beta and "for limited distribution only", you can bet I'll be able to anticipate if my programs will run or not on them prior to their public launch.
"I find I spend _much_ longer with my work uncommitted in a system like svn, where typically I'm not allowed to submit partial changes which would break the unit tests or even compilation."
That's a matter of policy, of a wrong policy, I may add.
Each commit must make sense by itself but there's a lot of things that make sense that still won't compile. On the other hand, I've seen quite a lot of times that even with "commit only when compiles" policies in place, it is the developer at fault trying to make cathedrals when huts were asked. Should I have to enforce a "commit only when compiles" policy (if it indeed makes sense it must be because limitations on the SCM tool) you can bet it wouldn't come alone but aside with a "and you must commit at least once a day" one.
"Making and publishing a developer/project-specific branch is what distributed version control systems were designed for."
Not. They were designed to allow disconnected/independent traced development. Not a thing I see valuable for a single company project most of the time. On the other hand, per-developer branches is a clear indicator something is not working properly on the development process. Per-feature branches? usually OK, Per-developer? Ask why and ask it twice (while, obviously, the ocasion may arise where one feature is developed by a single person). And usually, too much branches are again symtompt of poor development processes (like trying to make the tip of the main branch to always compile).
"Then make that policy."
I do. Thus, I use tools that make it easy to follow the policy, not going against it.
"What sort of [managerial] constraints? Just wondering.
[...]
Losing one developers 'couple of days' work usually isn't a big concern. It's common for svn users to also have several days worth of work uncommitted."
*That* kind of managerial constraints. Losing 'couple of days' of development work *is* a concern; having several days worth of work uncommitted *is* a concern.
"you want to be able to play about with your local version before pushing to the server"
Maybe your manager doesn't want you working with your local version and then your work being unaccountable. Maybe your manager preferes you working on a personal branch on the centrallized repo.
"I take it that this is a passing reference to the financial meltdown on Wall Street?"
Don't. Take it as how most companies don't pay dividends to their stakeholders or, if they do, it is a non-significant part when compared with its trading volatility: a company doesn't grow its value x2 in a week but still its stocks do. That's the way the stock market works disregarding any crisis.
"Bottom line, when the smoke and mirrors fail, every sumbitch in the company, from the floor sweeper to the high and mighty CEO depends on the customer base."
True (almost), but:
1) Maybe its real user-base is not what it seems to be. As in Apple's iPhone userbase is not the guy with the shiny terminal but the telco subsidizing it. And
2) Depending on a userbase is quite different to depending on a *satisfied* userbase: there are other, demonstrately more effective ways to leech the mass. And finally,
3) The CEO doesn't depende on his company's userbase *at all*: he depends on his contract terms and his ability to sell his participations on the company prior to the shit hitting the fan. As, yes, the last financial meltdown has clearly demonstrated, as was clear in the eighties and its shark-like CEOs too.
"Apple puts themselves into danger of anti-trust scrutiny when they start blocking competitors. Do they want to be the next Microsoft?"
Why they wouldn't? Microsoft was not only in danger but effectively prosecuted. Wait, not only prosecuted but actually convicted... but look at its (by your account so important) userbase as well as its stocks, so what?
"Both Apple and Google ultimately work for the CUSTOMER."
No, they don't. Both Apple and Google ultimately work for the CEO. I was going to say "...for the stakeholders" but even this is false nowadays as the recent economical crisis and the millionaire bail out clauses for their higher ranks demonstrates. The customer is not a high priority for any company but a nuisance at most.
"If the customer wants such and such, then the customer should get such and such"
Unless, of course, we can lock them in by other (and cheaper and more surer) means like closed data formats, or blatant FUD, or by passing abusing laws, or by making them wanting what we offer by means of marketing campaigns, or by making invisible our competitors so there's no apparent choice (or buying them out, or burying them in patent claims, or...).
"allow me to quickly point out that the customer's dollars pay the stockholder's investment returns"
What will be your next fairy tale? That the "invisible hand" regulates the market? It's quite a lot of time ago that stockholder's investment is not covered by the customers but by the trade market which may or may not be related to the commercial success of a company.
"They are not 'blatand liars,' because the contract clearly states that there is a fair use policy"
And what's the unfair part on using the service in the terms chosen and advertised by the provider? (24x7 X upload Y download)? What is unfair is advertising something and then capping it to 1/3 because a percentage as meagre as 10% of its users are using it by the full contract terms.
The provider may have legal grounds to defend its position but the fact that they advertise what they have not the slightest intention to acomplish makes them nothing but blatant liars.
"Everytime I change ISPs, it is to get more bandwidth for less cost."
Everytime I chanhge ISPs, it is to get more *claimed* bandwidth *that it could be called "abuse" if I dare to in fact use it* for less cost.
There, corrected for you.
"Well I mean, come on, if ten people leech all day and you and 989 others can't read slashdot anymore because of that. Obviously, it costs way too much money to upgrade the network for those 10 people. Then 990 people pay extra for those 10 people. That's not fair, is it?"
Of course not! They advertise that the 1000 of them could use the full advertised bandwith but then, when only 10% of its users is effectively using it, they call it "abuse" and break their contract terms. Yes: I do call that abuse.
"Now if it really is one percent of the users who abuse it, go after them, not everyone else."
They point being that since it's the ISP the one that configures speed limits and router negotiation I can't see a way to abuse it but sort of cracking their routers and I don't think that's what the "1 per cent" they are talking about are in fact doing.
If they promise 24x7 X upload/Y download bandwith, they well damn provide that and there's no abuse when I in fact use what they promised me. If they can't stand by their promises then the proper thing is not doing them, not calling it "abuse".
"For instance, someone who downloads more than so many GB a day can be throttled or capped individually. That shouldn't be too hard, I think."
For instance, they could be compliant with the fucking contract we both agreed on that says 24x7 X bandwith upload Y bandwith download. If they can't stand by those terms (that, contrary to me, they were absolutly free to choose), then they can change for their next contract agreement or upon renoval at termination of mine. Then they could be not blatant liers and stand for their contracts so I can freely choose among providers on good faith and knowledge. That shouldn't be too hard, either.
"Nevermind that UNIX, a popular operating system from the same era was commercial."
Nevermind that though trademarks belonged to AT&T its development and real-world usage was so similar to per-license open source that you got both the BSD distribution on top of it (real open source) and a lost trial when they tried to enforce its license due to obvious open source-like usage and interbreeding.