Stuff can come from within the universe without being "completely deterministic." Ever hear of the brownian motion or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Who is to say that free will couldn't exist because of that?
Brownian motion is deterministic. Quantum causation is based supposedly based soley on random distribution equations and is therefore non-deterministic. However, if a decision I make is the result of a random distribution equation, then that is no more "free" than if it were deterministic. Therefore, no, free will can't exist because of quantum particle physics. If free will exists, it is because the mind is more than just the effect of the brain.
The practical answer is, either way, you still have to get up and go to work in the morning. The same world will exist. The same physical laws will apply. The only difference is we'll be missing something that we can't even perceive in the first place, and which very well may not exist at all.
Huh? You can't perceive your free will? I understand that people make arguments to deny its existence, despite perceiving it, but I've never heard someone claim to not perceive it.
The term "free will" is pre-Enlightenment jargon. Now that our inquiry is informed by modern scientific thought, "Free will" doesn't mean free will any more - it means undetermined will, if we're to follow the orthodox interpretation of Quantum Physics, which (if one follows the orthodox interpretation) insists that we give up the idea of a determinate reality that exists completely independent its observers.
What do you mean "'free will' is pre-Enlightenment jargon"?? The concept (and jargon) of "free will" has been espoused from long before the Enlightenment to long after it. Modern scientific thought has not changed the concept of free will. It has changed its counterpart of determinism, so now instead of having the only possibilities of free will and determinism, we have the possibilities of free will, determinism, and quantum random causation. But as for its larger ramifications, quantum random causation is not fundamentally different from determinism.
Furthermore, people find that the "I" in "I have free will" is not constituted of the same things we thought it around St. Thomas Aquinas' time. The "I" might not even exist as a singular entity at all. So of course saying "I have free will" is misleading - "I" now means, the sum of the mental states which supervene on physical brain states, and the phenomenal experience accompanying those states.
The way you frame what you are saying suggests that there has been some sort of monolithic progression of thought, that we all thought one thing in Aquinas' time, and now we think something else. This is bizarre (and untrue). The thinking on the subject was diverse then and it is diverse now. As for me, I have free will. And I exist in the singular, although I am interconnected with others.
Does having free will mean anything? No. Does having no free will mean anything different? No. We live our lives like our actions are the result of our desires, and there is no other way we could exist and still have a functioning society.
So why worry about it? It's mental masturbation.
Actually one of the most essential questions. One way we are spiritual creatures. The other way we are material creatures. It must be one or the other, and your conclusion in this matter will direct your thinking in nearly every other regard -- how you should to live your life, what politics you should support, how you should raise your children, etc.
The fallacy people fall for is thinking that the spectrum of which the middle is correct is the spectrum of commonly espoused positions. It's not. It's the spectrum of POSSIBLE positions. You're absolutely right that the middle of what are presently called Liberal and Conservative positions is nowhere close to 'the truth', because what we call Liberals are actually fairly moderate. There's a much, MUCH further left position that could be taken (anarcho-socialism, the complete abolishment of all notions of government and property, where everyone is free to do and take what they please, regardless of it's effects on others) and between THAT position and it's farthest-right equivalent (fascism or corporatism, what I like to term "tyrano-capitalism" in contrast to anarch-socialism) that the moderate truth lies.
The notion that the truth can be determined by figuring out the most extreme positions you can think of, and then figuring out what is midway between them, and calling that "the truth" is completely absurd. The truth is what it is, regardless of what extreme examples we come up with or what the midpoint between them is.
I think that most 'true' hard-core geeks tend to be very liberal
Nuh Uh, TRUE hard-core geeks are conservative. Liberal hard-core geeks are completely fake.
...perhaps having something to do with reading/watching Science Fiction stories, as the best of them often emphasize compassion, understanding and attempt to acknowledge society's ills.
Except that people who are compassionate AND understand society's ills are conservative, not liberal. But I would hope that most geeks are smart enough not to just adopt the politics of whatever science fiction writer they read.
As a progressive (read by some as 'raving liberal') myself,
yes, as a raving liberal... go on...
if your assertion was correct, I would never have been able to maintain my excellent karma.
Yes, but I'm completely sane (read by some as 'raving neoconservative'), and also have excellent karma. Go figure. (although, we'll have to see how long that lasts after this post.)
most of the people I know well tend to hold 'liberal' beliefs, even if they would never label themselves as such, as the neo-cons have successfully changed the word to seem an insult rather than a category of political leaning.
Er, the word has a dual meaning -- it is simultaneously an insult and a political leaning. Liberals have now decided to start calling themselves progressive. This seems like a less insulting word owing to the fact that most people have no idea what it means. However, once the term actually catches on, everyone who thinks that "liberal" is insulting will equally think that "progressive" is insulting. (Why do liberals not understand this, and keep trying to change the words for things???)
I do see a difference between 'true' conservatives who hold to steadfast 'old fashioned' conservative values, and those who play 'lip-service' to those values in an attempt to gain power and control (like Rush 'water boy' Limbaugh, and Anne 'happy widow' Coulter). If you caught idiots such as them on an honest day, you will find that they intentionally push their 'views' farther 'right' than they themselves believe, as many foolish people cling to the idea that 'the truth is in the middle', and by pushing their slander they hope to shove the public to their view points. I don't believe that kind of posturing is possible on the 'left' as liberals don't seem to stand for it.
First of all "true conservatives", who believe what they believe simply because it's old, are only slightly more sane than "true progressives" who believe what they believe simply because it's new (or fashionable). By those definitions "true conservatives" and "true progressives" are both non-thinking people. That's what always bothered me about the old conservatives, such as Bush Sr. and Quayle, and to some degree even Reagan, using phrases such as "traditional family values" as if those values should be embraced because they are traditional instead of because they are True. The things I believe, I believe because they're true. For example, I believe there is a God, that he has endowed us all with free will (hey, I'm on topic!), and with certain inalienable rights which the government ought not infringe. Those beliefs (along with a basic understanding of macroeconomics) make me a "neoconservative". The fact that in this country they are also rather traditional is immaterial.
As for Rush Limbaugh, and Anne Coulter, they both employ a rhetorical mechanism that liberals are apparently incapable of comprehending. It is called "hyperbole." What they do is respond to actual positions and statements from the left by taking up a position on the right that is more extreme than what anyone in the mainstream (including themselves) believes, and defend that position to show, to often humorous effect, that it is more rational and more in touch wit
I've noticed that the U.K. seems to have more than its share of intellectual heavyweights, but also more than its share of complete crackpots. And yes, whoever reached these conclusions belongs to the latter category.
BTW, it would take me about 10 minutes have 1 million robots running on my computer, which claim to be sentient and demand the right to vote. (And yes, they're all going to vote the same way.)
Perhaps the next generation of these towers will be wind powered, like those roadside signs that turn in the wind. Why bother with one rotation per day when you could get several dozen per minute in a stiff breeze.
Build this sucker atop a nuclear generator, and you could probably get 2,500 RPM.
Hmm, that brings to mind the following question - what is the acceptable error when aiming prayers at Mecca? +/- 2 degrees? 5 degrees? 10? And what happens if the "aim" is off? The prayers work? Or fail to work? Or the praying party instantly has a spot reserved in Hell? Is the effectiveness of the prayer or punishment directly proportional to the degree of error? Will praying 180 degrees away from Mecca cause the opposite of the prayer to happen?
IANAM, (i am not a muslim) but they pray towards Mecca to give respect to the revelations that were given to Muhammad there. (As opposed to, say, emitting ions in an electric field eminating from Mecca.) IOW, the intention of pointing towards Mecca is what matters.
Well, since the building is a functional timepiece, you could have a seperate prayer rug for each prayer time, and then arrange them so that each rug was correctly oriented for its time. But, I think (I could be wrong), that most Gulf-state muslims go to a mosque to pray.
Cooper said state of the art bearing systems at several points in the tower will allow a power plant to rotate the base of the tower at 5mm per second using only 21 electic kettles' worth of solar power.
Oh, thanks Cooper, that's so helpful. Nothing gets across a rate of rotational velocity like milimeters per second!!! And "electric kettles"??? WTF, that's not even a unit, you arse!!!
BTW, the "points" you're looking for "in the tower"... for placing your bearing systems... to allow the base of the tower to rotate... those would be directly under the base of the tower. You didn't seem too clear on this point, and it's a rather crucial detail.
So you believe there is some magical algorithm which, when implemented, is self-aware
Other than that loaded word, "magic", absolutely. You represent a case of at least one. I represent another. I simply extend that idea to a different architecture, because I am of the opinion that the architectures have significant equivalence, computationally speaking.
What I don't believe in is some "magic" situation that will not give up its operational methods and modalities in response to a concerted effort to understand it, when the entire problem resides right here in our "back yard", as the human brain certainly does. Postulating that the brain is a magic box with functionality that cannot be replicated is stepping out on a limb that no other comparable intellectual effort we have ever undertaken can justify. The only problems we've been consistently unable to solve are of a type where the information is unavailable to us (eg, the big bang, or whatever happened, or didn't happen.) Even then we do pretty well. But the brain isn't like that. It is right here.
All this presupposes that consciousness is an effect of a physical device, i.e. the brain. There is no evidence to suggest this. There is obviously evidence that there is a strong interaction between consciousness and the brain. However, to extrapolate from this that consciousness is the effect of a physical process defies reason. Do you suppose that electrons have consciousness? So why would the routing of them to perform an algorithm, regardless of the algorithm, or its input or its output, have consciousness? The idea that once enough electrons are all moving in the right patterns, producing the right outputs for the given inputs, then consciousness and self-awareness will pop into existence, is nothing but magical thinking. I can't find any justification of this kind of thinking other than the "religious" conviction that nothing exists other than physical reality.
I have no reason to assume that an Ai would not be self-aware. More to the point, neither do you.
I can't speak to what you have reason to assume. However, as to myself, I have enough experience both with consciousness and the Source of consciousness to be intimately aware that consciousness necessarily exists in a much larger world than just the material one.
Life will almost certainly arise from Ai (Ai=artificial intelligence), but it won't be "nano" anything. My feeling as an Ai researcher is that we're already well past the computing threshold for Ai/AL (AL=artificial life.) Ai will always equal AL, though the reverse is not implied. A typical desktop today seems to me to have more than enough power to "come to life." What we are missing is the algorithm, no more.
So you believe there is some magical algorithm which, when implemented, is self-aware? The "turing test" obfuscates the issue. It is not intelligent if it is not self-aware. Even if it can give the appearance of responding intelligently.
The Best Predictions From The Article....
on
2007 Java Predictions
·
· Score: 5, Funny
...by Richard Monson-Haefel Award-Winning Author & Senior Analyst, Burton Group
1. Jonathan Schwartz open-sources Sun Microsystems. In a move that will surprise everyone Sun Microsystems will announce that it will open source its entire company. Sales, marketing, finance, and even operations will be open to the community for anyone to contribute.
2. Apple computer announces the iPod Uno. The size of a match stick with no screen or controls, the iPod Uno plays one song in a constant loop. Despite its limited capabilities, the tiny device becomes an instant hit and a cultural icon.
3. In what is heralded as the seminal article on the subject, Tim Berners-Lee mentions "IT2" Overnight the term morphs into "IT 2.0," spawning thousands of blog entries and press articles, a dozen books, five conferences, and millions of dollars in venture capital. It turns out that the original article, incomprehensible to most readers, was actually another attempt to explain the Semantic Web and the IT2 reference was just a typo.
4. Microsoft will create the first CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) position. The new CMO will immediately change his own title to Chief Command & Control of Packaging Officer (C3PO) and then announce that Vista will be delayed and renamed Microsoft Virtualization Application Program Operating system Reloaded (Microsoft VAPOR).
The question shouldn't be "does it work with Opera", the question should be "is it standards compliant".
No, that's not the only question, unless it's a plain HTML page with no javascript. Browser incompatibilities are generally found in different javascript processing behaviors in areas not covered by standards.
Where does the misconception that Opera can't do "a lot of Ajax" come from? Because it clearly can,
Yes, however, some of its behaviors in this area tend to deviate significantly from IE and FF behaviors. I recently did a simple page using Ajax/JSON, and got it working on both IE and FF without any browser-specific code, but it did not work Opera until I specifically coded for what Opera was doing. That's not to say that what IE and FF are doing is necessarily more valid than what Opera is doing. However, based on that experience, I'd expect that a lot of Ajax pages are not going to work on Opera if they haven't been tested and made to work specifically with Opera.
I agree that specifically working on Opera support is meaningless (and I've been using Opera as my primary browser for the last 5 years). However, the web developer is only in the position to dismiss it like that if and only if his pages are otherwise fully standard-compliant. Then he can point finger at the browser and say, "we done everything alright, it's that thing doing it wrong".
It's not necessarily about "right" and "wrong". Most, or at least a whole lot, of browser incompatibilities revolve around areas of behavior that are not fully addressed by any standards.
[Wealthier people] don't "consume" more, but they do, by definition, benefit more financially from the existing government -- banking regulations, military protection, police enforcement, trade negotiations, etc. As they are benefiting more in a material way from the existing government, they should be expected to contribute more in a material way to maintaining that government. Poor people, by definition, are not benefiting as much and shouldn't be expected to want to maintain or support the existing system very much.
No they don't, and nor does saying "by definition" make it true. If not for government regulation, wealthy people would enslave poor people, and wealthy corporations would eliminate small companies. Wealthy people rely far less on police protection, as they can hire their own protection. They depend far less on military protection, since they have the means of leaving the country if necessary. Trade negotiations and banking regulations (if they're good) benefit everyone equally by protecting the economy, the latter at the expense of wealthy bank owners who would make greater profits otherwise.
Poor people, on the other hand, directly benefit from welfare, medicaid, earned income tax credits, and food stamps, which no rich person ever sees a cent of. So yes, if taxation were based on fairness or justice, it would be regressive. However, there are higher ideals than fairness and justice.
A DVD player without a DVD is not a product, because it doesn't work... A DVD player without a TV is not a product, because it doesn't work... A toy without batteries is not a product, because it doesn't work...
These are not comparable analogies. A DVD player exists for the purpose of playing a variety of DVDs, just as a computer exists for the purpose of running a variety of applications. A DVD player requires software to do this, which the consumer does not get to select or opt out of. That software is what is comparable to an operating system, not DVDs or batteries or TVs.
When UFC files a lawsuit, they generally have studied all aspects of the case and they are almost 100% they'll win. And indeed, they do often win. That's a great news for French consumers. HP's reply is plain stupid, and won't last long at the tribunal.
Huh??? Great news for French consumers? I think it's pretty rotten news for French consumers who don't know how to install operating systems!
No. The difference is that an operating system runs on the computer. It isn't a necessary part. You could netboot the computer, or boot it off of a CD. Both are perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to be able to buy a computer OS-free.
So???? Just because there is a concievable reason why a customer might want a computer without an OS doesn't make it sane for there to be a law requiring ALL manufacturers to ONLY sell them that way!
Slashdot Mirror
Brownian motion is deterministic. Quantum causation is based supposedly based soley on random distribution equations and is therefore non-deterministic. However, if a decision I make is the result of a random distribution equation, then that is no more "free" than if it were deterministic. Therefore, no, free will can't exist because of quantum particle physics. If free will exists, it is because the mind is more than just the effect of the brain.
Huh? You can't perceive your free will? I understand that people make arguments to deny its existence, despite perceiving it, but I've never heard someone claim to not perceive it.
What do you mean "'free will' is pre-Enlightenment jargon"?? The concept (and jargon) of "free will" has been espoused from long before the Enlightenment to long after it. Modern scientific thought has not changed the concept of free will. It has changed its counterpart of determinism, so now instead of having the only possibilities of free will and determinism, we have the possibilities of free will, determinism, and quantum random causation. But as for its larger ramifications, quantum random causation is not fundamentally different from determinism.
The way you frame what you are saying suggests that there has been some sort of monolithic progression of thought, that we all thought one thing in Aquinas' time, and now we think something else. This is bizarre (and untrue). The thinking on the subject was diverse then and it is diverse now. As for me, I have free will. And I exist in the singular, although I am interconnected with others.
Actually one of the most essential questions. One way we are spiritual creatures. The other way we are material creatures. It must be one or the other, and your conclusion in this matter will direct your thinking in nearly every other regard -- how you should to live your life, what politics you should support, how you should raise your children, etc.
The notion that the truth can be determined by figuring out the most extreme positions you can think of, and then figuring out what is midway between them, and calling that "the truth" is completely absurd. The truth is what it is, regardless of what extreme examples we come up with or what the midpoint between them is.
Nuh Uh, TRUE hard-core geeks are conservative. Liberal hard-core geeks are completely fake.
Except that people who are compassionate AND understand society's ills are conservative, not liberal. But I would hope that most geeks are smart enough not to just adopt the politics of whatever science fiction writer they read.
yes, as a raving liberal... go on...
Yes, but I'm completely sane (read by some as 'raving neoconservative'), and also have excellent karma. Go figure. (although, we'll have to see how long that lasts after this post.)
Er, the word has a dual meaning -- it is simultaneously an insult and a political leaning. Liberals have now decided to start calling themselves progressive. This seems like a less insulting word owing to the fact that most people have no idea what it means. However, once the term actually catches on, everyone who thinks that "liberal" is insulting will equally think that "progressive" is insulting. (Why do liberals not understand this, and keep trying to change the words for things???)
First of all "true conservatives", who believe what they believe simply because it's old, are only slightly more sane than "true progressives" who believe what they believe simply because it's new (or fashionable). By those definitions "true conservatives" and "true progressives" are both non-thinking people. That's what always bothered me about the old conservatives, such as Bush Sr. and Quayle, and to some degree even Reagan, using phrases such as "traditional family values" as if those values should be embraced because they are traditional instead of because they are True. The things I believe, I believe because they're true. For example, I believe there is a God, that he has endowed us all with free will (hey, I'm on topic!), and with certain inalienable rights which the government ought not infringe. Those beliefs (along with a basic understanding of macroeconomics) make me a "neoconservative". The fact that in this country they are also rather traditional is immaterial.
As for Rush Limbaugh, and Anne Coulter, they both employ a rhetorical mechanism that liberals are apparently incapable of comprehending. It is called "hyperbole." What they do is respond to actual positions and statements from the left by taking up a position on the right that is more extreme than what anyone in the mainstream (including themselves) believes, and defend that position to show, to often humorous effect, that it is more rational and more in touch wit
I've noticed that the U.K. seems to have more than its share of intellectual heavyweights, but also more than its share of complete crackpots. And yes, whoever reached these conclusions belongs to the latter category.
BTW, it would take me about 10 minutes have 1 million robots running on my computer, which claim to be sentient and demand the right to vote. (And yes, they're all going to vote the same way.)
Maybe people with "generally positive outlooks" are more likely to have gotten flu shots. I wonder if they asked about that.
*Feels a sudden disturbance in the force. As if a million slashdotters cried out it horror, and then their frickin heads exploded.*
Build this sucker atop a nuclear generator, and you could probably get 2,500 RPM.
IANAM, (i am not a muslim) but they pray towards Mecca to give respect to the revelations that were given to Muhammad there. (As opposed to, say, emitting ions in an electric field eminating from Mecca.) IOW, the intention of pointing towards Mecca is what matters.
Well, since the building is a functional timepiece, you could have a seperate prayer rug for each prayer time, and then arrange them so that each rug was correctly oriented for its time. But, I think (I could be wrong), that most Gulf-state muslims go to a mosque to pray.
Oh, thanks Cooper, that's so helpful. Nothing gets across a rate of rotational velocity like milimeters per second!!! And "electric kettles"??? WTF, that's not even a unit, you arse!!!
BTW, the "points" you're looking for "in the tower"... for placing your bearing systems... to allow the base of the tower to rotate... those would be directly under the base of the tower. You didn't seem too clear on this point, and it's a rather crucial detail.
I happen to know that's total crap, because AC didn't exist until Nikola Tesla invented it in 1492.
All this presupposes that consciousness is an effect of a physical device, i.e. the brain. There is no evidence to suggest this. There is obviously evidence that there is a strong interaction between consciousness and the brain. However, to extrapolate from this that consciousness is the effect of a physical process defies reason. Do you suppose that electrons have consciousness? So why would the routing of them to perform an algorithm, regardless of the algorithm, or its input or its output, have consciousness? The idea that once enough electrons are all moving in the right patterns, producing the right outputs for the given inputs, then consciousness and self-awareness will pop into existence, is nothing but magical thinking. I can't find any justification of this kind of thinking other than the "religious" conviction that nothing exists other than physical reality.
I can't speak to what you have reason to assume. However, as to myself, I have enough experience both with consciousness and the Source of consciousness to be intimately aware that consciousness necessarily exists in a much larger world than just the material one.
So you believe there is some magical algorithm which, when implemented, is self-aware? The "turing test" obfuscates the issue. It is not intelligent if it is not self-aware. Even if it can give the appearance of responding intelligently.
...by Richard Monson-Haefel
...funniest stuff I've read in a very long time.
Award-Winning Author & Senior Analyst, Burton Group
1. Jonathan Schwartz open-sources Sun Microsystems.
In a move that will surprise everyone Sun Microsystems will announce that it will open source its entire company. Sales, marketing, finance, and even operations will be open to the community for anyone to contribute.
2. Apple computer announces the iPod Uno.
The size of a match stick with no screen or controls, the iPod Uno plays one song in a constant loop. Despite its limited capabilities, the tiny device becomes an instant hit and a cultural icon.
3. In what is heralded as the seminal article on the subject, Tim Berners-Lee mentions "IT2"
Overnight the term morphs into "IT 2.0," spawning thousands of blog entries and press articles, a dozen books, five conferences, and millions of dollars in venture capital. It turns out that the original article, incomprehensible to most readers, was actually another attempt to explain the Semantic Web and the IT2 reference was just a typo.
4. Microsoft will create the first CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) position.
The new CMO will immediately change his own title to Chief Command & Control of Packaging Officer (C3PO) and then announce that Vista will be delayed and renamed Microsoft Virtualization Application Program Operating system Reloaded (Microsoft VAPOR).
No, that's not the only question, unless it's a plain HTML page with no javascript. Browser incompatibilities are generally found in different javascript processing behaviors in areas not covered by standards.
Yes, however, some of its behaviors in this area tend to deviate significantly from IE and FF behaviors. I recently did a simple page using Ajax/JSON, and got it working on both IE and FF without any browser-specific code, but it did not work Opera until I specifically coded for what Opera was doing. That's not to say that what IE and FF are doing is necessarily more valid than what Opera is doing. However, based on that experience, I'd expect that a lot of Ajax pages are not going to work on Opera if they haven't been tested and made to work specifically with Opera.
It's not necessarily about "right" and "wrong". Most, or at least a whole lot, of browser incompatibilities revolve around areas of behavior that are not fully addressed by any standards.
No they don't, and nor does saying "by definition" make it true. If not for government regulation, wealthy people would enslave poor people, and wealthy corporations would eliminate small companies. Wealthy people rely far less on police protection, as they can hire their own protection. They depend far less on military protection, since they have the means of leaving the country if necessary. Trade negotiations and banking regulations (if they're good) benefit everyone equally by protecting the economy, the latter at the expense of wealthy bank owners who would make greater profits otherwise.
Poor people, on the other hand, directly benefit from welfare, medicaid, earned income tax credits, and food stamps, which no rich person ever sees a cent of. So yes, if taxation were based on fairness or justice, it would be regressive. However, there are higher ideals than fairness and justice.
These are not comparable analogies. A DVD player exists for the purpose of playing a variety of DVDs, just as a computer exists for the purpose of running a variety of applications. A DVD player requires software to do this, which the consumer does not get to select or opt out of. That software is what is comparable to an operating system, not DVDs or batteries or TVs.
Huh??? Great news for French consumers? I think it's pretty rotten news for French consumers who don't know how to install operating systems!
Right, and it's not like we can just let people buy computers with all the functionality they want, because... why can't we do that again?
Oh, and it doesn't need a bios to work, or memory or drive controllers -- I say as long as the fan is blowing it's working.
So???? Just because there is a concievable reason why a customer might want a computer without an OS doesn't make it sane for there to be a law requiring ALL manufacturers to ONLY sell them that way!