The Apology by Plato is a good start. One of the themes in it is useful skepticism. "I know that I have no wisdom..." It's an easy short read.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
Websters:
Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
1 : voluntary choice or decision
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
I am arguing to use definition 1 instead of definition 2. I am arguing also, that something like definition 2 is an explanation not a definition.
Definitions change...
Couldn't a separate chemical reaction be used to alter the chemical reaction? Couldn't this separate chemical reaction be called free will?
The supernatural is an explanation for free will not a definition. Having a free will means being able to make a choice, that is all it means. Beyond that it turns into an explanation as to why we have free will.
No, a common explanation of free will is that it's supernatural. Having a will that's free, is just simply having choice. You are confusing explanation with definition.
"Perhaps if there is truly free will this means that there must exist something supernatural (the identity of which remains unknown). If free will exists, then there must be something which is NOT governed by the physical universe (hence, not deterministic), but which itself CAN influence or govern the physical universe (ie. the brain). This seems to fit the definition of supernatural -- or outside nature."
Nope, the natural world is all inclusive of everything (every-THING). If free will exists, it would be part of humans, which would mean it's part of nature. If our nature was outside of nature, this would be a contradiction.
Free will means the ability to choose, that is all it means on it's own. People seem to think that it implies supernatural, but I think this is a leap as it stands.
The ability to choose is not in conflict with determinism. One still has to process the deterministic events to come to a decsions... hmm that sounds a lot like free will.
Why a discussion of free will matters, mostly has to do with people's misinterpretations and linking it to God. It's the logical leap that matters and leads to problems. People get offended when you reduce free will to the possibility of not being reliant on God even though God is not really being attacked.
Also, I think one can believe in determinism and God. If god is all powerful then he must have everything planned out including himself...
"It seems, however, that if you think logic exists, then you are admitting to free will. For without free will nothing could be proven true or false. Ever."
This statement is also problematic. Logic depends on a set of givens leading you to a true or a false. You never know if your givens are true or false; therefore, with logic you really can't prove anything completely, just prove under certain conditions. I don't see why you would need free will to follow this out...
Will this "truth predictor" give a high probability of "truth" on statements that concern whether or not statements predicted as a high probability of "truth," with the "truth predictor," are true?
If it does predict these statements to be have a high probablilty of "truth," can we reasonably belive it as truth?
It's negligent not to at leaste attempt to offer your clients what you agree is a better solution. Especiallly for reasons such as "They like it when..." It's your job to show them why they should "like something else." If they still insist, well then give them a software firewall, but you should give them all the facts first. If it's the better solution,it should be offered prior to worse solutions.
"A free software firewall is better than none.", i.e., it should be used as a last resort, not as something that should be initially suggested to clients as the thing to do. Infact, I'd say it should only be used if a client adamantly opposed to a router and even then I think it's best to attempt to steer them away. Why use what isn't the best solution?
Oh okay I miss read. Yeah you could specify the those ports for the internal network (Usally 192.168.x.x not 192.162.x.x.).
However, trusting a user to manage this is giving most users too much credit and is more diffcult than connecting two wires. Also, a router sets up the firewall on all the computers instead of goig to each one and managing it. If the person setting it up is being paid by the hour a $50 router might be cheaper.
You still have the personal file and print sharing problem. Leaving those ports open to the net is very very risky. In windows 2000, if you don't have an admin password, someone can access the admin (c$) share with an IP address. Also, there are ways of promoting admins rights without having it. (The C$ share allows root acccess to a computer.) A router will close this off. Most people can hook in two wires especially if a diagram is drawn. Even in the case of DSL where you'd have to setup a log in, these days DSL modems already handle the login (although, some of these modems are routers already makeing the use of any other firewall, software or hardware moot).
"4) Install a software firewall like Kerio or just use Windows XP's firewall. If you install Kerio, use V2.1.5 because it's non-intrusive. The later versions are too picky and get in your face."
Why not use a router? Software firewalls are resource hogs and confusing to most users. Routers come pre installed with decent firewall settings for the average user. Plus, the computers on a network might need to have file and print sharing turned on; a router would block this to the outside world but allow it internally.
Slashdot Mirror
The Apology by Plato is a good start. One of the themes in it is useful skepticism. "I know that I have no wisdom..." It's an easy short read. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html
are you sure you don't need a mammogram? http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/male-breast-cance r/DS00661/DSECTION=6
Websters: Main Entry: free will Function: noun 1 : voluntary choice or decision 2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention I am arguing to use definition 1 instead of definition 2. I am arguing also, that something like definition 2 is an explanation not a definition. Definitions change...
Couldn't a separate chemical reaction be used to alter the chemical reaction? Couldn't this separate chemical reaction be called free will? The supernatural is an explanation for free will not a definition. Having a free will means being able to make a choice, that is all it means. Beyond that it turns into an explanation as to why we have free will.
No, a common explanation of free will is that it's supernatural. Having a will that's free, is just simply having choice. You are confusing explanation with definition.
"Perhaps if there is truly free will this means that there must exist something supernatural (the identity of which remains unknown). If free will exists, then there must be something which is NOT governed by the physical universe (hence, not deterministic), but which itself CAN influence or govern the physical universe (ie. the brain). This seems to fit the definition of supernatural -- or outside nature." Nope, the natural world is all inclusive of everything (every-THING). If free will exists, it would be part of humans, which would mean it's part of nature. If our nature was outside of nature, this would be a contradiction. Free will means the ability to choose, that is all it means on it's own. People seem to think that it implies supernatural, but I think this is a leap as it stands. The ability to choose is not in conflict with determinism. One still has to process the deterministic events to come to a decsions... hmm that sounds a lot like free will. Why a discussion of free will matters, mostly has to do with people's misinterpretations and linking it to God. It's the logical leap that matters and leads to problems. People get offended when you reduce free will to the possibility of not being reliant on God even though God is not really being attacked. Also, I think one can believe in determinism and God. If god is all powerful then he must have everything planned out including himself... "It seems, however, that if you think logic exists, then you are admitting to free will. For without free will nothing could be proven true or false. Ever." This statement is also problematic. Logic depends on a set of givens leading you to a true or a false. You never know if your givens are true or false; therefore, with logic you really can't prove anything completely, just prove under certain conditions. I don't see why you would need free will to follow this out...
Will this "truth predictor" give a high probability of "truth" on statements that concern whether or not statements predicted as a high probability of "truth," with the "truth predictor," are true? If it does predict these statements to be have a high probablilty of "truth," can we reasonably belive it as truth?
It's negligent not to at leaste attempt to offer your clients what you agree is a better solution. Especiallly for reasons such as "They like it when..." It's your job to show them why they should "like something else." If they still insist, well then give them a software firewall, but you should give them all the facts first. If it's the better solution ,it should be offered prior to worse solutions.
"A free software firewall is better than none.", i.e., it should be used as a last resort, not as something that should be initially suggested to clients as the thing to do. Infact, I'd say it should only be used if a client adamantly opposed to a router and even then I think it's best to attempt to steer them away. Why use what isn't the best solution?
Oh okay I miss read. Yeah you could specify the those ports for the internal network (Usally 192.168.x.x not 192.162.x.x.). However, trusting a user to manage this is giving most users too much credit and is more diffcult than connecting two wires. Also, a router sets up the firewall on all the computers instead of goig to each one and managing it. If the person setting it up is being paid by the hour a $50 router might be cheaper.
You still have the personal file and print sharing problem. Leaving those ports open to the net is very very risky. In windows 2000, if you don't have an admin password, someone can access the admin (c$) share with an IP address. Also, there are ways of promoting admins rights without having it. (The C$ share allows root acccess to a computer.) A router will close this off. Most people can hook in two wires especially if a diagram is drawn. Even in the case of DSL where you'd have to setup a log in, these days DSL modems already handle the login (although, some of these modems are routers already makeing the use of any other firewall, software or hardware moot).
"4) Install a software firewall like Kerio or just use Windows XP's firewall. If you install Kerio, use V2.1.5 because it's non-intrusive. The later versions are too picky and get in your face." Why not use a router? Software firewalls are resource hogs and confusing to most users. Routers come pre installed with decent firewall settings for the average user. Plus, the computers on a network might need to have file and print sharing turned on; a router would block this to the outside world but allow it internally.