It helps. Each product can now be viewed as a general scientific hypothesis; so publishing your work is essential.
You wouldn't be writing _on MVP development_ but rather exposing to everyone just how well you are at executing it. In my mind, your question seems like asking, "Is it a good idea to write an ebook on the scientific method?"
You have to manage what kind of philosophical posturing you're going to make. What you will write about may not necessarily translate to other projects, and that'll be for the fact that your hypotheses will be defined by the nature of your product. I believe what I'm saying is consistent with "don't choose your tech stack first" since the product's nature determines what the tech stack will be.
You !== Your Brain. This is not the kind of thing that science can "discover" and "more evidence" doesn't change that. Freedom of the will is a concept that also is embedded within our cultural gestalt/framework.
We may _decide_ that such neuroscientific conditions, as evidenced by fMRI for instance, say that our will is not active in certain circumstances, but deciding that isn't so clear cut. We may not have free will under most conditions, but the onus is on the neuroscientist to demonstrate what those conditions are. That said, most personal agency is a feature of systems much more higher order than the brain. "Luck" is a prime example where we often attribute agency regardless of any physical conditions having taken place.
>His experiment showed that the neurons lit up with activity as much as 1.5 seconds before the participant made a conscious decision to press a button.
Hume's skeptical argument applies here as well. Correlation doesn't imply causation, etc. And you need at least to prove this much before one can get an identity claim. But again: You !== Your Brain.
Even if true, as I said earlier about the cultural gestalt: The idea that one does not have free will entails that one is reducible to one's brain; and this is absurd, on its face. Moreover, natural language itself does not suggest this at all, and in fact suggests the opposite.
They may add clarity and precision where I have made a gloss.
PMS Hacker and most Wittgensteinians come to this conclusion; it is largely the reason why they find any value in Freudian/Gestalt psychology: for the fact that these brands of psychology avoid, as much as they can, reductionist, and this is for the fact that their theories depend on building metanarratives _on top of_ "folk psychology" rather than attempting to undercut folk psychology with some more primitive theory. The whole debate turns on which theories have better "explanatory power" while preserving our intuitive notions of the brain. Wittgenstein criticized Freudians for mistaking "decision" for "discovery"; and this is exactly what "Crypto-Cartesians" do except what is discover is not a psychological law à la Freud, but rather a neurological law. Now, of course, in their own worlds, these laws make sense; there are law like relations between, say, joy and pain; their are laws between synaptic path/subsystems and the behavior of neurons. However, talking about those laws does not give us direct insight into the _organism for which those laws have constituted_.
It should be clear that if free will is not possible, then we must wonder why we decided to look inside the brain, rather than the foot, to discover why it is not possible. The problem, like with the Freudians, is that identity claims like You === Your Brain are a matter of decision, not discovery. We might decide and agree such identity claims, but not without doing severe damage to the common language which we use to identify correlations and criteria which support as evidence those claims.
What these scientists are trying to do is make their position _compelling_; that is the fundamental problem here since engaging in such "justificatory" activity is a feature of science itself (i.e., peer review). This feature of the structure of scientific practice, by and large, makes it "absurd, on its face." These scientists attempt to pass off as discovery what can, by the nature of science itself, only be suggestion, persuasion, justification.
I've been practicing psychonautics and freeganism.
The problem is, and I believe this applies to equally Buddhism: _Why should we have to go this far?_ I cannot have a polite conversation about psychonautics with most everyone, but if not for the research done into this field, I'd still be suffering from terrible pain and misery.
Most people will not understand mysticism. Telling someone "try mysticism" is about as helpful as "get a job." Hackers being "high risk" makes sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0XK9yMAxPk, and I think that applies here more so than some philosophical system.
I myself have been royally blasted by our industrial-capitalist complex. Jail, abusive/manipulative family, poor, mother ridden with terminal illness and hospital bills, and quite honestly -- "African American"; even now I no longer can define myself as this term, preferring the term "elf." But even this offsets me socially. The things we have to do to attain happiness and integrity of identity in this country installs a sense of guilt and engenders neurosis. Even to today I have had to swallow racial slurs and comments, just to fit into a cultural system of computer scientists/programmers. I am constantly seeing how rigid and inorganic this ethnic group is; and it is somewhat terrifying. (All I can really defend this point with is: _Have you had to deal with racism on a daily basis? If you cannot say 'yes,' then I cannot truly explain this problem to you. It's similar to the points Colin Powell makes when he recants the GOP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQ8ZWWceTL0 -- his points really just set the stage for just how systematically impoverished our country is ethnically).
Often it is simply unfair, and the system is constructed to where one cannot appeal to the sympathies of the majority of the population. Most denizens are prepared to employ defensive tactics like "but at least you can vote!" or "at least you're not in the Congo!", etc. It's simply unhelpful to the dialogue here.
I'm sorry to hear of your difficulties brother. Lets actively work to make life better. Maybe we won't have a very happy life but we can have a life of meaning.
Not to sound crass, or maybe I want to sound crass. But this is just looking like a chess game now.
As if we couldn't see this kind of thing coming with the way the movie industry portrayed hacking in the 80s and 90s. Public consciousness will, I venture to assert, take this kind of non-news as the new news norm. To the dismay of EFF, Creative Commons, Wikileaks, etc.
It means "too long; don't read." I'm not sure why the past tense variation sticks; but it's a label/post-it/card/sign/placard/billboard/sign-post/warning/caute!/message not to read the identified text for concern of irrelevance.
It's like a voting system. The ";" functions as the hash tag: "#tldnr", "#tldr", etc.
Doesn't make sense. "N" does not pick out the beginning of any word. If you chance across the tag, your interpretation is less obvious than,
"... Too Long; Do Not Read"
The contraction makes sense, and thus the natural transformation into a meta-informative suggestion makes sense. Contractions serve to convey information, usually engendering more intimate dialogue. So it also invites the question of "why not"? And we all know how that goes. It invites the author and really any reader to a game not dissimilar to trolling, usually. It may not take a position necessarily, in terms of the message, and this is not required of what I am saying; however, an explanation of why one would post it at all stands in order. I think the conveying of information to other readers is also important.
Yes, but porn can sometimes be the worst drug. Sometimes I find the analogy between porn and drugs to add more obfuscation to my thoughts than clarity.
They're very similar in some respects, both trigger pleasure and reward centres creating a similar level of craving. Not a wholy physical dependency, but certainly a mental one over time.
I sincerely do feel that "sharing beliefs" is an understatement.
I know that smile. That is my smile. I make it often. And perhaps many others do too. It's when I know I have no other business being exactly where I am except for the fact that I'm right.
I did not know him personally, yet I benefited personally from his mind, such that many of my projects were successful because I started mouthing off ideas that depended on RSS.
What if you collaborated with Newton? Spinoza? Even that fat bastard Leibniz? Huygens? Popper? Russell? Whitehead? What if you slogged through those theorems, or those symbols, or those programs? Did you simply "share beliefs"? What about those times, for brevity, you had to assume, at least in some partial, pseudometaphysical way, assume the identity of that author, and speak as if you were them, for clarity, gusto and confidence?
I cannot fully fathom these feelings, but even that "they took our kin from us" is an understatement.
We are building something here. An Architect of the Web was given no light to see, given no capacity to imagine his work come to fruition. There's more than belief sharing going on. "Sharing is caring" but that doesn't quite get at the right picture.
It's not just that hackers may have the disposition of "going to war" but "we the people" that pernicious rubbish, is turning those who are incapable of hacking, it's turning them into a new form of clientele. It's already happening in Houston.
You can look at my Website. You can see I am a designer. But because I use vim/Terminal, over night my community re-defined me as a "hacker."
I'm not quite sure how to formulate this, since I count myself a hacker, of a sort, but I've also picked up a few hints about why my psychology is the way it is.
There was the Age of Autism. My hand-wavey gloss is that we will see an Age of Williams, of people with Williams Syndrome who will "teach us how to be happy" or whatever intellectual debris gets tacked onto a population that carries the "happy gene."
Scientists, linguists, psychologists seem to be in a hurried hunt, under a hyperreductionist banner, to discover how to, it stands to reason, prevent "the hackers from killing themselves" (assuming there's a strong positive correlation between "hackers" and "autists") or to say the least, from engaging in what seems like reactionary violence against the world or themselves; that is, prevent such future tragedies by discovering the gene.
I'll tell you. 2011 I got absolutely fucking crushed, blasted. Arrested for personal weed; quitting the job out of guilt and fear of being fired; multiple dental extractions; first (at age 21!, mind you) ex-girlfriend brutally/ritualistically murdered shockingly while touring Germany (a sweet woman who, like in many Williams Syndrome descriptions, could be said to be "too naive" and "too open with strangers"); killer set to "insanity" plea after attempting suicide; mother desperately poor, frequently taking money from me without warning or call; alcoholic grandmother; emotionally gutwrenchingly dysfunctional family where accusations of kidnapping of biological sister still today go unchallenged (a sister I've "hung out" with less than 10 times); drug addict father who I've yet to talk to since roughly months ago (at age 27 now); mother riddled with disease and heavily dependent on steroids, while also hyperbaptist/religious; and on top of all of that, the only type of work that kept me afloat in Houston, Texas, of all places, were demeaning "oil and gas" industry Web jobs, where I was probably ranked less than a code monkey, though I still had to drill through FogBugz, etc.
Yet for some terrible reason, all I can think about is how I just nyan'd (http://nyan.cat) for 5+ minutes.
Even now I starve, as I await for a client to possibly say okay to a logo.
Maybe I'm not stressed out in the right kind of way. But my "happiness" is so unstoppable that what actually makes me angry or upset is the fact of being upset or angry at all. I can be frustrated, but I can really admit to only that. Even now, as I sit poor and crushed, with W3C's Specifications on the brain.
One joke. One. Absolutely one joke can take me from a SOPA-ranting lunatic or a painfully woeful and grieving romantic, to a kitty petting, child tickling maniac. And I've got most standup comics committed to my highly reliably aural-verbal memory.
Not to demean you and I understand that you may dislike the idea of charity, but while I don't have much money, I could spare $7.50 to your paypal account to help short term with food, no pay back required. Consider me seeing this message the universes way of telling me it's time to give back.
I do appreciate it. But I've become pretty good at fasting; so please, keep your money.
What I really want is for my gittip-for-the-homeless idea to get off the ground; and that's more a matter of sharing the idea than building some app. Indeed, it might simply be 1. Buy a [edit: wifi] pi. 2. Give it to a homeless guy (or gal! but for rhyme) 3. with a login wall that takes you to their gittip where it 4. explains why they're a street violinist.
Unfortunately since talking is a stronger form of learning for me, I find myself spending less time being a good little coder and more time sharing ideas with people (including coders who take them and run, which is a good thing).
Our hotbed copyright system promotes theft and discourages sharing. If I can get more hope about that turning around, I could fast for another week on joy alone.
You wouldn't be writing _on MVP development_ but rather exposing to everyone just how well you are at executing it. In my mind, your question seems like asking, "Is it a good idea to write an ebook on the scientific method?"
You have to manage what kind of philosophical posturing you're going to make. What you will write about may not necessarily translate to other projects, and that'll be for the fact that your hypotheses will be defined by the nature of your product. I believe what I'm saying is consistent with "don't choose your tech stack first" since the product's nature determines what the tech stack will be.