FYI, ice is less dense than water. That's why it floats.

An even better analogy: you left confidential info *about me* clearly visible and readable in your car. I had trusted you to keep it secure and I had not noticed that you were failing to do that. He saw it, and let me know in the only way he could.

I really can't understand all those "hacking victim" apologists (note the quotes). Currently it is illegal for me to accidentally discover that my bank/phone company/isp is leaking my information or allowing transactions in my name. Without that knowledge, I can't even "vote with my wallet" and choose a more secure venue. Yet the "hacking victim" apologists only focus on how wrong the "hacker" was, instead of that his actions were the only way to learn about the "victim"'s gross negligence.

Obviously your post is already receiving comments from apologists, "he had to poke", "he copied the information" (both of which are obvious, specially the copying, which is automatic, and required if you want to give warning). Those replies - people speaking against their own interests in defence of a negligent mega-corporation - sadden me.

There is one, very important, difference: asking google to retrieve information is much more efficient than requesting a secretary to do so. That's pretty much the point of asking google. There are people in this forum who will claim that the difference is essential. I find that position nonsensical, but by ignoring it, you leave open a point of attack. So I would make your conclusion more explicit:

The "report" in both cases should be considered free speech, regardless of how efficient were the means used to obtain it.

(I would also go beyond free speech here and include those actions that are considered correct or legal to do by yourself but become illegal if you ask someone else for assistance, free or not. But extending on this idea would probably be offtopic)

Re-read his post. He didn't say that the existence of a God was disproved. He said that Christianity was. Christianity makes some very specific statements about their god, some of which are nonsensical (like torturing itself to death so it could forgive "us" for a grievance committed by our supposed ancestors, which we inherit only because he made it so in the first place), some are contradictory (like being benevolent and ... well, all his cruelty in the bible). Regardless of the (in)ability to rule out the concept of a "general" creator, specific statements of christianity can be disproved.

What? As the GP told you, "Evolution", regardless of how you chose to capitalize it, says nothing about the origin of life. It explains the origin of *species*, not *life*, i.e, the observation that the biosphere today is wildly different than the biosphere several million years ago, giving an explanation of how it happens that is accurate enough to make predictions based on them ("if we do this, we should see speciacion... oh, look, speciacion!"). There is no "origin of life evolution". There is "abiogenesis", but claiming that abiogenesis is science stepping into religion demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of what "science" and "abiogenesis" are (hint: the evidence for abiogenesis is more than "this self-contradictory book says so". The Miller-Urey experiment was a confirmation of a prediction based on the primordial soup theory -- that's science at its finest).

Crap. And you are unable to infer from my position from the rest of the posts that that is precisely what I was saying all along. Come on, honestly, cant you figure out that given the context, "if I assume that all my memories are wrong" doesn't mean anything more than "extremely unreliable"? Otherwise the statement wouldn't make any sense.

Holy shit. You are really good at this [trolling thing]. No, your question asked for proof. That's seeking proof, not truth nor utility. Just proof. Even assuming that you asked for truth (I'll grant you that if you want), your question was malformed, and so was your answer: you can't prove anything through faith. I stated that before. I merely answer the next question that comes to mind, which is how to behave, and that is a question of utility, not truth. My bad for giving a useful answer.

Really, my bad. I think there is only one way of dealing with you. Reboot. Ask the question again with a precise definitions of all your terms, and I shall answer that and only that, so that you don't get "confused" (clearly on purpose) about what we are talking about. At this point, I have no idea of what you are asking. Proceed under that assumption.

*sigh*. I don't know how to classify this. You just changed the argument right there. We know that memory is unreliable! (If we assume that it is, of course it is. If you assume that it isn't absolutely unreliable, once you get to neuroscience, you conclude that it is unreliable, eliminating contradictions even). I stated this already. So I guess I don't have "faith" in my memory being reliable because, well, I don't claim that it is.

Moving the goalposts much? Your original question wasn't about truth.

No, these were my exact words: "Why do you place a higher certainty on your perception than on your memory? Why would you make a distinction?" And now I have to ask why questioning your perception is irrelevant but questioning your memory isn't.

No, I'm not building a strawman. Before embarking on the reply, as a non-english speaker, I did a "define:faith" in google, just to be sure of the meaning. First meaning I got: "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something". If that's not the same, I apologize. But that's irrelevant. You are extending the definition of "faith" to cover each of the contradictory hypotheses that I assumed. Did I have "faith" in that memory is completely unreliable when I made that assumption, and then changed my "faith" when I assumed the contrary? If you answer "yes": well, great, I had "faith" then, but only after you twisted the meaning beyond recognition.

Let me get this straight. Assuming that something is true in order to advance an argument requires "faith" in that something?. Ok. Twisted meaning of faith. I also have faith in the axioms of euclidean geometry, and sometimes I even have faith in the axioms of non-euclidean geometries, because I assume them to be true when I do geometry.

"in the way I may want"? No, it means that if I assume that memory is absolutely unreliable, I'm not even able to think, because by the time I finish a thought, the previous one is already in the past, i.e, a memory. Even the assumption that memories are wrong are just a memory by the time that you start thinking about the consequences. "I'm assuming that all my memories are wrong. Given that... oh, wait, I remember that all my memories are wrong. Including this one. So I'll assume that all my memories are wrong. What I was doing? Oh, yes, trying to get to any conclusion under the assumption that all my memories are wrong. But that is a memory. So it is wrong. Why is it wrong? Ah, because I assumed that memory is wrong. Gah, I just remembered that. Invalid. Why?...".

Recalling that when? While I'm doing my reasoning? Well, yes, I recall "I'm assuming that my memory is reliable". But that's just my assumption, so there is no contradiction there. To think about the consequences of the assumption that memory is reliable I must assume that memory is reliable. Duh. To think derive any arithmetic result, I must assume the axioms. There is no circular thinking there. I'm not concluding my assumptions in either case.

That's ridiculous. Do you spend your whole life asking you this question (every time you access one of your memories), having the discussion in your mind, and concluding that you have faith? I doubt it, you wouldn't be able to do anything else. You just don't ask the question with every recall. Me neither. When for some reason I ask the question, I get my answer (or non-answer) and that's it. Just like I don't ask "am I really seeing this, or is this just an illusion?" every time light enters my eyes.

What does it matter if is arbitrary or not to whether I said if is true or not? I didn't say is a measure of truth. Even if I was arbitrary, I still didn't say that is a measure of truth. Why change the question?

Nope. I said that the question was irrelevant because the answers lead to any observable difference. You replied that given enough time, all questions are irrelevant under my definition ("Given enough time, whatever humans do, I don't think the universe will be observably different."). Well, construct any scenario, in any time scale, in which there is an observable difference. If there is no scenario in which there is a difference, then the question is irrelevant. I just made things easier for you.

The figment of my imagination that claims to be a memory. The little devil whispering in my ear, "I am a memory". Whatever you want to define memory. Your question never was whether memory exists or not, it was whether you can trust it or not. Your question pre-supposes that there is something that we call memory /and/ that we can access it. If you are now changing the question, then... I'm not playing any more. Be honest.

Thus perceiving it as sufficiently accurate.

I don't know, what do you tell him? And what does that question has to do with this discussion? You seem to be confusing a question with indistinguishable answers, with an insufficiently specified question. The first ones are useless. For the second ones, you just have to specify them better.

Right... I think that's called "nit picking". You asked, but the answer that the question itself is flawed made you keep demanding an answer, that has to match yours. Right.

I've been through this many times now. No more. If you claim that assumption is 100% synonymous with faith, go ahead.

Oh, please, tell me where I used the No True Scotsman, or how I even spoke of "True Faith", whatever that is. It is you who is twisting the meaning of words at this point. The only way you make sense is if you claim that assumption and faith absolute synonymous.

I was giving you the benefit of doubt /because/ I liked some of your other posts (in other threads). In this one, you've been trolling.

If assumption == faith, then I'll let you say that I have... "faith in my assumptions", whatever that means. If assumption != faith, then what you just said is nonsensical. Up to you. In my native language, and I believe than in english as well, faith and assumption are wildly different. The key different is that I analysed *both* assumptions. But if you want to say that they are the same just to "win" an argument in slashdot, be my guest.

(Ignoring this, because the only interpretation that I see is you saying I have dementia, so I'll assume the meaning was lost in translation)

Close your mind? Not at all. It is you who claims that making an assumption is equivalent to having faith. Ok. But I disagree.

And some inconsistencies aren't forgotten. But what does that has to do with "prove to me that your memory is reliable, i.e. show me how I can rely on my memory other than through faith."? You could have argued, "consider when we find FTL. Acknowledging faith is, as noted above, simply a necessity".

I'm afraid that you are the one twisting the definition ("assumption == faith").

And you are also the one who thinks "faith" = "religion". For that, I have proof: you posted this in this thread. Unless you admit that you were just trolling the thread by posting an offtopic and inflamatory message.

Oh, please, don't be condescending. That's ridiculous. Either respond honestly, or don't do it at all.

I believe you. 28 Slashdot posts so far today. It doesn't seem that you are even trying to concentrate.

That was not my question. I asked why do you place higher certainty on your perception than your memory, not which one is more useful.

No, it isn't, unless you stretch the word "faith" to mean that. An assumption is just that, an assumption. "Faith" is an unquestionable belief, an assumption isn't. If I assume that my senses and memory are worth anything, I arrive to a set of conclusions. If I assume the contrary, I arrive to another set of conclusions. It just happens that one of those sets of conclusions is empty. You are free to linger on that set. I'm not claiming the truthfulness of either assumption. I'm just claiming that I considered one assumption, got the empty set, and now I'm considering the other assumption, which I haven't finished exploring.

When did I say it was?

I didn't say "given enough time". I didn't say the set of results "X time into the future, for some value of X". I also didn't say that it was a sufficient condition for usefulness, merely a necessary condition. But you are right, after the extinction of the human race, the question of whether I am blowing my nose right now, will be unanswerable and pointless, even though it is not pointless now. Feel free to construct an scenario in which the competing answers to your question lead to observably different results.

Let me simplify this for you. I "observe" (for some definition of "observe") my memory (whatever that is), and perceive it to be (sufficiently) accurate. Even if my memory is not accurate and my perception of it is just an illusion, I still perceive it to be (sufficiently) accurate. That is what makes your question unanswerable, and that is precisely what makes it meaningless.

Sure, you can ask anything you want. But if it doesn't have an answer, it is not worth answering... because, you know, doesn't have an answer. Your position, instead, is that you have to ask it, give it an arbitrary answer ("memory is reliable"), and claim that answering it is an act of "faith". Well, I refuse to answer the question with any answer besides "it doesn't have an answer, so it is not worth lying to myself".

Whining? Really? You, sir, are a troll. I was giving you the benefit of doubt, given a few other posts in other threads, but now I have little doubt. So, an argument that disagrees with you is "whining". And I thought that insulting people to further your point was beneath you.

Ok, well, you did that. You asked the question. You found out it was unanswerable. You know *why* it is unanswerable (because the answer that you give it in your head has no influence in what you perceive). A reasonable person would say "next question?". The next question could be related, like "what are the implications of not knowing the answer?", or "how do I behave, given that I don't know the answer?". But you linger on the first question, answering as a matter of faith (??!), seemingly unable to accept the answer "I cannot do that, and here is why" and move on.

Good for you!

Ahh, but you know this. You don't need to be taken out of your body for that. If your mind is not accurate, then it is being tricked constantly. If your mind is accurate, then you can start reasoning on top of that assumption, and once that reasoning leads you to trust science, and in particular the parts of science dealing with memory, you'll conclude that even your mind is being occasionally tricked. Centuries ago, you could claim not to know. Today, not so much.

A lot of alzheimer patients, and schizophrenics, and those countless humans afflicted by mind issues, would like to know the answer too (at least while it is not too late). But I doubt that starting with an answer "I trust my memory because of faith" will get you any closer to that.

Ok, you lost me. An Alzheimer's patient is the perfect example of one who may assume that his memory works even when it clearly doesn't. That is a precise example of why you can't trust your memory "by faith": your faith may very well be misplaced. It also illustrates the uselessness of the question. I don't think that all this training will help you a lot if you get Alzheimer. Probably most alzheimer's patients ask themselves similar questions after diagnosis.

That's nonsense. You are trying to find a physical process that allows you to disconnect your mind from your brain (or your thoughts from your mind?), by thinking about an unanswerable question in your own head and answering it by faith. I suspect you are not going to find it that way.

To be honest, even if I just called it nonsense, this single line was what I found most interesting of the whole thread. If you really think that a faith based answer to your unanswerable question is the first step towards finding this physical process, I would love to read your reasoning. I'll probably still think that is nonsense, but you may just prove me wrong, and frankly, it would be much more interesting than the rest of the discussion, not to mention that it could actually show (at this level, there is no "proof") your point.

Dropping the F word again doesn't answer the AC's post.

Please address the AC's point, or go away. I'm not planning on "stealing" the AC's thread. I just want to keep you honest, or to uncover your dishonesty. Address the AC's point and you may deserve a further thought; drop another "you need to have faith" and you'll prove that you are trolling.

Hint: he stated that the question is pointless. You have received enough replies to have an idea of what that means, including mine, which you decided not to address. Hint #2: To prove that the question is not pointless, you need to show that the answers lead to [observably] different results. Go.

Please have the intellectual honesty to address the point before being condescending:

That's easy. It provokes so much emotion because you intentionally chose the wording to provoke that emotion ("prove... other than through faith", in an anti-faith thread). You can't prove/show anything through "faith", the question itself is ill formed. However, had you posted the question in another forum (say, a philosophy class, or even another thread on slashdot), or had used less inflammatory words, the result would most likely have been different.

Try this: "Tell me why you think that your memory is reliable."

"Tell me", instead of "prove" (or just drop the first half of the question), because you know well that if you reduce any question to "but it all may just be an illusion", which was your goal, then nothing can be proven. "Think that", instead of "show through faith", because faith, specially in the context of this thread, implies a suspension of reasoning.

Your use of "prove" and "faith" was to provoke a reaction, which is perfectly acceptable if your goal is to stir a discussion (a technique used often in philosophy classes). But wondering afterwards why the "simple question" provokes the reaction, when you worded it precisely with that goal, is hypocritical.

Why do you place a higher certainty on your perception than on your memory? Why would you make a distinction? If there is no distinction and trusting your senses is a matter of faith, why do you need to ask the (then) superfluous question about the accuracy of memory? If trusting your senses is not a matter of faith, why then trusting your memory is?

And what's your point? Why would you use a loaded word like "faith", instead of, let's say, "assumption"? What's your agenda behind the use of that word? I do embrace my assumption that both my memory and perception are somewhat reliable. No, I don't have faith in it. I assume it to be true. I could assume it is false (and probably some people do), but the assumption that memory and/or perception are absolutely unreliable is less useful than the assumption that they are reliable, *even* if they turn out to be absolutely unreliable. That is, even if all my memories and perceptions are false and my thoughts *right now* where the only truth (side question: why would my thoughts *right now* be spared, as implied by "I think therefore I am"?), the assumption of unreliability is still no more useful than the assumption of reliability. So, right now, I'm not having "faith" that I read your message a few minutes ago. I'm making a cold, calculated decision between the two assumptions, on the basis of which one is more useful.

Well, I am a mathematician... I am not angered by philosophy, but I'm angered by crappy philosophy. I'm curious, though: as a mathematician, do you take your axioms as "faith" as well? (If "yes": really!? If "no": why not?)

Buying stuff on behalf of your employer, perhaps? (to be refunded later).