Re: is free, open source software ethical?

Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@flownet.com> writes:

> In article <XfOdnW0X0NjfqVPanZ2dnUVZ8tPinZ2d@bt.com>,
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret said:
>>
>> > So even Free Software is a
>> > market exchange, and its authors are compensated. The only difference
>> > is that the compensation comes in a form other than cash because the
>> > authors of Free Software don't want cash, they want freedom. But there
>> > is no altruism involved.
>>
>> Similarly, mothers don't /really/ love their children. It's all to do with
>> DNA. And when people risk their lives diving into rivers to save complete
>> strangers, what they're really after is the Hero Badge.
>>
>> Yeah, right.
>
> You're not nearly as far off the mark as you are trying to be.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

And certainly nowhere near as wide of the mark as Dawkins! Altrusim is a
major problem for the socio-biologists.

atb


Glyn

On 5 mar, 09:30, Glyn Millington <wistansw...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> Ron Garret <rNOSPA...@flownet.com> writes:
> > In article <XfOdnW0X0NjfqVPanZ2dnUVZ8tPin...@bt.com>,
> > *Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Ron Garret said:
>
> >> > So even Free Software is a
> >> > market exchange, and its authors are compensated. *The only difference
> >> > is that the compensation comes in a form other than cash because the
> >> > authors of Free Software don't want cash, they want freedom. *But there
> >> > is no altruism involved.
>
> >> Similarly, mothers don't /really/ love their children. It's all to do with
> >> DNA. And when people risk their lives diving into rivers to save complete
> >> strangers, what they're really after is the Hero Badge.
>
> >> Yeah, right.
>
> > You're not nearly as far off the mark as you are trying to be.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
>
> And certainly nowhere near as wide of the mark as Dawkins! *Altrusim is a
> major problem for the socio-biologists.
>
> atb
>
> Glyn- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

Hi all,

I read with attention this topic, and I think the regressions in
computer sciences are in the "good" way.

Why : Free or Open source = just free of charge with two
possibility :
1° software relatively good : create by major community of IBM, SUN,
Novell (thanks Microsoft to save Novell !) salary !!! it's a pure
dumping approach against Microsoft but in fact against a lot of small
Editors and profit directly to offshore.
2° software comes from "real" community and generally quality is not
very good, bad documentation, etc...

Just compare Lispworks or Allegro to SBCL.
Before make the "gloria of Open Source, just ask yourself about
innovation brings by SBCL for LISP in terms of technology. It's
simple : ZERO !

SBCL is certainly a good job, but I prefer pay for Lispworks or
Allegro CL to substain innovation same as AllegroCache.

And to finish if "Altruism" is just a word to justify a dumping
approach : OK But Chinese or Indian Compagny are not in the "Altruism"
way. But thanks to Free, offshore compagny can recover technology,
break the cost and in final IBM recruits more in India than USA.

But : OK : you are free ... to work in China for 100$ per month

Best Regards,

Christophe

On 5 mar, 09:28, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> Ron Garret said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <XfOdnW0X0NjfqVPanZ2dnUVZ8tPin...@bt.com>,
> > *Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Ron Garret said:
>
> >> > So even Free Software is a
> >> > market exchange, and its authors are compensated. *The only difference
> >> > is that the compensation comes in a form other than cash because the
> >> > authors of Free Software don't want cash, they want freedom. *But
> >> > there is no altruism involved.
>
> >> Similarly, mothers don't /really/ love their children. It's all to do
> >> with DNA. And when people risk their lives diving into rivers to save
> >> complete strangers, what they're really after is the Hero Badge.
>
> >> Yeah, right.
>
> > You're not nearly as far off the mark as you are trying to be.
>
> Oh, I can't agree with that! :-)
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
>
> I read that book about 15 years ago (assuming that the wiki article does
> indeed describe "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins - you can never tell
> with wiki). I thought it was nonsense then, and I think it's nonsense now.
> (It was, in fact, that book that persuaded me, much to my astonishment,
> that my stance on the whole Evolution vs Creation debate thing was
> completely wrong.)
>
> But whether you agree with me or not on that issue, the denial of altruism
> is merely a consequence of inappropriate reductionism. Whether people are
> altruistic because "God made them that way" or because it's an emergent
> species survival trait in a universe sans point, the fact remains that
> people /do/ (on occasion) behave altruistically. To pretend otherwise is
> just silly.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999- Masquer le texte des messages précédents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages précédents -

Hi all,

"God made them that way" : It's certainly a good argument for boudhist
or indouist

All the world is not catholic or believe in Protestantism.

And clearly , Chinese and most other country in Asia does not share
this point of view.

Best Regards

Christophe skrev:
>
> Why : Free or Open source = just free of charge with two
> possibility :
> 1° software relatively good : create by major community of IBM, SUN,
> Novell (thanks Microsoft to save Novell !) salary !!! it's a pure
> dumping approach against Microsoft but in fact against a lot of small
> Editors and profit directly to offshore.
> 2° software comes from "real" community and generally quality is not
> very good, bad documentation, etc...
>
> Just compare Lispworks or Allegro to SBCL.
> Before make the "gloria of Open Source, just ask yourself about
> innovation brings by SBCL for LISP in terms of technology. It's
> simple : ZERO !

There's a third possibility:

Company C released Programming language P as Open Source, and I
do believe it's fair to say that it brought some innovation to
the market. The reason was not to compete with vendors of
programming languages or tools, but rather the opposite. C is
not in the business of selling programming languages, but rather
to use them. But it turns out that C couldn't buy anything remotely
like P on the open market. This leaves C with the choice of either

(a) settling for an inferior tool, which they can pay for
(b) continuing with their own tool, carrying all the cost themselves
(c) releasing it for free, hoping that others will use it and
give feedback, perhaps bug fixes, and even forming a user
community that could act as a recruitment base.

There is never a guarantee that (c) will work, but the alternative most
likely would have been to simply discard the innovative tool, hoping
that commercial programming language vendors will eventually come
up with something equally good.

This is essentially the Gilette principle: "give away the razor
and sell the blades". C makes money selling products built using
P - not on P itself. Increasing the spread of P by giving it
away makes perfect business sense, as long as it works. If it
doesn't, (c) degrades to (b) or (a).

There is actually a (d) too: Give or sell P to a tool vendor
interested in selling it for profit. Many large companies are
likely to try this before trying (c). I don't know how often it
works out, but I guess it's been known to happen.

(Any similarities between C and Ericsson, and P and Erlang are
purely coincidental).


BR,
Ulf W

On 5 mar, 10:47, Ulf Wiger <ulf.wi...@e-r-i-c-s-s-o-n.com> wrote:
> Christophe skrev:
>
>
>
> > Why : Free or Open source = just free of charge with two
> > possibility :
> > 1° software relatively good : create by major community of IBM, SUN,
> > Novell (thanks Microsoft to save Novell !) salary !!! it's a pure
> > dumping approach against Microsoft but in fact against a lot of small
> > Editors and profit directly to offshore.
> > 2° software comes from "real" community and generally quality is not
> > very good, bad documentation, etc...
>
> > Just compare Lispworks or Allegro to SBCL.
> > Before make the "gloria of Open Source, just ask yourself about
> > innovation brings by SBCL for LISP in terms of technology. It's
> > simple : ZERO !
>
> There's a third possibility:
>
> Company C released Programming language P as Open Source, and I
> do believe it's fair to say that it brought some innovation to
> the market. The reason was not to compete with vendors of
> programming languages or tools, but rather the opposite. C is
> not in the business of selling programming languages, but rather
> to use them. But it turns out that C couldn't buy anything remotely
> like P on the open market. This leaves C with the choice of either
>
> (a) settling for an inferior tool, which they can pay for
> (b) continuing with their own tool, carrying all the cost themselves
> (c) releasing it for free, hoping that others will use it and
> * * *give feedback, perhaps bug fixes, and even forming a user
> * * *community that could act as a recruitment base.
>
> There is never a guarantee that (c) will work, but the alternative most
> likely would have been to simply discard the innovative tool, hoping
> that commercial programming language vendors will eventually come
> up with something equally good.
>
> This is essentially the Gilette principle: "give away the razor
> and sell the blades". C makes money selling products built using
> P - not on P itself. Increasing the spread of P by giving it
> away makes perfect business sense, as long as it works. If it
> doesn't, (c) degrades to (b) or (a).
>
> There is actually a (d) too: Give or sell P to a tool vendor
> interested in selling it for profit. Many large companies are
> likely to try this before trying (c). I don't know how often it
> works out, but I guess it's been known to happen.
>
> (Any similarities between C and Ericsson, and P and Erlang are
> purely coincidental).
>
> BR,
> Ulf W

Hi all,

Ok, it's a point of view, but as a customer I have the choice to use
Erlang with European or USA developers but also with China
developers ... And for the same price I have significatively more
resources.

China can say "thanks Ericsson" too, I am agree with you.

Best Regards

Christophe <christophe.allegrini@birdtechnology.net> writes:
>
> Just compare Lispworks or Allegro to SBCL.
> Before make the "gloria of Open Source, just ask yourself about
> innovation brings by SBCL for LISP in terms of technology. It's
> simple : ZERO !

If you want SBCL to be innovative, then (drumroll please) innovate, and
add it to SBCL. There's no reason for free software not to be
innovative, save that most people don't want to innovate.

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
When you need a helpline for breakfast cereals, it's time to start
thinking about tearing down civilisation and giving the ants a go.
--Chris King

On 5 mar, 17:44, Robert Uhl <eadmun...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> Christophe <christophe.allegr...@birdtechnology.net> writes:
>
> > Just compare Lispworks or Allegro to SBCL.
> > Before make the "gloria of Open Source, just ask yourself about
> > innovation brings by SBCL for LISP in terms of technology. It's
> > simple : ZERO !
>
> If you want SBCL to be innovative, then (drumroll please) innovate, and
> add it to SBCL. *There's no reason for free software not to be
> innovative, save that most people don't want to innovate.
>
> --
> Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
> When you need a helpline for breakfast cereals, it's time to start
> thinking about tearing down civilisation and giving the ants a go.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *--Chris King

Hi all,

Certainly not, SBCL is not my project, all the time I spend to improve
it, it's lost of time and, in final, money.

If the software is good I buy it, if is not, the free of charge is not
for me an argument.

For me Allegro CL = Lexus, SBCL = Traban or Lada. Even if SBCL is
free, I am not interested.

My garage is not large enough, and especially, I am not a collector of
old Russian car

There are a lot reasons that explain free software is not innovative,
the cost it's first.

I am not a beggar who makes seeks a gift same as lot of free project
with donation link ... it's shame !

Best Regards

In article <0JidnepcXNYxxVPanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

> Ron Garret said:
>
> > In article <XfOdnW0X0NjfqVPanZ2dnUVZ8tPinZ2d@bt.com>,
> > Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Ron Garret said:
> >>
> >> > So even Free Software is a
> >> > market exchange, and its authors are compensated. The only difference
> >> > is that the compensation comes in a form other than cash because the
> >> > authors of Free Software don't want cash, they want freedom. But
> >> > there is no altruism involved.
> >>
> >> Similarly, mothers don't /really/ love their children. It's all to do
> >> with DNA. And when people risk their lives diving into rivers to save
> >> complete strangers, what they're really after is the Hero Badge.
> >>
> >> Yeah, right.
> >
> > You're not nearly as far off the mark as you are trying to be.
>
> Oh, I can't agree with that! :-)
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
>
> I read that book about 15 years ago (assuming that the wiki article does
> indeed describe "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins - you can never tell
> with wiki).

There's an easy way to find out you know.

> I thought it was nonsense then, and I think it's nonsense now.
> (It was, in fact, that book that persuaded me, much to my astonishment,
> that my stance on the whole Evolution vs Creation debate thing was
> completely wrong.)

Ah, and here I was thinking I was engaging in a debate with a rational
person. Silly me.

> But whether you agree with me or not on that issue, the denial of altruism
> is merely a consequence of inappropriate reductionism. Whether people are
> altruistic because "God made them that way" or because it's an emergent
> species survival trait in a universe sans point, the fact remains that
> people /do/ (on occasion) behave altruistically. To pretend otherwise is
> just silly.

No. Just because they *appear* to act altruistically does not mean that
they actually do. Just as the fact that the sun *appears* to revolve
around the earth does not mean that it actually does.

rg

Ron Garret said:

> In article <0JidnepcXNYxxVPanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>,
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret said:
>>
>> > In article <XfOdnW0X0NjfqVPanZ2dnUVZ8tPinZ2d@bt.com>,
>> > Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ron Garret said:
>> >>
>> >> > So even Free Software is a
>> >> > market exchange, and its authors are compensated. The only
>> >> > difference is that the compensation comes in a form other than cash
>> >> > because the
>> >> > authors of Free Software don't want cash, they want freedom. But
>> >> > there is no altruism involved.
>> >>
>> >> Similarly, mothers don't /really/ love their children. It's all to do
>> >> with DNA. And when people risk their lives diving into rivers to save
>> >> complete strangers, what they're really after is the Hero Badge.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, right.
>> >
>> > You're not nearly as far off the mark as you are trying to be.
>>
>> Oh, I can't agree with that! :-)
>>
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
>>
>> I read that book about 15 years ago (assuming that the wiki article does
>> indeed describe "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins - you can never
>> tell with wiki).
>
> There's an easy way to find out you know.

Yeah, I *could* go look at the page. There is, after all, a non-zero
probability that nobody has edited it between its being posted here and my
visiting it. (Translation: I consider Wiki an untrustworthy source,
perhaps useful for a heads-up but not much more.)

>> I thought it was nonsense then, and I think it's nonsense now.
>> (It was, in fact, that book that persuaded me, much to my astonishment,
>> that my stance on the whole Evolution vs Creation debate thing was
>> completely wrong.)
>
> Ah, and here I was thinking I was engaging in a debate with a rational
> person. Silly me.

Ah, so an *irrational* person is someone who holds a view different to
yours? Or perhaps an irrational person is someone who reads a book on
science written by a widely respected scientist and, as a result of
reading that book, reassesses their opinion about some aspect of the
world? Curious - I thought that was the whole point of non-fiction books.

>> But whether you agree with me or not on that issue, the denial of
>> altruism is merely a consequence of inappropriate reductionism. Whether
>> people are altruistic because "God made them that way" or because it's
>> an emergent species survival trait in a universe sans point, the fact
>> remains that people /do/ (on occasion) behave altruistically. To pretend
>> otherwise is just silly.
>
> No. Just because they *appear* to act altruistically does not mean that
> they actually do. Just as the fact that the sun *appears* to revolve
> around the earth does not mean that it actually does.

Of course the Sun revolves around the Earth - to someone who is actually
standing on the earth. And to someone who is standing (or vaporising) on
the Sun, the Earth goes round the Sun. And to someone hanging around
somewhere off to stage left, the Earth and Sun are both revolving about
their centre of mass. And the thing is that all three of them are right.

To deny the existence of altruism may be an attempt to justify one's own
selfishness, or it may be a genuine but misguided view of reality, or it
may simply be a consequence of over-indulging in reductionist philosophy.
Whatever one's reason for denying altruism, one simply cuts oneself off
from a really important part of being a human.

Some people really do write software for other people without any thought
of gain.

A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine asked me to help out with a
computer problem she was having. I took a laptop with me, and ended up
fixing her problem by writing about 300 lines of C on my laptop, copying
the resulting binary over to her machine, and executing it there. That
program was written purely in my friend's interest (and in fact I didn't
even bother to keep a copy). And there's nothing particularly special
about me. Lots of people write programs in the interests of other people.
To pretend otherwise seems a bit silly to me.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

In article <n7idnVtH674MfFPanZ2dnUVZ8gydnZ2d@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:

> Ah, so an *irrational* person is someone who holds a view different to
> yours?

No. An irrational person is one who persists in a view in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. All creationists are irrational.
(I don't know that you are a creationist, but you are strongly hinting
that you are.)

> Of course the Sun revolves around the Earth - to someone who is actually
> standing on the earth. And to someone who is standing (or vaporising) on
> the Sun, the Earth goes round the Sun. And to someone hanging around
> somewhere off to stage left, the Earth and Sun are both revolving about
> their centre of mass. And the thing is that all three of them are right.

But some of them are more right than others.

> To deny the existence of altruism may be an attempt to justify one's own
> selfishness, or it may be a genuine but misguided view of reality, or it
> may simply be a consequence of over-indulging in reductionist philosophy.
> Whatever one's reason for denying altruism, one simply cuts oneself off
> from a really important part of being a human.
>
> Some people really do write software for other people without any thought
> of gain.

I doubt that very much. If such people exist they are exceedingly rare.

> A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine asked me to help out with a
> computer problem she was having. I took a laptop with me, and ended up
> fixing her problem by writing about 300 lines of C on my laptop, copying
> the resulting binary over to her machine, and executing it there. That
> program was written purely in my friend's interest (and in fact I didn't
> even bother to keep a copy). And there's nothing particularly special
> about me. Lots of people write programs in the interests of other people.
> To pretend otherwise seems a bit silly to me.

Of course people write programs (and do all manner of things) in the
interests of other people. But for it to be altruism they must get
nothing in return. But you *are* getting something in return:
friendship.

rg

Ron Garret said:

> In article <n7idnVtH674MfFPanZ2dnUVZ8gydnZ2d@bt.com>,
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Ah, so an *irrational* person is someone who holds a view different to
>> yours?
>
> No. An irrational person is one who persists in a view in the face of
> overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Well, according to Chambers a /rational/ person is someone who is sane,
intelligent, endowed with (or agreeable to) reason. Chambers further
defines "reason" as "the mind's power of drawing conclusions and
determining right and truth" - which aptly describes the process through
which I went with "The Selfish Gene".

> All creationists are irrational.

That's a well-known fact, of course, and thus unarguable. Here is another
well-known fact, which is equally inarguable: All Californians are
irrational. Gee.

> (I don't know that you are a creationist, but you are strongly hinting
> that you are.)

I'm not really an "-ist" of any description. My view used to be
such-and-such. Now, as a result of reading Dawkins, it's more
this-and-that. Perhaps there is an argument that I have not heard as yet,
that can persuade me to revert to such-and-such. I don't know.

When scientists make claims that are not verifiable, their credibility
becomes important. When they say stupid things (e.g. "all creationists are
irrational" or "there is no such thing as altruism" or "Olly's fish has
chickenpox" or "random data cannot be compressed"), I am likely to
reassess their credibility.

>> Of course the Sun revolves around the Earth - to someone who is actually
>> standing on the earth. And to someone who is standing (or vaporising) on
>> the Sun, the Earth goes round the Sun. And to someone hanging around
>> somewhere off to stage left, the Earth and Sun are both revolving about
>> their centre of mass. And the thing is that all three of them are right.
>
> But some of them are more right than others.

No, absolutely not. Each is perfectly correct within his own frame of
reference, and there is no plausible and reasonable way to order those
frames in terms of "rightness". (Astrophysics is very postmodernist in
some ways.)

<snip>

> Of course people write programs (and do all manner of things) in the
> interests of other people. But for it to be altruism they must get
> nothing in return. But you *are* getting something in return:
> friendship.

Nonsense. The friendship already exists and would have continued whether I
wrote the program or not.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:30:11 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:

> In article <n7idnVtH674MfFPanZ2dnUVZ8gydnZ2d@bt.com>,
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>> A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine asked me to help out with a
>> computer problem she was having. I took a laptop with me, and ended up
>> fixing her problem by writing about 300 lines of C on my laptop,
>> copying the resulting binary over to her machine, and executing it
>> there. That program was written purely in my friend's interest (and in
>> fact I didn't even bother to keep a copy). And there's nothing
>> particularly special about me. Lots of people write programs in the
>> interests of other people. To pretend otherwise seems a bit silly to
>> me.
>
> Of course people write programs (and do all manner of things) in the
> interests of other people. But for it to be altruism they must get
> nothing in return. But you *are* getting something in return:
> friendship.

But they are already friends and they would probably stay friends even if
he had said that he couldn't solve the problem.
What he may get in return is a 'high' (for luck of a better word) coming
from the fact that he did something that he considered to be right, even
if unconsciously. I think I was reading something about this in New
Scientist a few months back .



--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)

Nelu said:

> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:30:11 -0800, Ron Garret wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>> Of course people write programs (and do all manner of things) in the
>> interests of other people. But for it to be altruism they must get
>> nothing in return. But you *are* getting something in return:
>> friendship.
>
> But they are already friends and they would probably stay friends even if
> he had said that he couldn't solve the problem.

Right.

> What he may get in return is a 'high' (for luck of a better word) coming
> from the fact that he did something that he considered to be right, even
> if unconsciously.

Well, I have no evidence to support your claim of a 'high', and that
certainly wasn't my motivation for helping out. What's the point of doing
something for a payoff, if you won't even notice the payoff? (What I mean
is that, if the payoff is "unconscious" such that you won't even know
whether you've received it, why consciously decide to bother to try for
it?)

Ron Garret is wrong to say that "for it to be altruism they must get
nothing in return" but in this case I really didn't (unless you count a
cup of coffee and a biscuit, which cost rather less than the petrol I used
in driving over there).

> I think I was reading something about this in New
> Scientist a few months back .

Yeah, that happens a lot.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:23:46 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Nelu said:
>
<snip>
>> What he may get in return is a 'high' (for luck of a better word)
>> coming from the fact that he did something that he considered to be
>> right, even if unconsciously.
>
> Well, I have no evidence to support your claim of a 'high', and that
> certainly wasn't my motivation for helping out. What's the point of
> doing something for a payoff, if you won't even notice the payoff? (What
> I mean is that, if the payoff is "unconscious" such that you won't even
> know whether you've received it, why consciously decide to bother to try
> for it?)

I don't have evidence for it either. It was just something I've read
about. The idea was that the brain may have its own reasons for pushing
the sentient (or is it sapient?) into doing something even if we don't
get it (endorphines?). We may think that something does not benefit us
but in reality it may not be true. Your conscious decision may have
factors that you cannot acknowledge.




--
Ioan - Ciprian Tandau
tandau _at_ freeshell _dot_ org (hope it's not too late)
(... and that it still works...)

Nelu said:

<snip>

> We may think that something does not benefit us
> but in reality it may not be true. Your conscious decision may have
> factors that you cannot acknowledge.

If those factors are outside my power even to acknowledge, let alone
control, then either I don't have free will (in which case ethics is
really rather a pointless exercise) or those factors are not the dominant
factors in my decision to give away a program from which others will
benefit. In the latter case the behaviour is altruistic; either way, it's
not unethical to give that software away.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999