The Human Flaw

[dan4reason]

Quote by: Meleagar dan4reason: If that's what you wish to believe the mind is, it's fine with me. For me, the reason so many humans have such different beliefs about what truth is, is not because their minds are flawed interpreters of truth, but rather because their minds generate variant real experiences that have different truths. I'm not sure why you presented the opinion of "a Christian" - are you a christian, and does this quote represent your perspective?

I am a christian. You say that truth is not solid. You say there are many truths. This is because of the many goals people have. However, there is always a goal which would fit a person best. We cannot always figure this out because our minds are not perfect at finding truth and reasoning. The only thing I am saying is that the mind is flawed at finding truth and therefore we cannot be 100% sure that our opinions are absolute truth. Whether there is 1 truth or 1,000,000, this statement is true.

[minorwork]

Quote by: dan4reason I am a christian. You say that truth is not solid. You say there are many truths. This is because of the many goals people have. However, there is always a goal which would fit a person best. We cannot always figure this out because our minds are not perfect at finding truth and reasoning. The only thing I am saying is that the mind is flawed at finding truth and therefore we cannot be 100% sure that our opinions are absolute truth. Whether there is 1 truth or 1,000,000, this statement is true.

There you go again. You are using your flawed mind to discern truth. The mind, working within its proper domain, is excellent at detecting falsehood. You say opinions are imperfect? What does it matter unless you have to base your actions on your opinions? When action is called for, then the truth value of the information on which you base your action is secondary to your faith in its predictive properties.

I use the word "faith" in a strict (by my questionable standards) sense. Faith is the willingness to act on belief. It is this willingness to act that is measurable by a thing I call "the wager." You must be willing to risk something in an endeavor and so demonstrate faith. Now this is not the faith that if you don't have enough you're going to fry in Hell for all eternity. This is just the simple sense of faith, a willingness to act in our knowledge of what is going to happen.

When I jump from a plane I wager my life on my prediction that I can handle emergencies and my chute will open and I will successfully avoid obstacles and land safely. Luck? I don't want to rely on that fickle fiend. Knock on wood.

Your statement, "... we cannot be 100% sure ..." is 100% wrong. If I'm not 100% sure that 13,800 volts power is off at a remote location, and 100% sure that it cannot be energized without my being there, then I will not handle the nuts and bolts that hold the leads to the transformer to swap phases so the motors, in the equipment powered by the transformer I'm into, will run the right direction. I am 100% sure that if I swap any two of the three phase leads that the motors run by that transformer will reverse their rotation. I would not do the work otherwise.

This is where the flaw comes in. Knowing when you don't know. Knowing when the information you have, is, or could be wrong. Discerning that information by empirical testing is the gold standard of discernment. There are things that you must be sure of before taking action else you would....not....act. Mainly, before making a speech in front of a mixed crowd, be sure your wheezer is not hanging out. This can be done. You can be 100% sure that it is not hanging out of your pants. Can't you? Would you give the speech otherwise?

When you have faith enough to act you may not know what will be the outcome. In that case you are testing for knowledge in a scientific manner. A new roof bolter is delivered and sent into the coal production unit. When I plug the cable in, I don't know whether that particular machine's motors will run forwards or backwards. If they run backwards then the oil pumps will starve for oil and self destruct. All the other machines powered from the power box run the right direction but this is a new machine. Some machines have a phase detector and will not turn on if phased wrong. But I don't know if this machine has that. Still my job is to put the machine in service and I have to test. I had faith that I was 100% correct that the new machine might run backwards. Management shared that faith else they would have had the machine's operators plug it in and start bolting up the top.

I don't know what you mean, Dan, when you say there is nothing that is certain. It makes no sense to me. Gambling is the only sense that I can make of your indecisive conclusions. I'll grant that I've taken chances and acted on incomplete information, like increasing the wager, betting on a throw of the dice in backgammon. And not always by reason of good probability theory. Sometimes because I felt my opponent would buckle under the pressure of increased stakes and retire from the game giving me the original stakes.

Some of us revel in the flaw of a misinformed human and exploit it for a living. Politicians and TV preachers mainly. They both fall under the general classification "HUSTLERS."

Then there are the abusers of the flaw. At work somebody told Joe that Will was peeing in his shampoo and he better see that he wasn't ending the week with more shampoo than he started with at the beginning of the week. That devious individual then would let Joe's basket down and put a bit of tap water in his shampoo after both Joe and Will had left. Great sport. There was about a dozen people in on the scam.

[dan4reason]

minorworks: There you go again. You are using your flawed mind to discern truth. The mind, working within its proper domain, is excellent at detecting falsehood. You say opinions are imperfect? What does it matter unless you have to base your actions on your opinions? When action is called for, then the truth value of the information on which you base your action is secondary to your faith in its predictive properties.

I do like thinking about things I know little about. That is my nature. I am not even sure my argument is 100% right, however, I hope it is the truth. The way I can be more sure of it is to test it. I do not think all opinion are imperfect. I cannot be sure they are all the truth but I am sure at least some of them are the truth. I can be more sure if I have more proof.

I use the word "faith" in a strict (by my questionable standards) sense. Faith is the willingness to act on belief. It is this willingness to act that is measurable by a thing I call "the wager." You must be willing to risk something in an endeavor and so demonstrate faith. Now this is not the faith that if you don't have enough you're going to fry in Hell for all eternity. This is just the simple sense of faith, a willingness to act in our knowledge of what is going to happen.

We need faith to act. Sometimes I have to make an action and I am not sure it is the right one. One example is making a move in a chess game. I cannot be 100% sure it was the best move possible, but if I study the board more I can be more sure it was or it was not. Since I have to make a move in a chess game, I may have to make moves in the game which I am not completely sure of are the best. Sometimes it is worse to not act than it is to make a move in which I am not 100% sure of.

When I jump from a plane I wager my life on my prediction that I can handle emergencies and my chute will open and I will successfully avoid obstacles and land safely. Luck? I don't want to rely on that fickle fiend. Knock on wood.

Yea, you cannot know if the shute will open for sure. It is good to check it though.

Your statement, "... we cannot be 100% sure ..." is 100% wrong. If I'm not 100% sure that 13,800 volts power is off at a remote location, and 100% sure that it cannot be energized without my being there, then I will not handle the nuts and bolts that hold the leads to the transformer to swap phases so the motors, in the equipment powered by the transformer I'm into, will run the right direction. I am 100% sure that if I swap any two of the three phase leads that the motors run by that transformer will reverse their rotation. I would not do the work otherwise.

If I get you right, you are saying that we sometimes have to act when we do not know everything about a situation. This is correct when not acting is bad, which is almost all the time. However, it is still impossible to be 100% sure all the same. I myself have to act on incomplete information, that is just life.

This is where the flaw comes in. Knowing when you don't know. Knowing when the information you have, is, or could be wrong. Discerning that information by empirical testing is the gold standard of discernment. There are things that you must be sure of before taking action else you would....not....act. Mainly, before making a speech in front of a mixed crowd, be sure your wheezer is not hanging out. This can be done. You can be 100% sure that it is not hanging out of your pants. Can't you? Would you give the speech otherwise?

According to my senses, I can be sure of that, however, they can sometimes be wrong. Maybe this whole world is an illusion and this situation does not exist. This is all very unlikely, but still have a tiny likelyhood. So maybe I can be 99.9% confident. Testing does seriously reduce the chances of one action based on false information, but it does not reduce this chance completely.

When you have faith enough to act you may not know what will be the outcome. In that case you are testing for knowledge in a scientific manner. A new roof bolter is delivered and sent into the coal production unit. When I plug the cable in, I don't know whether that particular machine's motors will run forwards or backwards. If they run backwards then the oil pumps will starve for oil and self destruct. All the other machines powered from the power box run the right direction but this is a new machine. Some machines have a phase detector and will not turn on if phased wrong. But I don't know if this machine has that. Still my job is to put the machine in service and I have to test. I had faith that I was 100% correct that the new machine might run backwards. Management shared that faith else they would have had the machine's operators plug it in and start bolting up the top.

True, but in some cases I do not have the luxury of experimentation.

I don't know what you mean, Dan, when you say there is nothing that is certain. It makes no sense to me. Gambling is the only sense that I can make of your indecisive conclusions. I'll grant that I've taken chances and acted on incomplete information, like increasing the wager, betting on a throw of the dice in backgammon. And not always by reason of good probability theory. Sometimes because I felt my opponent would buckle under the pressure of increased stakes and retire from the game giving me the original stakes. Some of us revel in the flaw of a misinformed human and exploit it for a living. Politicians and TV preachers mainly. They both fall under the general classification "HUSTLERS." Then there are the abusers of the flaw. At work somebody told Joe that Will was peeing in his shampoo and he better see that he wasn't ending the week with more shampoo than he started with at the beginning of the week. That devious individual then would let Joe's basket down and put a bit of tap water in his shampoo after both Joe and Will had left. Great sport. There was about a dozen people in on the scam.

I loved the example you gave. That was classic. When I say certain, I mean certain that something is absolutely the truth, unquestionably. I can be certain of something is probably or most likely true, and should be done but I am not certain that there is no doubt it is the truth.

[Judicator]

So you're saying the liberals are 99% sure of their correctness and conservatives are 99% sure of their correctness?

I would say the fact that they aren't each 50% sure is the flaw.

[minorwork]

Quote by: dan4reason I do like thinking about things I know little about. That is my nature. I am not even sure my argument is 100% right, however, I hope it is the truth. The way I can be more sure of it is to test it. I do not think all opinion are imperfect. I cannot be sure they are all the truth but I am sure at least some of them are the truth. I can be more sure if I have more proof.

The test result can confirm the rejection of an explanation or prediction as not being information. Not knowledge. If that is what you mean by "knowing for sure" then I understand you a bit better. In other words you cannot know for sure until you test. Many times. The only problem I've seen is that a test can confirm your knowledge but never prove it. What I mean by "knowing for sure" is beyond doubt. I mean as in the case of the increasing amount of shampoo that if I were the culprit adding the water then I know 100% not 99.9% that I did it.

We need faith to act. Sometimes I have to make an action and I am not sure it is the right one. One example is making a move in a chess game. I cannot be 100% sure it was the best move possible, but if I study the board more I can be more sure it was or it was not. Since I have to make a move in a chess game, I may have to make moves in the game which I am not completely sure of are the best. Sometimes it is worse to not act than it is to make a move in which I am not 100% sure of.

Yep. Sometimes. But there are other times when you can be sure. Embrace those. Nurture those. Choose those.

Yea, you cannot know if the chute will open for sure. It is good to check it though.

Remember that guy that plays with another's flaw? I showed at the drop zone. Skip (legally blind math teacher) was packing a parachute I'd sold him. He asked for my help. Now I knew by talking to friends that Skip had gone to a gypsy palm reader 'bout 2 weeks earlier and was told he'd die from a high place. Skip did not know I knew.

So Skip thought his packing of the parachute was not quite right and asked me to complete the pack. I did but commented while I was packing how glad I was that I didn't have to jump that chute. Got it closed up and said, "Looks good now, but they all look good when they're closed. Can I have your dog if it don't open and you die?"

Skip asked if I would jump it. "Sure," I said, "but I'm not going too and I sure am glad I'm not. I've got my own chute." He was so doubtful that he pleaded with me to take it all out and start over from scratch. This was a long way to go for some fun but I took it all out and started at the beginning, again commenting that I didn't quite know what was wrong, but it still didn't look right. I kept asking him if he thought I was packing it right, commenting that at least the reserve chute was packed by a federally licensed rigger,.... maybe.

Well just after I got it closed the second time my buddy Mike arrived and Skip asked if Mike would jump the chute he and I had just packed and if Skip could jump the chute that Mike arrived with. Mike asked who had packed Skips chute and Skip told him I had, so Mike agreed to the swap.

Skip jumped Mikes chute, it malfunctioned. He cut it away and damn near hit some high voltage power lines and crashed going down wind. He had a few bruises but that was it. Mike had a normal jump. Skip didn't jump anymore after that. Who packed my chute? I let a little 9 year old kid pack mine for a buck.

There's a moral here somewhere. Screw them gypsy fortune tellers.

If I get you right, you are saying that we sometimes have to act when we do not know everything about a situation. This is correct when not acting is bad, which is almost all the time. However, it is still impossible to be 100% sure all the same. I myself have to act on incomplete information, that is just life.

No. I am 100% sure that I packed Skips parachute and it opened for Mike. Todayand tomorrow too. Aren't you 100% sure that you wrote the words that you write here at Volconvo? If you can't admit that, then I'm bumfuggled. What makes it impossible to be certain that you post on Volconvo? I'm certain that I post on Volconvo.

According to my senses, I can be sure of that, however, they can sometimes be wrong. Maybe this whole world is an illusion and this situation does not exist. This is all very unlikely, but still have a tiny likelihood. So maybe I can be 99.9% confident. Testing does seriously reduce the chances of one action based on false information, but it does not reduce this chance completely.

How is the flaw affecting you in this debate? Do you not separate the metaphoric wheat from the chaff? Do you not discriminate in the smell of the food you eat, of the women you date, of the finger you pick your nose with? Were you not able to distinguish differences you would not be alive. Why don't you drink gasoline and put water in your car?

Not MAYBE this world is an illusion. Choose! Is it or not? Confirm it or deny it. You're making desperate grabs at straws. You are taking the flaw for a good thing, something to hang on to. Reveling in it. Don't accept the flaw of bad information. If the world is an illusion then treat it as such and reject reality. Eat lye and drink gasoline. You'll emerge purified gold should you survive. Revelation 3:15-22

True, but in some cases I do not have the luxury of experimentation.

Don't know your situation. The coal mine was my job, not something I call a luxury. A luxury is getting a pension or social security for sitting around pounding a qwerty keyboard on Volconvo.

I loved the example you gave. That was classic. When I say certain, I mean certain that something is absolutely the truth, unquestionably. I can be certain of something is probably or most likely true, and should be done but I am not certain that there is no doubt it is the truth.

Are you sure? Sorry. Couldn't resist.
What is true and what is false are far removed from what should be.

[tengers]

Quote by: dan4reason I guess one could say that science truely started with Descartes. I pretty much am with him when it comes to questioning commonly held ideas. The first step in separating the wheat from the chaff is to be critical, and to have a logical structure.

Science, Astronomy, Mathematics, Philosophy and the "inquiring mind" were quite advanced 2000 to 3000 years before Descartes depending on where you were in the world. It was the advent of Christianity that shut down "inquiry" in Europe for 1100 years.

[Meleagar]

Quote by: tengers Science, Astronomy, Mathematics, Philosophy and the "inquiring mind" were quite advanced 2000 to 3000 years before Descartes depending on where you were in the world. It was the advent of Christianity that shut down "inquiry" in Europe for 1100 years.

This is a commonly held misconception about the church; the church didn't "shut down" scientific inquiry, it funded and facilitated it because they considered science (natural philosophy) to be the examination of the works of god. The church funded natural philosophers and collected their research, data, and ideas into libraries, and founded schools and universities dedicated to the furtherance of science.

It is true that on a few occasions the interpretation of that research seemed to contradict the tenets of their religion, and on a few rare occasions such ideas were censured - but even in the case of Galileo, the cardinals disagreed among themselves as to if his theory really contradicted church doctrine, and his censure was more political than religious by some historical accounts.

But one or a handful of such events do not compare to the wealth of non-controversial scientific research, data, discoveries and invention that was ongoing at the time, kicked into high gear with the advent of the Enlightenment, when the logic of ancient Greece was coupled with the theistic premises of Christianity and facilitated by the wealth and influence of the church.

[dan4reason]

Minorworks: The test result can confirm the rejection of an explanation or prediction as not being information. Not knowledge. If that is what you mean by "knowing for sure" then I understand you a bit better. In other words you cannot know for sure until you test. Many times. The only problem I've seen is that a test can confirm your knowledge but never prove it. What I mean by "knowing for sure" is beyond doubt. I mean as in the case of the increasing amount of shampoo that if I were the culprit adding the water then I know 100% not 99.9% that I did it.

I agree.

Yep. Sometimes. But there are other times when you can be sure. Embrace those. Nurture those. Choose those.

I have played chess many times. Even if I have analyzed every possible move, and analyzed every possible move my opponent could make, I cannot be sure I did not make an error in my calculations. It is impossible for a flawed mind to make sure that its ideas are actually the truth.

Remember that guy that plays with another's flaw? I showed at the drop zone. Skip (legally blind math teacher) was packing a parachute I'd sold him. He asked for my help. Now I knew by talking to friends that Skip had gone to a gypsy palm reader 'bout 2 weeks earlier and was told he'd die from a high place. Skip did not know I knew. So Skip thought his packing of the parachute was not quite right and asked me to complete the pack. I did but commented while I was packing how glad I was that I didn't have to jump that chute. Got it closed up and said, "Looks good now, but they all look good when they're closed. Can I have your dog if it don't open and you die?" Skip asked if I would jump it. "Sure," I said, "but I'm not going too and I sure am glad I'm not. I've got my own chute." He was so doubtful that he pleaded with me to take it all out and start over from scratch. This was a long way to go for some fun but I took it all out and started at the beginning, again commenting that I didn't quite know what was wrong, but it still didn't look right. I kept asking him if he thought I was packing it right, commenting that at least the reserve chute was packed by a federally licensed rigger,.... maybe. Well just after I got it closed the second time my buddy Mike arrived and Skip asked if Mike would jump the chute he and I had just packed and if Skip could jump the chute that Mike arrived with. Mike asked who had packed Skips chute and Skip told him I had, so Mike agreed to the swap. Skip jumped Mikes chute, it malfunctioned. He cut it away and damn near hit some high voltage power lines and crashed going down wind. He had a few bruises but that was it. Mike had a normal jump. Skip didn't jump anymore after that. Who packed my chute? I let a little 9 year old kid pack mine for a buck. There's a moral here somewhere. Screw them gypsy fortune tellers.

Great story. I have always wanted to go parachutting. It is a dangerous sport though.

No. I am 100% sure that I packed Skips parachute and it opened for Mike. Todayand tomorrow too. Aren't you 100% sure that you wrote the words that you write here at Volconvo? If you can't admit that, then I'm bumfuggled. What makes it impossible to be certain that you post on Volconvo? I'm certain that I post on Volconvo.

From my sense, I can say that I communicating at volconvo. However, there is a tiny unlikely, unprovable possibility that this is an illusion. What if it is a dream?

How is the flaw affecting you in this debate? Do you not separate the metaphoric wheat from the chaff? Do you not discriminate in the smell of the food you eat, of the women you date, of the finger you pick your nose with? Were you not able to distinguish differences you would not be alive. Why don't you drink gasoline and put water in your car? Not MAYBE this world is an illusion. Choose! Is it or not? Confirm it or deny it. You're making desperate grabs at straws. You are taking the flaw for a good thing, something to hang on to. Reveling in it. Don't accept the flaw of bad information. If the world is an illusion then treat it as such and reject reality. Eat lye and drink gasoline. You'll emerge purified gold should you survive. Revelation 3:15-22

The idea that the world is an illusion cannot be proven, and is unreasonable to assume. However, the tiny possiblity still exists. I will not assume that this possibility is fact, so I will not assume this world is an illusion.

Are you sure? Sorry. Couldn't resist. What is true and what is false are far removed from what should be.

True.

[minorwork]

Quote by: dan4reason I have played chess many times. Even if I have analyzed every possible move, and analyzed every possible move my opponent could make, I cannot be sure I did not make an error in my calculations. It is impossible for a flawed mind to make sure that its ideas are actually the truth.

Computers play chess better than us humans for a reason. Backgammon is different. There is an element of chance that no computer can predict the precise outcome of a specific random roll. But, like in the statistics of quantum mechanics, there is a trend that over time and a large number of throws, a general pattern of likely throws can be seen. It is possible that a rank novice can beat Snowie if chance goes his way. Chess has not been solved yet. Checkers has been solved. Nobody can beat Chinook. It is perfection. The Scientific American piece on Chinook.

You say you've analyzed every possible move. But have you done this for your and your opponent for three moves or more ahead? Even Deep Blue is not perfection yet.

Great story. I have always wanted to go parachuting. It is a dangerous sport though.

This may sound a little strange. Skydiving is no more dangerous than driving a car. The consequences of screwing up are just so much more obvious and harder to ignore than thinking about driving a car.

There are periods in a jumper/driver's learning curve when accidents are more likely to happen. The novice driver is unfamiliar with the equipment and lacks experiential knowledge as does the beginning free faller. If the jumper survives the first 20 jumps of learning to be stable at terminal velocity then there is a less risky period until about 75 jumps. Then he is in danger of becoming overconfident and casualties rise again as it does with young recently licensed drivers.

The idea that the world is an illusion cannot be proven, and is unreasonable to assume. However, the tiny possibility still exists. I will not assume that this possibility is fact, so I will not assume this world is an illusion.

Your conclusion is right but for the wrong reason. More proper to say that the world being an illusion can not be disproved (as far as I know) therefore an illusionary world's existence does not warrant my attention. Knowledge must be capable of being falsified.

True.

The vastness of the imaginary world and the many worlds of "what should be" far surpass that of the physical world. I'm not even counting the worlds of "could have been" where dwells those who blame their troubles on any but themselves. There be other worlds whose rulers trap souls too if you'll excuse my metaphor.

[dan4reason]

minorwork: Computers play chess better than us humans for a reason. Backgammon is different. There is an element of chance that no computer can predict the precise outcome of a specific random roll. But, like in the statistics of quantum mechanics, there is a trend that over time and a large number of throws, a general pattern of likely throws can be seen. It is possible that a rank novice can beat Snowie if chance goes his way. Chess has not been solved yet. Checkers has been solved. Nobody can beat Chinook. It is perfection. The Scientific American piece on Chinook. You say you've analyzed every possible move. But have you done this for your and your opponent for three moves or more ahead? Even Deep Blue is not perfection yet.

It is hard to analyse future moves because of the complexity of the task. Also, it is hard to perfectly predict my opponent's moves. Chess is mainly won by quickly recognizing patterns in a gameChess: The Game with a Trillion Combinations.
The better the chess player, the faster he or she can recognize these patterns, but no one can do this perfectly fast. This shows another imperfection of the human mind.

This may sound a little strange. Skydiving is no more dangerous than driving a car. The consequences of screwing up are just so much more obvious and harder to ignore than thinking about driving a car. There are periods in a jumper/driver's learning curve when accidents are more likely to happen. The novice driver is unfamiliar with the equipment and lacks experiential knowledge as does the beginning free faller. If the jumper survives the first 20 jumps of learning to be stable at terminal velocity then there is a less risky period until about 75 jumps. Then he is in danger of becoming overconfident and casualties rise again as it does with young recently licensed drivers.

I have found that .02% of drivers die every year because of highway accidents every year. This is a very small percent. .09% of estimated parachuters die ever year. I got some of my numbers for the US Parachute Association U.S. Parachute Association - Skydive Today!. When learning to drive, it can be both fun and dangerous. That was my experience.

Your conclusion is right but for the wrong reason. More proper to say that the world being an illusion can not be disproved (as far as I know) therefore an illusionary world's existence does not warrant my attention. Knowledge must be capable of being falsified.

Yes falsifyability is very important, but it is not universal. In the article, it is said that sociology is anthropology are exceptions to falsifyability. Why is that?

The vastness of the imaginary world and the many worlds of "what should be" far surpass that of the physical world. I'm not even counting the worlds of "could have been" where dwells those who blame their troubles on any but themselves. There be other worlds whose rulers trap souls too if you'll excuse my metaphor.

You have to remember that what should be true is very subjective. Of course many of these potential worlds are unproven because they are unfalsifiable.

[minorwork]

Quote by: dan4reason It is hard to analyze future moves because of the complexity of the task. Also, it is hard to perfectly predict my opponent's moves. Chess is mainly won by quickly recognizing patterns in a game Chess: The Game with a Trillion Combinations. The better the chess player, the faster he or she can recognize these patterns, but no one can do this perfectly fast. This shows another imperfection of the human mind.

What could be improved is the wetware interface. The brain. It can certainly be damaged.

Yes falsifiability is very important, but it is not universal. In the article, it is said that sociology is anthropology are exceptions to falsifiability. Why is that?

I think psychology would be easier to deal with. There is not a scientific method to ascertain what it means to be normal. Early 20th century there were lobotomies and sterilizations performed on "mentally deficient" folk. What does it mean to be mentally disabled enough that you qualify for Social Security disability? Tell your doctor you've thought about swallowing a bottle of pills to off yourself. This I have observed and what's more, saw the person advising another how to get on disability in this fashion.

I think the author, Martyn Shuttleworth, (a professional writer) considered anthro and sociology as applied sciences. I chose the article because of its brevity not its completeness.

Ethical considerations come into the mix when the objects tested are humans. Animal rights would have animal testing limited for the same reason. A far more critical examination of psychology as a science is presented by Paul Lutus. He should know crazy if he tried to circumnavigate the globe in a row boat. Have you seen ocean waves at sea? Here be his excellent examination of the problems of the applied science of psychology. Is Psychology a Science?

When I consider the problems with science, and it has problems, and the problems with religion, not without issues either, then I get to wondering what, just what is it that can be known? You've alluded to that several times, Dan. There are times when it is not a philosophical question, as in the coal mine working on high voltages, and must be understood else there will be peril in the activities. Or making sure your weiner's not hanging out if you're trying to sway a jury. It is when performing these critical activities that small errors can bring large consequences.

So it boils down, for me, into one question and it deals with the flaw. The flaw of knowing and acting on ideas that may not be true when the stakes are high. Just how do I recognize when I'm risking things of value? How do I recognize when I'm taking the risk equivalent of jumping from a plane? One possibility would be to rate the value of the task by how much I'm getting paid for it. Or how likely am I to die or be maimed in an activity. Sex, for example.

You have to remember that what should be true is very subjective. Of course many of these potential worlds are unproven because they are unfalsifiable.

The spiritual worlds. Not objectively falsifiable but very real in their influence on our actions in the physical world though they be of a subjective nature. Determining valid correspondences between the two, spiritual and physical, then passing them to others and future generations is the hope in mankind's fight against PSED. Failure to doubt that information, its downfall. Science, the bridge between the two.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: minorwork What could be improved is the wetware interface. The brain. It can certainly be damaged. I think psychology would be easier to deal with. There is not a scientific method to ascertain what it means to be normal. Early 20th century there were lobotomies and sterilizations performed on "mentally deficient" folk. What does it mean to be mentally disabled enough that you qualify for Social Security disability? Tell your doctor you've thought about swallowing a bottle of pills to off yourself. This I have observed and what's more, saw the person advising another how to get on disability in this fashion. I think the author, Martyn Shuttleworth, (a professional writer) considered anthro and sociology as applied sciences. I chose the article because of its brevity not its completeness. Ethical considerations come into the mix when the objects tested are humans. Animal rights would have animal testing limited for the same reason. A far more critical examination of psychology as a science is presented by Paul Lutus. He should know crazy if he tried to circumnavigate the globe in a row boat. Have you seen ocean waves at sea? Here be his excellent examination of the problems of the applied science of psychology. Is Psychology a Science? When I consider the problems with science, and it has problems, and the problems with religion, not without issues either, then I get to wondering what, just what is it that can be known? You've alluded to that several times, Dan. There are times when it is not a philosophical question, as in the coal mine working on high voltages, and must be understood else there will be peril in the activities. Or making sure your weiner's not hanging out if you're trying to sway a jury. It is when performing these critical activities that small errors can bring large consequences. So it boils down, for me, into one question and it deals with the flaw. The flaw of knowing and acting on ideas that may not be true when the stakes are high. Just how do I recognize when I'm risking things of value? How do I recognize when I'm taking the risk equivalent of jumping from a plane? One possibility would be to rate the value of the task by how much I'm getting paid for it. Or how likely am I to die or be maimed in an activity. Sex, for example. The spiritual worlds. Not objectively falsifiable but very real in their influence on our actions in the physical world though they be of a subjective nature. Determining valid correspondences between the two, spiritual and physical, then passing them to others and future generations is the hope in mankind's fight against PSED. Failure to doubt that information, its downfall. Science, the bridge between the two.

You have some interesting articles. How is it that you can bring up so information from the web?

I liked the phychology essay. It was very informative. From it, I got the impression that it is hard to establish anything as "truth" in science, and it is impossible to make it fact. This would fit the way I see the world. I cannot see anything as real fact. My personal reason for this is the human flaw. Even though I cannot be sure of the truth of things, I can be pretty sure of it.

Sometimes we have to act on incomplete evidence. This is only true if not acting is worse than acting on incomplete evidence. If not acting is better than acting on incomplete evidence, then it is the better course of action. Sometimes people make a partial action when there is a choice between acting on partial evidence and not acting at all.

You sure have provided my with quite a bit of information. I do not know if I can contribute much more to this discussion. However, it is interesting talking with you and learning.

[minorwork]

Quote by: dan4reason You sure have provided my with quite a bit of information. I do not know if I can contribute much more to this discussion. However, it is interesting talking with you and learning.

Thanks. You've inspired me to work at gathering more info than I already had. It was your queries that resonated in me and got me looking for fresh additions to my already dense Favorites tab in Windows' Explorer. Thus I found the Shuttleworth and Lutus sites. I found Lutus first but it did not seem brief enough. So I went with Shuttleworth first. I think they were presented in the proper order. Lutus nailed science's being very picky about the nature of scientific evidence. Too picky for day to day life consideration. You said it best. "Sometimes we have to act on incomplete evidence." ~ dan4reason

You have some interesting articles. How is it that you can bring up so information from the web?

Finding things on the Net is a philosophical challenge (as you're probably not surprised to hear.) I have found that if a query can be properly phrased that, ideally, it will contain, within its particulars and structure, an answer. Use of computers in searches has a great depth that I have not approached. Here be info from the depths, originating in the history of programming. This is too much here but if you mark this as a favorite you can come back to it when you feel you lack in ability. That is my use of it. How to Search the Web.

Sometimes we have to act on incomplete evidence. This is only true if not acting is worse than acting on incomplete evidence. If not acting is better than acting on incomplete evidence, then it is the better course of action. Sometimes people make a partial action when there is a choice between acting on partial evidence and not acting at all.

Most of the time I operate from a the typical human comfort zone. A safe place removed from the critical decisions requiring a high grade of information with a high true value. This is pure laziness on my part which I am able to justify by various excuses.

Life is short. How much time I have wasted in paradise when there is so much work to be done by aiding the needy or in pursuit of the quest to realize my potential as a human soul. Living near my potential is when I need quality evidence. This is the razor edge. Whether skydiving, flying a plane, working on electrical systems that carry awesome power, or, most critically, influencing another humans actions, meaning in my life increases in proportion to risk, peaking as does the risk the deeper I travel in the valley of the shadow of death. but I am unable to live that way continually and so I rest in the bosom of my angelic wife as she cares and meters my love to the world and my loved ones when compassion demands Its release though I perish before the Work is complete.

I liked the psychology essay. It was very informative. From it, I got the impression that it is hard to establish anything as "truth" in science, and it is impossible to make it fact. This would fit the way I see the world. I cannot see anything as real fact. My personal reason for this is the human flaw. Even though I cannot be sure of the truth of things, I can be pretty sure of it.

What was it, about a year ago when you wanted me to speak of less complicated truth concepts? The existence of the flaw (false information) demands attention to detail in exceeding fineness else we descend into the pit of chaos that is the great gulf that separates the truth in God's love from undifferentiated raw sensory information. In terms that might be more familiar: Jesus is the symbol of that perfect consciousness as the Christ consciousness which the Holy Spirit chooses as its vehicle from which to flow thru unimpeded.

"The intellect does indeed do harm to the soul when it dares to possess itself of the heritage of the spirit. It is in no way fitted to do this, for spirit is something higher than intellect since it embraces the latter and includes the feelings as well." ~ Jung

[dan4reason]

Quote by: minorwork Thanks. You've inspired me to work at gathering more info than I already had. It was your queries that resonated in me and got me looking for fresh additions to my already dense Favorites tab in Windows' Explorer. Thus I found the Shuttleworth and Lutus sites. I found Lutus first but it did not seem brief enough. So I went with Shuttleworth first. I think they were presented in the proper order. Lutus nailed science's being very picky about the nature of scientific evidence. Too picky for day to day life consideration. You said it best. "Sometimes we have to act on incomplete evidence." ~ dan4reason Finding things on the Net is a philosophical challenge (as you're probably not surprised to hear.) I have found that if a query can be properly phrased that, ideally, it will contain, within its particulars and structure, an answer. Use of computers in searches has a great depth that I have not approached. Here be info from the depths, originating in the history of programming. This is too much here but if you mark this as a favorite you can come back to it when you feel you lack in ability. That is my use of it. How to Search the Web. Most of the time I operate from a the typical human comfort zone. A safe place removed from the critical decisions requiring a high grade of information with a high true value. This is pure laziness on my part which I am able to justify by various excuses. Life is short. How much time I have wasted in paradise when there is so much work to be done by aiding the needy or in pursuit of the quest to realize my potential as a human soul. Living near my potential is when I need quality evidence. This is the razor edge. Whether skydiving, flying a plane, working on electrical systems that carry awesome power, or, most critically, influencing another humans actions, meaning in my life increases in proportion to risk, peaking as does the risk the deeper I travel in the valley of the shadow of death. but I am unable to live that way continually and so I rest in the bosom of my angelic wife as she cares and meters my love to the world and my loved ones when compassion demands Its release though I perish before the Work is complete. What was it, about a year ago when you wanted me to speak of less complicated truth concepts? The existence of the flaw (false information) demands attention to detail in exceeding fineness else we descend into the pit of chaos that is the great gulf that separates the truth in God's love from undifferentiated raw sensory information. In terms that might be more familiar: Jesus is the symbol of that perfect consciousness as the Christ consciousness which the Holy Spirit chooses as its vehicle from which to flow thru unimpeded. "The intellect does indeed do harm to the soul when it dares to possess itself of the heritage of the spirit. It is in no way fitted to do this, for spirit is something higher than intellect since it embraces the latter and includes the feelings as well." ~ Jung

You have inspired me to look around too. Two of the problems of looking around the net is bad information, and junk information. One day people should make an "intellectual net". This net would consist of intellectual information which is credible. Wikipedia tried to do that. They have a lot of information, but there is some doubt of its credibility. I have to say, finding stuff on the net has its own pleasure.

I have noticed our constant desire for adventure and our desire for safety. Many of us try to get both by getting a movie. People are not at risk, yet they can be exposed to adventure. However, the knowledge that one is still safe when viewing adventure may take the fun out of it. Many of us do adventurous activities such as parachuting, skiing, water skiing, amusement parks, climbing, and airplane riding. These are adventurous activities with a low risk.

The reason we do needlessly risky things is not because of our reason, but because of our emotion. Logically, one would act when one has some knowledge of the situation he or she was getting into. We are sometimes a little more adventurous because of our emotional need for it.

Did I really want you to speak of less complicated subjects? Wow. I have changed. College has sure changed me. One major flaw humans have is memory. This can be a deciding factor in ones educational success. Big Cause of Bad Grades is Bad Memory

I am thinking of making a new thread tomorrow about the idea of causality. I would love it if you post in it.

[minorwork]

Quote by: dan4reason You have inspired me to look around too. Two of the problems of looking around the net is bad information, and junk information. One day people should make an "intellectual net". This net would consist of intellectual information which is credible. Wikipedia tried to do that. They have a lot of information, but there is some doubt of its credibility. I have to say, finding stuff on the net has its own pleasure.

The net is just another repository, like the brain, that allows information to be passed thru time to new generations. Whether the info be determined to be advantageous or not is for the nation, society, and individual to determine be examination and testing.

I have noticed our constant desire for adventure and our desire for safety. Many of us try to get both by getting a movie. People are not at risk, yet they can be exposed to adventure. However, the knowledge that one is still safe when viewing adventure may take the fun out of it. Many of us do adventurous activities such as parachuting, skiing, water skiing, amusement parks, climbing, and airplane riding. These are adventurous activities with a low risk.

These are activities that can be used to keep a populace off the backs of politicians and much more. There is much applied science in marketing, supermarket strategies and such for controlling the clueless shopper.

The reason we do needlessly risky things is not because of our reason, but because of our emotion. Logically, one would act when one has some knowledge of the situation he or she was getting into. We are sometimes a little more adventurous because of our emotional need for it.

We are slaves to our emotions. Do preachers, politicians, and hucksters intentionally prey upon our naive notion that we are directing our own lives? Of course. Somebody should profit from ignorance, eh?

Did I really want you to speak of less complicated subjects? Wow. I have changed. College has sure changed me. One major flaw humans have is memory. This can be a deciding factor in ones educational success. Big Cause of Bad Grades is Bad Memory

Memory can be improved by making memorization an intentional act. Amazon.com: The Memory Book (9780352398567): Harry Lorayne Jerry Lucas: Books Got great reviews. In an hour I could remember 50 things forward and backwards, give me the number of the thing and I could tell what it was, or give me the thing and I could say what number it was in the order of all of them. Well written. Lucas, a pro basketball player, relates his college use of memory techniques that put him at the top of his classes though some professors initially thought of him as a sports slider. Good stuff and cheap at used bookstores.

Concentration, or rather lack of it, will keep a person below his potential too. Here be my favorite and it be free on line. It is with the techniques in the first 5 chapters that I was able to prove to myself of existence independent of the body. But that was only one application of this valuable ability. Concentration: A Practical Course - With a Supplement on Meditation

I am thinking of making a new thread tomorrow about the idea of causality. I would love it if you post in it.

Try and stop me.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: minorwork The net is just another repository, like the brain, that allows information to be passed thru time to new generations. Whether the info be determined to be advantageous or not is for the nation, society, and individual to determine be examination and testing. These are activities that can be used to keep a populace off the backs of politicians and much more. There is much applied science in marketing, supermarket strategies and such for controlling the clueless shopper. We are slaves to our emotions. Do preachers, politicians, and hucksters intentionally prey upon our naive notion that we are directing our own lives? Of course. Somebody should profit from ignorance, eh? Memory can be improved by making memorization an intentional act. Amazon.com: The Memory Book (9780352398567): Harry Lorayne Jerry Lucas: Books Got great reviews. In an hour I could remember 50 things forward and backwards, give me the number of the thing and I could tell what it was, or give me the thing and I could say what number it was in the order of all of them. Well written. Lucas, a pro basketball player, relates his college use of memory techniques that put him at the top of his classes though some professors initially thought of him as a sports slider. Good stuff and cheap at used bookstores. Concentration, or rather lack of it, will keep a person below his potential too. Here be my favorite and it be free on line. It is with the techniques in the first 5 chapters that I was able to prove to myself of existence independent of the body. But that was only one application of this valuable ability. Concentration: A Practical Course - With a Supplement on Meditation Try and stop me.

Some advantages of the net is that it does not forget like we do. This is one reason for it. Another reason is quick communication.

Politicians do take advantage of our flaws. Roman politicians had the habit of providing the populace with bread and circus. Eventually the Roman people became less interested is politics than they used to be, and eventually lost their rights. Ignorance is a great enemy to freedom.

I think that to a certain point, we all take advantage of each other's emotions. Obama himself used our emotions to get himself elected. If you look at his "yes we can" speech at the beginning of his campaign, he does this alot. Here is the link. YouTube - Barack Obama: Yes We Can

Thanks for the info on concentration and mediation. I will read it. This stuff really helps people.

My "Causality and ramdomness" thread is already up. Enjoy.

[minorwork]

Quote by: dan4reason My "Causality and ramdomness" thread is already up. Enjoy.

Just got into it. Not even half way down the first page.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: minorwork Just got into it. Not even half way down the first page.

I have kind of made a lot of posts in that discussions. I am very interested in causality. Hope you enjoy.

[minorwork]

Quote by: dan4reason I have kind of made a lot of posts in that discussions. I am very interested in causality. Hope you enjoy.

Kind of? Such indecisiveness. Spell checker needed. Use it. It makes even this retireded coal miner seem half competent.

Much time spent on single posts at the breaking news thread on parents disowning 8 year old raped daughter. 6 hours on that one.
Another 6 at the scientific proof of spiritual worlds topic I don't remember where.
I'm getting burnt out.