View Poll Results: In your personal opinion, do you feel that "If I am immortal, then I will soon die" is val

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it is valid

    0 0%
  • No, it is not valid

    6 60.00%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • The question doesn't make sense.

    4 40.00%
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 91

Thread: If I am immortal, then I will soon die

  1. Top | #51
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,736
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,949
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Yes I'm very familiar with issues such as intuition.
    Prove to me we are talking about the same thing.
    EB
    Can't. There is no prior behavioral history for those who conclude intuition is thus and so because .... All I point out is that exceptional behavior when controlled for experience and training elicit similar behaviors by and responses from exceptional individuals. They have capacities and histories which can be shown to be different from the so called average combat trained pilot. For instance exceptional pilots learn to reach for controls in the most economical way anticipating their next move while run of the mill fighter pilots continue to re-initiate for the second logical task. Some learn to see and operate on processes rather than tasks.

    I see nothing unusual here. Both habits are common but one is enhanced because it permits predictive behavior to be integrated with task behavior. It turns out that tasks are always necessary for process completion but those following the golden arm try to add process to task - that is he switches from task one to task two operations within the task one exercise - while the golden arm actually integrates some of the second task, actually slowing down task one performance while not eliminating what was added from task one in task two. into the completion of the first task by modifying the task one process to include elements which permit prepartation for task two minimizing effort on the second task.

    So if we design tasks to include task two predictive elements the run of the mill combat pilot degrades his performance while the golden arm sees no change since he has already found behaivior to do just that. Really if we follow the golden arm only a few pilots will be able to execute processes.

    But if we see the whole range of behaviors of individual pilots tasks and processes will be designed for best overall performance from combat pilots. That is why elimination of dependence of good arm mimicry is essential to good operational design.

    I also pointed out that engineers tend to come from environments where tinkering - using what one has on hand to solve problems - is greatest, that is from those raised on farms where it is commonplace.

  2. Top | #52
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    If the premises and their conclusion are proven to be sound and beyond reasonable doubt, the article, the thing being taken to be be true and factual is - by default - true beyond reasonable doubt because the premise and their conclusion are inseparable.
    But then it is just a case of you assuming the premises as true, which is fine. But it is still not a case of the reasoning proving something true on its own. You need both the valid reasoning and the premises together. If you think the premises are true, fine, you will believe the conclusion. And whether you believe the premises are true beyond any reasonable doubt is irrelevant. This is still a belief and you should know that history of mankind is full of the junkyard of our beyond-any-doubt beliefs. Think of dark matter and dark energy if you've forgotten the rest.
    EB
    Why are the premises assumed to be true? Are the premises not to be tested and established or rejected in the overall process of sorting fact from fiction?
    We can try to do that. Whether we succeed is something we can only believe we do.

    For example, we may want to explain all the materials we find in nature in terms of atoms. The theorised properties of atoms become the premises that we assume, and we can then prove logically that materials made from these atoms, as we would assume them, would have a number of properties. And then, we could compare the properties so inferred from our premises to the properties we observe the materials found in nature to have. This is of course gross simplification of the actual story but this is the logical backbone.

    So, we did that. However, what does that prove? This proves only that if atoms exist as we theorised them, they would nicely explain all our observations of the materials found in nature. But merely finding that the properties of materials predicted because inferred from our hypothetical atoms coincide with the properties we observe the materials to have in nature isn't proof that atoms really exist.as theorised. And as long as we cannot prove these theorised atoms are all there is, we cannot be certain that materials in nature don't have other properties, not yet observed, which could then be a big surprise in store. In effect, we cannot prove the existence of atoms as theorised.

    Of course, we went further, explaining atoms in terms of elementary particles, but the situation remains the same from a logical perspective. The difference is between observed properties and unobserved reality. Our models are models of properties because we can observe various properties in nature. Observing properties doesn't prove the reality that causes the properties. Another way to say it is to say that finding n properties doesn't guaranty there is not in fact n +1 properties. And as long as we don't know all the properties there are in nature, whatever our theories, we may end up with a big surprise at absolutely any time. Again, think of dark matter and dark energy.

    Still, of course, you can believe rationally that science proves atoms exist, or elementary particles exist. This is all we have, so it is the rational attitude. But rationality is based on what we believe we know, not on what we know.
    EB

  3. Top | #53
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Yes I'm very familiar with issues such as intuition.
    Prove to me we are talking about the same thing.
    EB
    Can't. There is no prior behavioral history for those who conclude intuition is thus and so because .... All I point out is that exceptional behavior when controlled for experience and training elicit similar behaviors by and responses from exceptional individuals. They have capacities and histories which can be shown to be different from the so called average combat trained pilot. For instance exceptional pilots learn to reach for controls in the most economical way anticipating their next move while run of the mill fighter pilots continue to re-initiate for the second logical task. Some learn to see and operate on processes rather than tasks.

    I see nothing unusual here. Both habits are common but one is enhanced because it permits predictive behavior to be integrated with task behavior. It turns out that tasks are always necessary for process completion but those following the golden arm try to add process to task - that is he switches from task one to task two operations within the task one exercise - while the golden arm actually integrates some of the second task, actually slowing down task one performance while not eliminating what was added from task one in task two. into the completion of the first task by modifying the task one process to include elements which permit prepartation for task two minimizing effort on the second task.

    So if we design tasks to include task two predictive elements the run of the mill combat pilot degrades his performance while the golden arm sees no change since he has already found behaivior to do just that. Really if we follow the golden arm only a few pilots will be able to execute processes.

    But if we see the whole range of behaviors of individual pilots tasks and processes will be designed for best overall performance from combat pilots. That is why elimination of dependence of good arm mimicry is essential to good operational design.

    I also pointed out that engineers tend to come from environments where tinkering - using what one has on hand to solve problems - is greatest, that is from those raised on farms where it is commonplace.
    What's your point?
    EB

  4. Top | #54
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,736
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,949
    Rep Power
    55
    We're talking about the same thing.

  5. Top | #55
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    We're talking about the same thing.
    Yes? So you trust your intuition on that?
    EB

  6. Top | #56
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,328
    Rep Power
    14
    To me intuition is distilled knowledge and experience. One sees a solution without a clear linear chain of logic.

    A non technical manager approached me on a problem. I gave him the solution and he asked for the logical steps I went throgh to the solution. I could not beaus I did not go through a logical process.

    It pissed him off, he thought I was fucking with him.

    In Star Trek Spock, Kirk, and Mcoy represented the emotional, intuitive, and logical.

    Kirk would listen to logic and emotion and intuit a solution based on his experience. To me a very real reflection of human reasoning.

    Reasoning is not just logic. As depicted in the show, Spock's linear logic could lead to the wrong conclusion.

  7. Top | #57
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,367
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,273
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Why are the premises assumed to be true? Are the premises not to be tested and established or rejected in the overall process of sorting fact from fiction?
    We can try to do that. Whether we succeed is something we can only believe we do.

    For example, we may want to explain all the materials we find in nature in terms of atoms. The theorised properties of atoms become the premises that we assume, and we can then prove logically that materials made from these atoms, as we would assume them, would have a number of properties. And then, we could compare the properties so inferred from our premises to the properties we observe the materials found in nature to have. This is of course gross simplification of the actual story but this is the logical backbone.

    So, we did that. However, what does that prove? This proves only that if atoms exist as we theorised them, they would nicely explain all our observations of the materials found in nature. But merely finding that the properties of materials predicted because inferred from our hypothetical atoms coincide with the properties we observe the materials to have in nature isn't proof that atoms really exist.as theorised. And as long as we cannot prove these theorised atoms are all there is, we cannot be certain that materials in nature don't have other properties, not yet observed, which could then be a big surprise in store. In effect, we cannot prove the existence of atoms as theorised.

    Of course, we went further, explaining atoms in terms of elementary particles, but the situation remains the same from a logical perspective. The difference is between observed properties and unobserved reality. Our models are models of properties because we can observe various properties in nature. Observing properties doesn't prove the reality that causes the properties. Another way to say it is to say that finding n properties doesn't guaranty there is not in fact n +1 properties. And as long as we don't know all the properties there are in nature, whatever our theories, we may end up with a big surprise at absolutely any time. Again, think of dark matter and dark energy.

    Still, of course, you can believe rationally that science proves atoms exist, or elementary particles exist. This is all we have, so it is the rational attitude. But rationality is based on what we believe we know, not on what we know.
    EB
    If it is proven that something exists, something that we label as atoms, probability waves, energy or whatever, then it's a case of knowing that something, what we call atoms, waves, energy or whatever, exists.

    We don't believe we know that, we actually know it.

    Our very state of awareness and knowing proves that there is something rather than nothing because without one the other is not possible.

  8. Top | #58
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,736
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,949
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    We're talking about the same thing.
    Yes? So you trust your intuition on that?
    EB
    No. Too many uncontrolled variables for that.

  9. Top | #59
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,736
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,949
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    To me intuition is distilled knowledge and experience. One sees a solution without a clear linear chain of logic.

    A non technical manager approached me on a problem. I gave him the solution and he asked for the logical steps I went throgh to the solution. I could not beaus I did not go through a logical process.

    It pissed him off, he thought I was fucking with him.

    In Star Trek Spock, Kirk, and Mcoy represented the emotional, intuitive, and logical.

    Kirk would listen to logic and emotion and intuit a solution based on his experience. To me a very real reflection of human reasoning.

    Reasoning is not just logic. As depicted in the show, Spock's linear logic could lead to the wrong conclusion.
    Do you bring party favors with thinking like that? All one has to do is choose what appears to be believable nouns after 'because'.

  10. Top | #60
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    47
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    If it is proven that something exists, something that we label as atoms, probability waves, energy or whatever, then it's a case of knowing that something, what we call atoms, waves, energy or whatever, exists.
    prove
    a. To establish the truth or validity of (something) by the presentation of argument or evidence
    Establish
    3. To cause to be recognised and accepted: a discovery that established his reputation.
    recognise
    1. formally acknowledged or accepted as valid
    2. widely accepted as being true
    Thus, proof that atoms exist only results in the existence of atoms being widely accepted as true.

    This is of course very different from us knowing that atoms exist, since it may be false even if we all accept it as true.

    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    We don't believe we know that, we actually know it.
    Prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Our very state of awareness and knowing proves that there is something rather than nothing because without one the other is not possible.
    We are unable to prove that we are in a "state of knowing" that atoms exist.

    There is something, we know that, but we don't know what it is beyond the appearance of it.
    EB

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •