Posts
Comments
I'm sorry to see this happen to this site, it was a nice place to discuss things in a positive way.
I'm not sure what religion has got hold of it, but gee whiz, I'm sorry for it happening.
I would constitute this thread as a cyber attack to takeover the site.
Non-disprovable hypothesis suck.
The major drawback of a PUA community is that it acts as an isolated system; or in harsh terms, like inbreeding.
What you are obfuscating is the idea of a very complex history that doesn't relate to the argument you are presenting, much like using the two slit experiment to justify existentialism.
One thing I would point out is that the arguments presented here are a considerable effort into the examination of one’s own personal psyche, and that of the common psyche.
While it can be a definite benefit to examine this topic, I advise caution of moderation in the attempt.
I admire the authors own example in doing the equivalent: "I’m not recommending these, just putting them out there for consideration"
My main point of argument is that examination need not be experimentation, we can form hypothesis for consideration and not be burdened with the responsibility of an incorrect interaction.
I find the examples presented in this argument unnecessary (Freedman) if the examiner is capable of limited self examination.
In consideration of the main argument I would say that in my own experience it is possible to advise some of their own awareness without adhering to the presented guideline, that others may be of a nature above the need for any guideline, and, others yet may find completion in never knowing the presented guideline.
Don't forget that event-related idioms can skew meaning as well...
The use of this poem contributes quite a bit to the argument as it is a factual event and a future possible event.
It is a positive action to do something that will be beneficial within ones own lifetime, and also to repeat something that has been done in the past that is a current benefit.
Planting trees has the benefit of carbon sequestration and the added benefit of providing growth of known positive environmental factors such as increased biodiversity.
The negative aspect of this post is that the wording is similar to religious propaganda such as used by World Vision.
Is this a local game, or are you going to add a way to let people in other locations contribute?
If your only proponents are local than you are not creating a global idea...
I know this is a silly question, but do you know the figures you are presenting may be equated to the forces produced by the action of wind on a sail?
Your romantic dinner is a distance away, and I hope you are not following Achilles after the Tortoise.
I would take the basic premise to be that we are trying the "guilty party" with the idea of "reasonable doubt".
I'm ok with "Agatha Christy" to the limit of fictional argument, but one would have to give a stronger argument than the "Corax" to find a plausible definition to a physical phenomena. After all, the whole point is to understand.
The more complex a system becomes, the easier it is to destabilize it.
Is this a conditional argument?
From what you are saying, with the mixed strategy NE, I get that possible moves increase in relation to the complexity of the equilibrium, so that it becomes increasingly likely that any possible action could have an added emphasis that would cause a specific outcome as the equilibrium increases in complexity.
e.g.
What you are describing with the pendulum motion, the pendulum does not require additional effort in both directions to increase, only one direction, and the effort need be only the smallest (or smaller in addition) in relation to the period, and direction. An action to large in the same direction, or against the direction will destabilize it.
Isn't it true that the more precise the equilibrium, the less effort is required to destabilize it?
I think that the main difference between our arguments is that while you are talking of simultaneous action, I am talking of sequential action...
Nice Job!
Can you relate this to Parrondo's Paradox?
I assume this is being done because you can't figure out how to separate important topics with low votes from being overcrowded by less important topics with higher votes?
Imagine, giving up solid scientific ideas to interpretation by those who are not able to, or don't want to put an idea to the test.
Science doesn't vote, it tests, and if the new idea doesn't pass the test, then it is foot-noted and put aside.
Ah, so sad...
If it works, it works, if not it is just an idea of how things might work.
""Maybe you are saying that you want some small form of participation without having to experience anything? ... Maybe you are saying that you have experienced everything within your physical and social reality and have to find some form of work to feed yourself?""
"Where is this coming from? You seem to think everyone interested in alternative employment is a hikikomori. While I'd be hard pressed not to think there's a substantial minority here with social problems (based on the AQ scores talked about some months ago, for example), nonetheless you go too far -- this literally is the mistake of thinking that because all A are B, all B are A!"
The classical representation is that if A=B then B=A
Of course this is just a simple relation.
A can be made of many parts; B can be made of many parts.
forgive me, I havn't got the whole making quotes thing....
|No. Although a "LessWork" resume database would be cool.
It might be.
|Understanding all experience is beyond anyone's ability. That said, there's more to human experience than just traditional western employment (although that's fine as well).
I don't think that understanding all experience is beyond ability, we are the product of evolution, experience defines us....
Are you saying that you have the ability to understand all experience without having to participate in reality, or, are you saying that because you are young you want the easiest job you can find?
Maybe you are saying that you want some small form of participation without having to experience anything?
Is this supposed to be some new form of resume?
Maybe you are saying that you have experienced everything within your physical and social reality and have to find some form of work to feed yourself?
?
Thanks, nice link.
I must say though that my example is mainly to illustrate the point of Implicit learning (breaking the code) being harder than explicit learning (being given a key).
I prefer breaking the code most times.
I guess the double entendre about Carlin was a bit to implicit... maybe just not funny...
:)
The calculus example is a good one for examining goal-achievement.
I am currently taking Calculus 2, Integration by Trigonometric Substitution is one of the methods.
The textbook I am using is very Implicit in examples explaining this method, and I have thought many times about how much easier it would be if it were to use more Explicit examples.
Implicit examples by nature take more time and effort than explicit examples, making the implicit less likely to be chosen than the explicit.
It would have to be one very highly motivated 8-year-old to pass the calculus test, or one that has an extremely high ability to understand implicit examples.
As far as the goals of a comedian, he/she would have to be very highly motivated and very good at implicit learning to gain anything from 'Garfield and Friends'.
Myself, I would choose George Carlin as an explicit example…
One can never assume, :)
My question of "why" relates to the idea that there have been so many examples of a rebellion against society (status quo) by groups and individuals.
Some of these examples are successful, most are not, but all seem to act to make "the great mass of humanity through time" change in a common direction.
It's almost as if we have been evolving (?), and each case of rebellion is a sudden mutation....
If only we could figure out what constitutes a successful mutation.
SarahC used it in her (?) argument.
I want to know where and why it was said.
Thomas Paine wrote about atheism during a revolution, Martin Luther nailed his argument to a door of a church.
I voted you up for finding the where, but I still want to know the why.
I add this only because it provides a greater context:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/4758.html
I will vote up anyone who can say in what circumstance this was said.
This brings to mind the idea of correlation vs. casualty.
There is the idea that the mind will recognize the combination of multiple sensations as correlation and from that it will develop conceptional reality.
The process of going from correlation to that of causality is one of the process' of science.
Conception, which includes science, is part of the learning process, which should be held as one of the most basic principles of not only human, but of evolutionary process'.
Experimentation requires no preconception,it is part of the evolutionary process' and it happens regardless of the cognitive state.
Preconception is impossible without experimentation.
Thanks NancyLebovitz, that’s the one.
| [...]no one considers the possibility that mere variation (less boredom) improves performance.
The reverse possibility may also be true, more boredom decreases performance and may also cause health problems.
The following link lends credence to this line of thought:
http://www.management.wharton.upenn.edu/grant/Grant_JAP2008b_TaskSignificance.pdf
A note:
There was a study done regarding the cause and effect of employee relationships and how it affected job performance that gave as a result that employees performed better simply because of the attention given them, rather than the validity of any of the techniques introduced.
If anyone can provide a resource for that study, I'll vote you up because I am having trouble finding it.
If I remember correctly it is used in: O'Hair, Friedrich, Dixon 2008 Strategic Communication: In Business and the Professions, Pearson
I guess the east-coast version.
Heinlein also had a thing for redheads....
The idea is this:
Not only that people can learn as much about a game from losing it as they can from winning it, but that they need to loose in order to learn how to win. The flip-flop acts as a helper in the process of trial and error.
The feedback caused by the wiring of two NOR gates of the flip-flop allow this because the switches are controlled by the true and false sets exclusively; one switch is always associated with the true statements and the other with false.
When we start to learn, all possibilities are indeterminate, they can be either true or false; F == A+A+A is just as valid as F != A+H+C.
The flip-flop becomes sort of an ex post facto method of examining the data of the experience depending on win or loss. With a loss there can be mild sorting of possibilities, but the real sorting comes with comparing wins and losses.
Let me know if how I am representing this idea is to brief, it is still in its infancy, and as I have said elsewhere in my posts, I haven’t read everything.
Sorry for the delay.
Let’s start a Fire.
The Fire requires 3 things: Air(A), Heat(H) and a Combustible(C) so that:
F == A+H+C.
We know that there are many true statements about F:
F == H+C+A
F == A+H+C
Etc.
Let’s say that these are also true:
F != A+A+A
F != B+A+A
Etc.
We also, because of trial and error, can enumerate the false statements, starting with:
F != A+H+C.
Etc.
Continuing with:
F == A+A+A
Etc.
Now this is where the flip-flop comes in:
The true and false of the basic circuit have an extraordinary amount of combinations for the purposes of making fire.
I came up with this idea not only because people learn games through both negative and positive reinforcement, but that many times we only have a partial picture of the possible combinations for a win.
This is redoubled when we think of thing in terms of arbitrary meanings such as air, heat and combustible.
This reminds me of the general rules of games...
I was recently playing a game of mastermind with a friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_(board_game)
Mastermind is considered a “solved" game, much like Tic Tac Toe, or checkers.
This considered, I was given cause for thought that even though it is "solved" it still presents the ideas of "Learned Rules", "Intrinsic Rules" and "Trial and Error".
For learned rules the idea is that the rules are related or taught, how one should act according to circumstance.
Intrinsic rules are those rules that are obviated, that the situation itself causes the desire of a solution.
Trial and error is the process of clarifying the rules, related to Occam's in the idea of using the simplest rules to solve the game.
The real question is what do we do when a game situation presents us with a flip-flop such as explained in Charles Petzold's book code? (This is a basic computing concept).
Are games representative of real life or are they viable only as a thought experiment?
Can games be more complicated than physical reality?
So, in a true language the results of saying something could be equal to actions?
I'm not sure how to phrase this...
I think say and do: Heat + Air + Fuel and I get Fire?
Hmm...
I present them (with my critique) because they represent to me attempts at reason as it was before the definition of reason was widely accepted.
I left out any direct quotes out because I thought it may confuse the topic of conversation and that the five minute rule would be violated if I tried to discuss them.
Aesop's Fables:
http://www.aesopfables.com/aesopsel.html
I Ching:
http://en.calameo.com/read/000039257e56b7faf538d
Judeo-Christi-Islamic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
Maybe not the best resources, but they could be an introduction.
I will add one more, only because I find it fun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramids_(novel)
For some reason the above link does not deliver correctly, but you should be able to follow....
Yes the wiki is a challenge, I was thinking of a new graphical interface...
I agree,
I'm not sure if I should go with Treehouse or IceTowers...
If I buy IceTowers I could probably play Treehouse, but not the other way round...
:)
So:
The order of operations can be variable dependent on the number
The notation method effects pattern
The pattern can change if primes are always used
Etc.
How many ways can we change the rules? How many rules are there?
It is amazing just how much variation in pattern can be achieved just by changing and/or adding/subtracting rules.
There is the general rule of rules:
The fewer the rules, the less variable the pattern, and the inverse, the more rules the more variable the pattern.
- Sorry for the late edit, but, I would also add that the fewer the rules the less adaptable as well...
I think removing the parentheses can affect the overall pattern formation.
12 == (((1+1)^(1+1))*(1+1+1))
12 != +^+*++
Because we are changing the order of operations:
1+1^1+1*1+1+1
2^2*3
2^6
64
Also, I don't think there is a way to use exponents and make 12 without using parentheses.
So if we simplify the method of notation, then some operations cannot be used for certain numbers. and this changes the pattern, and/or the availability of possible patterns.
This topic is discussed in D. Hofstadter's book Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.
An observation about the number sequence:
...
3 == (1+1+1)
4 == (1+1+1+1)
5 == (1+1+1+1+1)
6 == (1+1+1+1+1+1)
7 == (1+1+1+1+1+1+1)
...
I would rewrite this as:
...
3 == (1+1+1)
4 == ((1+1)*(1+1))
5 == (1+1+1+1+1)
6 == ((1+1)*(1+1+1))
7 == (1+1+1+1+1+1+1)
...
Where the first inversion is at 4-5. The reason I do this is because of the relation to primes and to make the pattern seem more consistent. Then of course the next step would be exponent notation:
…
8 == ((1+1)^(1+1+1)
…
So the idea of choosing the correct method of patterning can change dramatically with small changes in rules, such that we can have:
8 == (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)
8 == ((1+1)*(1+1+1+1))
8 == ((1+1)^(1+1+1)
And the places of inversion will change according to method.
A question in an evolutionary context: Say the operators are symbols of evolutionary complexity, increasing from addition to multiplication to exponent, wouldn't use be situational? Given specific circumstances could one "8" be more valid than another "8", even though the understanding is that they amount to the same thing? Is the pattern one method will make more valid than the pattern of another?
I can’t help but think that the method is dependent on the amount of space in which we have to create the pattern, that the addition method is ok for a large posting width, and small numbers, but as the numbers increase and/or the posting width decreases, method becomes more important, maybe even requiring the creation (evolution) of more operators for more methods ...
Yes, there is a very large and very interesting variety found in this process.
If we take the all of the variables into consideration, all of the possible ways X and Y can work:
We have (n1)X and (n2)Y for a population of ((n1)X + (n2)Y), the ratio of (n1)X to (n2)Y, the population can increase or decrease, a gestation variable of (g)X that cooperates with breeding potential of (b)Y...
I could go on, but since this is not an attempt at a full research paper, I think my point in this respect is clear, that the potential for variation in reproductive method is huge.
The question I ask myself is just how important is this to humans?
Look at the basic survival methods of the sexes, X and Y; we eat the same foods, breath the same air, and our physiology is the same for these purposes. The only difference between X and Y is due to the nature of sexual reproduction.
I think that it is of such importance, and so basic, that when examining human culture and society it should be one of the main focal points, of any line of examination.
prase,
Thanks.
Maybe I should have made clear that X can only reproduce with Y and Y only with X; the definition of sexual reproduction.
I think I should simplify it...
If X can reproduce 2 times in its life and Y can reproduce 100 times in its life the natural assumption would be that Y will reproduce more.
BUT
Remember that the population consists of equally half of each sex and that X will be in gestation for most of theirs.
This means that X will participate in reproduction only twice in their life time, for any given period. Considering that there are 50 total X in that amount of time, that is 100 possible gestations.
For Y there are 50 times 100 days of possible gestation total, or five thousand possible days of creating gestation.
Y has to choose among X and X has to choose among Y.
Does X or Y have more to chose from?
I hope this clarifies, I will continue if needed, again, thanks.
I'm being voted down, still without seeing any evidence for or against....
I know it's due to a popular vote, but does anyone have any argument, or are we just taking advantage of the voting mechanism?
I'm starting to feel like the availability of stating ones opinion is counteracting the way things actually work...
This may be a case in which I'm telling everyone something they already know, but I will continue because I'm not seeing any evidence for or against.
In a sexual relationship there are obviously two parties, the X component and the Y component.
The next factors are the gestational period for each.
Say the X component has a gestational period of every 50 days and the Y component has a gestational period of every day.
Both X and Y components live for 100 days.
The next factor is that there is only ever a maximum population of breeding pairs, say 50 of each for a total of 100 of the species.
Given these factors, and without doing the math completely (:(), it is fairly easy to predict that X has more of a chance at having choice of genetics than Y.
The simple way of saying this is that although X has a gestational period they have the choice of what Y they will breed with at the time they are not in gestation, and that Y does not have much of a choice because X is in Gestation most of the time.
There are of course many factors that can be adjusted, but as a general principle it acts as a clear dividing line between the two sexes.
Anyone that can do the math and let me know other methods, feel free, I'm still working on it, but honestly I do not see a more basic relationship for the sexually reproductive
Now Asexual Reproduction is a different story, I wonder why one method represents more of the population than the other...
"The implications extend far beyond computer science"
In one way they do, in another they are very simple.
"The problem rests in the nature of knowledge and meaning"
Some things have simple answers, others are complex, but, if there is a mind to ask the question, then?
I'm sorry, I cannot give one link that would explain this well.
I think the key may be with the idea of abductive reasoning, that the mind can relate multiple sensory observations and come up with a correlation (a derivative if you will) of the experiential world.
I'm being short...
jaymani,
Have you seen:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/creditcards/ ?
Luck may be a small part, but I think cognition is the better part.
Sorry, if this is to bold, I'm new at this as well.
Hi All,
I'm here for the most part because of my interest in the idea of singularity and the mechanical relation of creating consciousness in a non-traditionally-organic form. I can't list here all of the books I've read on the subject, though I might be able to add a few to the list before I'm done, such as Piers Anthony's Macroscope (haven’t checked the list yet).
I would not call myself an atheist, but a sub-proselytized human with autodidactic qualities. I do not deny religion off hand, because of the correlation with the development of science, but, one of my main arguments is that humans are born without religion and science may be instinctual. (Again, haven’t read everything), I think that the idea of "God" is just taking abductive reasoning to an extreme.
I see Less Wrong as a form of Peckham Experiment of which I am a participant and an observer.
That said, I can tend to be short in my posts, but I will work on that.
I hope that if I say anything extraordinary, or, seem like I am delivering a failing interpretation of another work, that I will be checked out for it. (I can hear the Yoda voice now, "You Will Be"...)
You argument reminds me of a thought experiment I did concerning the "GOD Operator...
1+ 1 = 2
1 -1 = 0
1 * 1 = 1
1 / 1 = 1
Etc...
The operator is the +, -, * /, etc
The god operator is inclusive of all known operators and allows such things as:
1 GOD 1 = whatever answer Fits
AND
1 GOD 1 = sqrt(-1), PI, Etc..
How do we define the operator when GOD can be "whatever works"?
My main thoughts then went to the idea of a "universal machine" much like Turing...
What specifically is the mechanism of the human mind that would allow both of the above examples?
I think that the key words are "reasonably smart".
Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit is a good starting point, and it could be said that each of his examples are easily translatable to a oration of less than 5 minutes (as per Candle in the Dark), I have often thought that it would make a good children’s book (Carl and the Baloney Detector)...
A good resource would be the previous attempts at such a work, Aesop's Fables (Platitudinal), I Ching (Esoteric), and Judeo-Christi-Islamic Texts (Dogmatic). If we are to attempt a similar work for the ideas of reason then what can we learn from them to tell the aspects of how to provide a bible, or even a psalm, of reason?
It is a good starting point to keep a single idea down to what can be said before interest is lost and short enough to keep interest...
Perhaps instead of providing a single interpretation of a reasonable argument it would be a location for an argument idea, with the many interpretations of the specific argument and with related topics provided as a link?
So, in other words, Here is the Concept, These are the Arguments, This is What Concepts Relate, which could be kept to under 5 minutes.
"The WIKIRESONIA" :)