[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Hadrian

Is not the opposite not protect humanity?

If we going to get all semantic over this, the statement could have many opposites, and one opposite could be the protection of inhumanity. []

George

[neilep (OP)]

Secondary question :

Is it plausible that a ' Semantic Shield ' could be produced in the future ?..it will certainly help the likes of me understand with immediate clarity rather than dissecting and studying every element of a sentence ? []

[Hadrian]

It is human behaviour that has lead to this question being needed in the first place. Such a shield would not address the real cause of this problem and may well only lead to acceptances of this behaviour. When people were chocking from smog we did something about it. We could have built a glass dome over our cities and kept pumping out the crap into the air. The hole question is wrong because is set up a the ides that we can get away from our reasonability for our planet.

[neilep (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by Hadrian

It is human behaviour that has lead to this question being needed in the first place. Such a shield would not address the real cause of this problem and may well only lead to acceptances of this behaviour. When people were chocking from smog we did something about it. We could have built a glass dome over our cities and kept pumping out the crap into the air. The hole question is wrong because is set up a the ides that we can get away from our reasonability for our planet.

See what I mean ? []


sorry Hadrian...couldn't resist it..[]

Men are the same as women, just inside out !

[Hadrian]

seing afrer all is beliving []

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Hadrian

It is human behaviour that has lead to this question being needed in the first place. Such a shield would not address the real cause of this problem and may well only lead to acceptances of this behaviour. When people were chocking from smog we did something about it. We could have built a glass dome over our cities and kept pumping out the crap into the air. The hole question is wrong because is set up a the ides that we can get away from our reasonability for our planet.

Acceptance of what behaviour – the fact that it is not humanly possible to predict all the consequences of our actions; or the fact that every action we take carries a cost, and so the only alternative to that is inaction, but that too has its cost (even if we can take some nominal comfort from the notion that we are not responsible for that which we don't do).

Yes, we addressed the question of smog when it got to being a serious problem, but we did not anticipate the smog, and could not reasonably have done so.  Equally, the removal of many of the pollutants that contributed to the smog has exacerbated other problems by increasing the transparency of the atmosphere – another aspect that was not anticipated.  The problems that people complain about with the effects believed to be caused by CFC's on the ozone layer are actually a consequence of people trying to reduce what they saw as damaging pollution (by the use of refrigerants such as ammonia or sulphur dioxide) with what they believed was a more inert alternative, but what they did not realise is that it was its very inertness that allowed it to move up into the ionosphere before dissociating and releasing chlorine directly into the ionosphere.  This is the inevitable result of the law of unintended consequences, a law that we are powerless to remove ourselves from.

George

[Hadrian]

I never ask anyone to Accept any behaviour. I just think your looking at the sympton and not the cause with this question. You can paper over the cracks and it may well keep the walls from falling down but it won't stop cowboys from building bad buildings.

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

[another_someone]

Natural colour coding

quote:Originally posted by Hadrian
I just think your looking at the sympton and not the cause with this question. You can paper over the cracks and it may well keep the walls from falling down but it won't stop cowboys from building bad buildings.

There are all sorts of problems with your clichés.

Firstly, who is a cowboy (I know, someone who herds cows, and has no business erecting buildings [])?

To me, if i go into a car showroom to buy a small run-around, and the guy sells me a Rolls Royce, then the salesman is a cowboy.  Overselling is just as improper as not delivering on what you were paid to deliver on.

If I hire someone to paper over the cracks, and he comes and replaces the entire wall, and charges accordingly, leaving me bankrupt and homeless, then I don't really think he has done me any favours.

(BTW, I just noticed, how is it I'm talking to a guy called Hadrian about walls – sorry – I'm sure you've heard the like far too often already.)

Then there is the problem of what is a symptom and what is a cause.  To every cause, that cause itself is merely a symptom to a deeper cause.  One can never find an ultimate cause, and if one did, one would more than likely not have the capability to address such a deep and fundamental causative agent.

If one were to go to the doctor with an ailment for which there was no direct cure, would you really expect him to forgo palliative treatment because that alone would not provide a cure?  It may even be, that with palliative treatment alone, the body's own resources might be able to provide a cure, and if not, is it still sufficient reason to say the only thing worth doing is a cure, and merely addressing the symptoms would serve no purpose?

Yes, we could have simply built a dome over our cities to protect ourselves from the smog, except that such would not only have been more expensive than the alternatives we undertook, but would have done nothing for those people not living in cities.  It never was a practical option.

The problem in all of this is judging what is feasible, not what you might consider ideal.

OK, I'll accept that few people really regard a shield placed in outer space as being a currently feasible scenario; and the idea, I suspect, was put forward more to discuss the incidental technological issues than an expectation that it of itself would form the solution; but neither is ceasing to generate waste a practical (or even possible) option, since it is the nature of all living organisms that they must create waste (the tests being performed on Mars to see if they can detect life is as much about detecting the waste products that living organisms would produce).

George

[Hadrian]

I accept tall that too. Maybe it because I often have to deal with the destruction that people cause to nature.  Dead fish in what were beautiful rivers teeming life and indiscriminate dumping of waste in wood land and other wild spots. I won't go on about it.. Sometimes I think that the world was perfect then we go it. The meek may well inherit the world but who will want after the rest of us have done our bit to it.

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Hadrian

I accept tall that too. Maybe it because I often have to deal with the destruction that people cause to nature.  Dead fish in what were beautiful rivers teeming life and indiscriminate dumping of waste in wood land and other wild spots. I won't go on about it.. Sometimes I think that the world was perfect then we go it. The meek may well inherit the world but who will want after the rest of us have done our bit to it.

I can understand where you are coming from, even if some of your language is very emotive.  I would never use the word 'destructive' when talking about nature, since the only difference between destructive and constructive is a presumed objective, and nature has no objectives, only humans have objectives.

That, if we are going to kill that many fish, we could make better use of their deaths (e.g. eat them), and that it is wasteful to kill them merely as a by-product of waste disposal, does seem wasteful.

Some of the problems with dumping is itself a by-product of bad lawmaking.  Rather like illegal drugs, the law tries to make it difficult to legally dispose of waste, and so increasingly waste is disposed of illegally.  I don't say that this is the entire problem, but it clearly has exacerbated the problem.

Clearly, waste products are toxic (free oxygen is a waste product of plants and algae, and is highly toxic, and life has had to learn to adapt and live with this highly toxic substance), and we cannot avoid causing the death of various organisms (and, indeed, we often desire to kill certain organisms for our own protection), but I do agree that some of what is done could be thought through better, but as I say, it is often the well intentioned attempts to 'protect' the environment that can have unintended consequences that exacerbate the very issues they seek to address.

George

[Hadrian]

Nothing I am about to say is meant to offend or attack anyone. I did not learn to read or write till I was in my min 20’s. I am severally dyslexic. Language is precious to me but I dislike semantics except when they offer incite. I also prefer to look at the 90% that I might have in common with others then to pick on the 10% or less difference. The one exception to this is in creative thinking when paying attention to the difference between one idea and the next can reveal a hidden concept to build with.  

It is always the underlining concept of what someone is trying to communicate that matters not the words. We don’t all have the same meanings in our heads for this word or that and this can stop us talking and listening in our tracks. We spin off into our own stuff instead of truly understanding what the other person is saying, what they are trying to communicate.  


What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

[neilep (OP)]

Hadrian,

I fully understand the emotive side of what you are saying too and I congratulate you on the passion that you have. It's refreshing to see such dedication.

My question was one of just trying to get an understanding of the nature of the mechanics and construction of such a thing. I am sure you now understand it was not meant to be understood as an alternative to fixing things on this side of the atmosphere.

[Hadrian]

A worthy motive indeed my friend and thank fot your kind words []


What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

[another_someone]

Hadrian,

Let me tell you, you have to try very, very, hard before you can cause me to take offence.  I neither easily take offence, nor would willingly give offence.

As for your dyslexia – you're holding own very well, and I don't think you need any excuses.  So, your spelling is imperfect (mine is far from perfect, and if it were not for spell checkers, it would be worse yet).  I am not trying to belittle the difficulties that dyslexia can cause (albeit, it can vary greatly in severity), but I am saying that you are clearly intelligent enough to find ways of making yourself understood despite those limitations.

While your broad sweep approach is valid as a first approximation, but I am a great believer in the maxim that “the devil is in the detail”.  I am by trade a computer programmer, and I know exactly how significant simply placing a decimal point in the wring place can be, or changing the order of two statements, or any one of any number of easily overlooked details, any of which can cause effects that can be dramatic or subtle, and often difficult to locate.

George

[Hadrian]

I to have done some programming work (Delphi 5&6) mostly boring add-ons for accounting software.  I have also worked in the 3D animation and video production. I can get into the details of things when needs be. The way I think is in a “big to small” way. I need to see the outline of the elephant then cut into small bits and eat it. I am interested in everything that can reveal and lead to understanding of us our world and universe it’s in. I don’t see my dyslexia as any sort of handicap it just meant I think in and learn different way. The only down side all this was that education system I was borne into (1956) labels my as backward and retarded. I spent every moment I could caching up and soaking up information often just for the joy of it. All this has made me into to a skilled generalist comfortable with slipping between art, science and philosophy. I have a great passion for life and I seek to bring happiness to others. I am suspicious of logic as a pinnacle of human thinking because it leads to winners and losers. It precludes the possibility of merit in the other person’s idea. It makes people reluctant to voice an opinion in case of rejection. We all need to play more. I think that, was it Einstein who said, “ finding the right question is what matters” and I believe the creative thinking gives the best hope of this.

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Hadrian
The way I think is in a “big to small” way. I need to see the outline of the elephant then cut into small bits and eat it.

Never tried eating elephant – what does it taste like? []

That aside, I do agree with you, but I suppose it it is just in my nature to get quite aggressive (in the most pacifist way) in my snipping from large to small.

quote:

 I am interested in everything that can reveal and lead to understanding of us our world and universe it’s in.

Yes, I can go with that.

quote:

All this has made me into to a skilled generalist comfortable with slipping between art, science and philosophy.

Again, no problem with that – what might also be called a polymath.  The notion that art, science, and philosophy, are distinctly separate domains is a relatively modern notion (although I would not generally regard art as one of my fortes).

I would also add to that list a liking for history, language, and logic; for they too tell us about the way the world works.

quote:

I am suspicious of logic as a pinnacle of human thinking because it leads to winners and losers. It precludes the possibility of merit in the other person’s idea.

I disagree.

In real life, there is very rarely only one right answer, so while logic may separate that which is right from that which is wrong, it rarely provides that one answer is right and every other answer is wrong.

Nor do I believe that being wrong makes one a loser.  Maybe I am atypical, but I often voice an opinion on a matter where I think there is a high probability that, even if I am not totally wrong, I am certainly not totally right; because until to propose an idea there is little opportunity to have others comment on it, and maybe help one improve upon it.

Also, as with this very thread itself, one often raises a topic not because one believes one is right, but because one is simply interested in where the search will lead.  We are all agreed that Neil did not expect us all to jump up and say “eureka, that is exactly the right answer”, but what he proposed was a basis for exploring ideas, and even if the idea itself would not come to much, the process of exploration could unearth lots of truths one would simply not have realised were there if one had not proposed the question.

None of this presumes that being right, or wrong (or, more likely, somewhere in between) leads to winners or losers.  With a right frame of mind, merely asking the questions, and applying logic to find the possible answers, merely leaves winners and winners.  In fact, one might even say that the person who has been proven wrong has won the greater, for he who has been proven right has merely had confirmed what he already knew, whereas he who has been proven wrong has learnt something new.

quote:

It makes people reluctant to voice an opinion in case of rejection.

While I do understand that people are different, and some people feel that being told that their idea is logically flawed may seem like a rejection, I don't think they should think that (for the reasons I have stated above).

quote:

 We all need to play more. I think that, was it Einstein who said, “ finding the right question is what matters” and I believe the creative thinking gives the best hope of this.

I would agree wholeheartedly with the above, but none of this should cause a suspicion to be cast upon logic as a means of separating the truth from an illusion – and I would think Einstein would have been the first to agree with that.

George

[Hadrian]

quote:

I am suspicious of logic as a pinnacle of human thinking because it leads to winners and losers. It precludes the possibility of merit in the other person’s idea.

I was borne into a family of Judges and barristers who used logic to intimidate. Winning the argument was the only objective. I have seen in politics good ideas that failed to happen because they came from the opposition.

 I am helping to run a concert called Voices Across Cultures. Its objective is to bring people together with music and song. Because I have the support of a one dependent town councillor the other councillors who are in political parties won’t support it because logic has it the independent councillor stands to pick up more votes because he is black. It is how logic is used in everyday life that causes me suspicion.

quote:

It makes people reluctant to voice an opinion in case of rejection.

I was not thinking of defending errors or flaws more that the very system of logical adversarial testing can by itself intimate the shy or inhibited or those who feel that their standing or job will be damaged by presenting their idea to others. (group think)



What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Hadrian

quote:

I am suspicious of logic as a pinnacle of human thinking because it leads to winners and losers. It precludes the possibility of merit in the other person’s idea.

I was borne into a family of Judges and barristers who used logic to intimidate. Winning the argument was the only objective. I have seen in politics good ideas that failed to happen because they came from the opposition.

 I am helping to run a concert called Voices Across Cultures. Its objective is to bring people together with music and song. Because I have the support of a one dependent town councillor the other councillors who are in political parties won’t support it because logic has it the independent councillor stands to pick up more votes because he is black. It is how logic is used in everyday life that causes me suspicion.

I understand where you are coming from in this, but to ignore the merit in the other persons argument is not the pursuit of logic, it is the perversion of logic.

The problem with lawyers and politicians is not that they use logic, but that they abuse logic, that they use logic only insofar as it suites them, and do not follow the logic to its ultimate truth, but only follow it as far as it helps them along their path, and then ignore it when it does not lead where they wish.

A good scientist (as distinct from a good lawyer or politician) will let the logic of the situation lead him, and will not turn a blind eye to those aspects of the logical conclusion that do not suite his argument.

George

[Hadrian]

I agree with you in sprit and substance. I just would like to add that human nature lends itself to such abuse. It is driven by a need to prove what we believe is true even if it hurts us.

What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.