Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Doctordick
You are making exactly the same error Buffy made in that you are concerning yourself with the "usage" of knowledge, not the issue I was talking about. My concern is with the issue of how we come to have this knowledge available. The analysis of that process is very important as the logical question of determining the validity of the information is a serious philosophical question. All I am trying to do is point out the vast difference between the two definable procedures.
I do not argue with that at all. What I say is that it is a very different procedure from a formal sequence. To prove me wrong, all you have to do is lay out, in detail, exactly what the specific mechanical steps are (all of them) from start to finish. The point being to make absolutely sure that there is not an invalid presumption anywhere in the operation. If you can do that then I tell you what, write out the decision process in detail so I can build a robot which can learn to play basketball from scratch.
Perhaps you might benefit by examining my answer to Buffy.
Have fun -- Dick
Knowledge is Power
and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity |
Oh Dick! You owe me $10 at least! I can't believe I am reading all of this. These posts are killing me.
You want to know how basketball players "come to have this knowledge". There is no answer like 2 + 2 = 4. You have to completely change your view of how the universe works and what life is about and the nature of human beings. You will resist that because it is your nature. You will demand detailed explanations and proof for everything. The problem is, there is no proof. The way it works is that you have faith, nothing but your belief, then the proof shows itself. No one can do anything about that except reassure you that you are not wasting your time having faith.
It is like proving radiation exists. If I say to you radiation exists, you can say no, you have no proof. I don't have any proof. There is nothing in my back pocket to prove radiation. I don't have any objects or any experiments to prove that there is such a thing as radiation. I believe that it takes huge expensive machines to prove that radiation exists. Plus the necessary background to even understand what radiation is. What I can do is give you simple examples of the effects of radiation. I can say if you stand close to a stove, that is heat radiation. I can't prove it. There is no heat beam we can see coming from the stove and making you hot. No visible waves rising up from the stove or anything. Just the sensation of heat.
That is just like the stuff about life you don't know. First someone has to give you background to even begin the discussion of what life is really about. Then I can say to you, "See this evidence? That is evidence of this particular principle of life that you do not understand". You can't see the principle of life, you can only see it's effects. That is where faith comes in. Once you see enough evidence of results, you will then have faith in what the principle of life causing those results is.
Then that bit of someone having to prove you wrong. That is scientific talk that makes perfect sense. But it is not very.......fun. Especially when you got sarcastic. It is not possible to do what you want. You want a process as complex as a nuclear reactor spelled out in steps so you can replicate it. If you break down your demands into something easier and more reasonable to handle, maybe someone can help you.
I can tell you why basketball players are the way they are and you are the way you are. You won't believe me. I like to have fun in discussions. If your posts so far are any indication, it looks like you would be demanding, short, arrogant and sarcastic with me. Trying to help someone understand, when they are returning negativity like that is very draining. Someone has to like you a lot to do that for you.
