Cause and Effect Is NOT Understanding

The next time you cross a bridge, fly in a jet, or are under the knife, be glad that your engineer, aircraft designer, and surgeon did not believe that "close enough" was good enough.

 

LOL. Close enough is what they do!

In all these cases, their are tradeoffs of cost, design, predicted loads, prospective outcomes, ancillary ramifications, etc., etc.

For example, there are numerous cases of reevaluating earthquake risk and thus retrofitting bridge abutments, improving the strapping that holds a house on its foundations, etc.

There are limits set for how much brain damaging lead your child can drink - close enough, because removing lead is expensive.

If airplanes were made invincible, they probably couldn't carry passengers due to weight limits.

Are you aware that in private aircraft, airworthiness is exceeded if there is a passenger in each seat and a full tank of gas? Pilots have to know their weight and balance and make the tradeoffs. In passenger aircraft, the airplane has weight measuring equipment built in, so the pilot can verify airworthiness and calculate factors such as how fast to go before attempting to fly.

You live in a "close enough" world. This works, because we have well educated people, including scientists who combine to make the decisions. (We also have congress, where all too often we have idiots blocking the known need for regulation.)

 

In my profession, a plea of "close enough" is not going to cut it [npi].

"But judge, I know the patient died but I thought the procedure I did was close enough."

My friend, "close enough" is A LOT different than doing the absolute best that can be done. You never treat a patient with a goal of being "close enough." There is a difference between philosophy and real life.

 

The "absolute best" is still a judgement call.

Hospital trauma doctors still focus first on keeping the patient alive. That may preclude procedures that would reduce chances of recovery. That is not an absolute.

For any trauma there are decisions to be made. Labs get interpreted. The numerous available solutions are evaluated. The capabilities of the attending staff are considered. Hospital supplies may be a factor - there isn't an endless supply of ORs, blood, etc.

The doc doesn't say "close enough". The doc says that in his/her judgement the best combination of treatments available was applied. That is NOT an absolute. It's as close as the doc can get, given the full range of factors.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

So, you think that "argument" is "close enough"?

 

Sure, but my perception is not part of the lighter. In fact, I'm pretty confident the lighter exists and behaves as it does even if I'm not perceiving it at all. My understanding of the lighter does not include the lag of perception.

"Professional literature" is not the same as my understanding. If I use professional literature as a part of my understanding, then it is weighted by my confidence in the professional literature. If our confidence in the professional literature is low, then so is its impact on my understanding. This example doesn't seem to be a problem for my interpretation.

Why wouldn't I dismiss things that have been around for millennia? If it was good, it should have some better justification. I don't see how age helps.

I'm not following this at all. I don't think I have been arguing that "everything needs an explanation", I don't see how people driving contradicts anything I have said, I don't think accidents are impossible, and I don't think the features of driving (lane spacing, car safety features, etc) are without intellectual input. There is a lot of unconnected dots in your paragraph.

 

Ok, so let's say you are brought into a space where you are unable to perceive...nada. Can you tell me what in the space exists? Are you suggesting that existence "exists" outside of our perception?

So your argument here is that you will somehow be privy to the quality and reliability of all information. I don't think so.

You have to do better than this.

My point is that the mind works considerably better when not using our reasoning. Seeing things as they are is the key. Adding our take is going to [at the very least] bias perception. In most cases, it leaves reality unrecognizable.

You appear to be out of your comfort zone here [as most people are]. We can continue a similar conversation elsewhere as this one is going downhill quickly.

 

Who boy!!

What's next? Are you going to suggest our education system should teach people to AVOID REASONING?

 

Most people do not understand this and you are one of them. Just let it go and let's move on.

 

No, you answer my question.

>>Should schools teach kids to avoid using reasoning?

You stated, "My point is that the mind works considerably better when not using our reasoning."

This would obviously be a cataclysmic change to our entire education system.

 

I stand by my statement but you have to understand it in the correct context. You use reasoning when the truth of the matter is not apparent.

 

That doesn't reduce the importance of using reasoning.

 

Are you suggesting that there is supernatural aid to drivers in lane keeping, but not in stopping distance?

Or, are you just impressed by what meat computers can accomplish?

 

Hasn't it been your argument that the "truth of the matter" can never be known?

You seem to be hinting here that the truth of the matter might be apparent?

 

I'm sure it depends exactly on what you mean. I probably couldn't tell you anything about the space without perception. So what?

I would suggest that existence exists outside our perception, I'm pretty sure nobody is perceiving my lighter right now, and I'm still pretty sure it exists. That being said, my statement is about what the word understanding means, not really about existence existing, so your comment seems to miss my point.

Nope, don't think I said that either. I am privy to my confidence in information, and I will build my confidence from what knowledge I have on its reliability. I may have access to an account that is correct and in fact high quality, but if I don't know that the quality is high, then I do not have confidence, and therefore will not include it whole cloth in my understanding.

I really don't. Seeing how old an idea is does not tell us whether it is right. I think meditation is the thing that needs to do better. I mean, either meditation did better when it convinced you, or you accept ideas that lead you to incorrect things a lot.

I disagree. There are some things that are so easy that our mind can do it well even without reasoning. That kind of approach doesn't work well when the questions are complex or unclear. You say you can see things as they are, but intellect adds bias, I say you see things with bias (even in meditation), and intellect can remove biases.

I see no reason to abandon the conversation. The core of the discussion is still the definition of understanding, and I have challenged yours. If the discussion is going downhill, it's probably because you're not addressing that.

 

If you can keep your emotions in check, perhaps you would be able to gather what I am saying. One more time. Brain function is a vast mystery but I believe we can safely state that there is a reasoning part of the brain and a part that just does stuff [without having to reason]...sort of like the autonomic nervous system. The more accurate system is the one that does not depend on reasoning because reasoning takes a lot of time and is prone to serious error.

When you are driving at high speeds with several cars very close, your conscious reasoning does not have the time nor skills to figure out what to do, but there is a part of your brain that can accomplish this task automatically. It is this part of the brain [or brain function] that you want to tap into all the time.

 

The truth of the matter is the best version of the truth you can perceive. The actual truth can never be known.

The truth of the matter is apparent when you do not allow your intellectual filter to change what you perceive into your personal truth.

 

If existence is questionable, understanding has no chance. All things are like this.

Basically, and like almost everybody, you are starting with your conclusion and working backwards. Otherwise, you are building a case with brinks made out of smoke.

You are correct that an old idea doesn't tell us that it's right but it does tell us that it's worth looking into. After all, most everything of importance was figured out hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

If you like, we can have a conversation about meditation and what it's all about. I am not sure you are really interested nor have the patience to listen. Let me just tell you that it is a practice of great importance for the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of those who partake.

Thank you for bringing this up. You state that this kind of approach does not work when matters become complex... . Have you ever wondered what makes something complex? Not understanding makes things complex [and the further from the truth of the matter, the more complex they become].

Simplicity is truth. Absolute Simplicity is absolute Truth. IOW, all Truth is as simple as it gets. This is why TPTB ALWAYS make things as complicated as possible [to obscure the truth]. It's like when you finally get something after years of not understanding [and it seems so obvious and simple]. If it is complex, you are still far from the truth.

The best example is listening to anybody in a position of power. Total bulls*it. Complicate and confuse while saying absolutely nothing. The solutions to problems are always simple. Getting there [the difficult part] depends on you moving planets-full of complete bs.

Of course it's my fault. Fair enough. Onward...

Understanding is a whole bunch of things that when examined under an electron microscope reveal a whole bunch of things. True understanding is like your first impression...no reasoning necessary. If you need to reason, then what you might end up with is a less pungent pile of bs, but it is bs just the same.

 

Please refrain from your ad hom. I asked a very plain and logical question. It should NOT have upset you.

I see what you are saying here, and I agree. We definitely have an autonomic system. We also have the ability to make actions more automatic, such as athletes learning to hit a ball in extreme circumstances.

I've seen others present this same scenario as justification for believing that our brains require an external supernatural assistant, and I note that you aren't going there!

 

This is difficult terminology, as it uses the word "truth" to mean very different ideas.

I've probably misinterpreted some of what you say simply because I don't always know which version of "truth" you are referring to.

 

This isn't about politics.

Newton observed our physical world, making serious advancements in how our universe is perceived.

His answer met measures of simplicity and work today, however they were overly simplified for reasons that he could not have detected.

The idea that simple is truth just does not work out.

If you want to do engineering, the answers are not simple. If you want to do science, simplicity is not a good judge of which new ideas are better.

Look at quantum mechanics. The way our universe works is NOT SIMPLE. In fact, it is both complex and shocking.

 

I understand. It can be confusing. There are generally two types of truth when discussing these matters. The first is intellectual truth [lower case], the second, absolute Truth [upper case]. Intellectual truth is our personal take on reality. If you eliminate as much of this as is possible, then it becomes your perceptual truth. Absolute Truth is not accessible because of contaminants such as time lag and perception itself [and who knows what else].

 

But, you mix the two in discussions.

If you want to talk about the human process of exploring our universe, you have to stop using your absolute truth idea for reasons that YOU have stated.

Otherwise, this thread becomes a game of word salad.

 

The point is to make folks aware that there are different ways of approaching everything. It seems as if you are beginning to understand what I am getting at, and that's a lot better than most!