Feather

Mr. Sammi, I don't understand what message you're trying to convey here.

Your last post indicates to me that my previous one is probably correct: you're seeking an objective set of moral behaviours.

Is this so? Do try to use less fluff in your explanation, please.

Cosimo

Mr. Sammi

I respect the effort you put into communicating your thoughts. However, I have a problem with your assessment of the intelligence of the readers of your post. Earlier in your thread you complain that your explanations are "A little complex for this discussion board." TO another poster you write: "I sympathise with you, the trail to clear understanding is a long and hard road."


You seem to be very sure that your readers failure to follow you comes from intellectual weakness. I will ask you to humor me and put this notion aside. With a clear mind, get out your Strunk & White or other generally accepted style manual and take a good look at some of your sentences:

1. Intelligence allows Information to be represented in relation to the limit with which methods can be found to change Information.

2. Information is lucid representations.

3. A perception is a representation any representation.

4. Knowledge is specifics related to the Information.

With a critical eye you will discover that your sentence construction needs much work. Simple grammatical rules are overlooked; your sentences utterly fail to communicate your ideas to your reader.

If English is not your native language, then I don't want you take my observation as bullying. However, you would then need the humility to recognize that the reader's failure to understand does not come from cognitive weakness.

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Cosimo ]</p>

Amos

Maybe Mr. Sammi is seeking a direction in which we recognize that natural law can be violated by humans because human error is not benficial towards the preservation our own existence as a tribe or civilization within the species.

For example, mores are right not because they are rational but because they work. The question becomes, should human reason be allowed to disassemble or change our moral code without knowing the distant effect of doing so.

A possible way to give evidence for this is that soon after our modern sexual revolution we find that infertility of many different sorts is becoming a societal problem. I realize that before this connection can be made that some sort of reasonable proof must be found and maybe this is where we make another human eror.

Further, if evolution is based on the survival of the fittest does infertility give evidence that we violated a basic law of nature. The next question is how much do we contibute to this and what is required to change it?

Mr. Sammi

OK, so I believe I have good ideas to share AND I am having a hard time relaying these ideas in a strict academic philosophical manner, SO I am grateful to those who spend time hinting at some of the HUMAN ERRORS I have been making.

* * *

Feather, I am trying to use the PIKi model as a form where any contextual information can be placed with the appropriate distinctions and the model set into action TO PRODUCE the actions or thoughts of the individual. It has applications in morality as I have no choice but to agree with your assessment on the application of the PIKi model in relation to Legal errors. In relation to Human error, yes there are moral questions, but there are also fundamental cognitive questions and cognitive proposals. In the next few posts I will try to draw the cognitive outline. I hope you are not too bored. I will keep an eye on the fluff as I have a natural tendency to be fluffy being a storyteller.

* * *

Cosimo, you claim that my sentences utterly fail to communicate my ideas to the readers. Did you take a survey? Are you sure you KNOW what my ideas are trying to elucidate? I would like to refrase your sentiment to : the reader's failure to understand MAY NOT COME from cognitive weakness. Thanks for the guidelines. I am not sure how to follow what you are tellim me. There is a good possibility this is where I am comitting my biggest human errors. Stay on, and help out.

* * *

Amos, you seem to be scratching at some of the points I will be trying to make concerning cognitive human errors, in the realm of bad usage of knowledge and methods. The example I can give is an individual in posession of knowledge and a method WHO goes ahead and unthinkingly applies this method and knowledge to some other out of "domain" area. These type of human errors can be reduced because of the cognitive constraints given as information in the PIKi model, provided a model may become available.

* * *

Everyone is working on machine AI why can't we work on HUMAN AI, we need it more than the dumb machines.

A method is the failure of intelligence. Intelligence is the success of a method.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Ierrellus

IMHO,

Error can be defined simply as that which produces any deviation from any expected outcome.
Since only sentient beings expect specific outcomes, error does not exist apart from expectations. There are no natural errors.

Since morality is a social imposition on human action and is based on whatever expectations whoever is in power deems appropriate, it cannot be considered natural in any true sense. No sense of legality can be considered natural. No amount of perception, intelligence, knowledge or intellect can alter these facts.


As far as evolutionary dispositions toward social
expectations of legality or morality go, I think
Rousseau's misunderstanding of aborigines points out that there are no such expectation bred in our human physical heritage. So, will anyone please tell me what an error devoid of expectation would be.

Ierrellus
PAX

Keith Russell

Greetings:

There are plenty of actions which human beings desire to perform, but which take a great deal of skill.

An 'error' could simply be the inability to perform a desired action.

A beginner doesn't sit down and play the Goldberg Variations perfectly.

A skilled pianist might not even play exactly as she wishes.

The resulting performance, which differs from the desired performance, could be said to contain 'errors'.

Keith.

1sec

Mr.Sammi,

PIKI model. LEGAL vs HUMAN.

Sounds too pretentious for such a trivial matter unless you prove it otherwise sooner.

Or later.

Mr. Sammi

Ierrellus, You think of error as a deviation from an expected outcome. I can visualise situations where the expected outcome is realised but still in error as it was unwittingly made.

Consider these types of human errors. We are all at the local store, in line to pay our purchases. Someone runs in off the street, having left their car running with their 2 month old baby inside. Wanting only a packet of cigarettes, they become impatient in the line, the shoppers ahead in the line only seem to be paying with Interac. The cigarette buyer now becomes angry, swears at everyone, including the two ten year olds waiting to purchase candy, then leaves angrily. Would you not say the person was full of human errors?

Take another example of a racist couple having a couple of babies. After a few years the kids get to school, and seeing a few kids of another color they start "naturally" saying names they heard at home. Is this human error?

A further example. My co-worker leant me a book. Now her mother wants to read the book, and she asks me to return it on Friday. I completely forget and when I get to work Friday, my co-worker thinks I am doing it on purpose. Is this not human error?

For all those who believe what I have written here is simple and is simply carried out, I must only point out the FACT that we do not live in a perfect world.

What about all those who do not wish to face human reality? Is this not human error?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Ierrellus

Mr. Sammi,

In the examples of human error you provided in your last post, there are still no errors devoid of social or personal expectations of moral outcomes.

Ierrellus
Pax

Mr. Sammi

Ierrellus,

You are not playing me, between living with oneself AND living with others are you?

Here then is another human error. Mimi is driving down a busy street, she is preoccupied with her thoughts, but she has been doing this every Thursday evening after recieving her pay package, AND today is no exception. Today she runs a red light, swearing she saw the green go ahead. She made a human error.

Now here is another class of human errors. This is one, where events which did happen simultaneously are communicated sequentially. The storyteller neglects to inform the listener about the simultaneous nature of the events. The listener is left with the difficulties of understanding in totality what the reporter was trying to communicate.

Sammi Na Boodie ()