Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mr. Sammi · 09-03-2002, 05:59 AM

WHAT IS A HUMAN ERROR?

Most of us may have an understanding concerning legal errors where one ends up in the courts trying to justify our actions which have concerned some within the population.

In brief a legal error constitutes of perceptions, information, knowledge, and associated methods (intelligence)(in totality called a PIKi model) which are attatched to sets of actions and are prescribed as the pitch to be used in the motion of the action BUT execution somewhere within the MODEL failed and a legal error occurred, so we must then face the reality in the courts for our failed PIKi model.

It can easily be said, that the PIKi model for legal errors can be clearly defined and as such it often becomes a regular effort for others, to confront those accused of failing to provide themselves with success through the particular PIKi model...

Moving through the haze of life in order to define a reasonable PIKi model suitable for human interaction becomes difficult because of the infinity of possibilities extant in the humanization process. We can clearly see philosophy (and science) at work underlining its best ontological source so the PIKi model it claims as its own can have a decent regular existence.

What would then clearly constitite a HUMAN ERROR apart from a legal error?

Sammi Na Boodie (in quandry)

09-03-2002, 08:12 AM

How about: anything that violates natural law under which mankind must adapt and procreate for the survival of the species.

Our humanity is the condition needed to select what is good and evil in this respect because we have learned that if we do things wrong things will go wrong with us.

NialScorva · 09-03-2002, 08:24 AM

What?

Mr. Sammi · 09-03-2002, 09:47 AM

One (complicated) HUMAN ERROR can be mis-understanding OR lack of understanding which would qualify it as a HUMAN ERROR under the PIKi model.

Amos : How about a mis-understanding of the natural laws which led to a violation of the natural law which in this context, the law, can be said to have been unknown. It is only when the natural law is fully consumed in knowledge can the possibility of violating this law be lessened.

NialScorva : The PIKi model can be seen in other terms as a skilled Actor (extending Denett). The preception-information-knowledge-intelligence CHAIN, which drives the MODEL should be implemented in American schools, so the possibilities of problematic Americans in society can be lessened.

To understand of what I speak, one has to seperate the FORM of the model FROM the DATA which drives the model FROM the INFORMATION of experience which interacts with the PIKi model.

A little complex for this discussion board, I know, but I try to adhere as much as natural law and my PIKi model allows me, to good philosophical pratices. And what of it?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Clutch · 09-03-2002, 09:58 AM

Quote:

A little complex for this discussion board, I know

One is left to reflect on Peter Medawar's excellent question: Why is this particular fallacy so seductive? Profound ideas are hard to understand; what I have written is hard to understand; therefore, what I have written is a profound idea.

Mr. Sammi · 09-03-2002, 10:30 AM

Clutch, as you reflect on Peter Medawar's question, the subtlety of the complexity of what I have proposed in the PIKi model, with its various levels of examination, necessarily means a very strong reading of the model and its interactions, if one wishes to grasp the full philosophical implication. It was a warning to those who wish to be baptised by fire by using a lightweighted reading .

Clutch, are you claiming what I have encouraged you to think of was profound? If you did, thanks - I appreciate the good words and well-meaning encouragement.

If you found what was written hard to understand? I sympathise with you, the trail to clear understanding is a long and hard road.

Unfortunately the consequent of the proposition of your quote completely fails under the condition where those minds which try to understand the information provided are actually dense(coll.). Perhaps you yourself should have gone for a stronger reading of Medawar's quote before pasting it on a philosophical board.

Sammi Na Boodie (picky picky)

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mr. Sammi ]</p>

09-03-2002, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
<strong>.

It is only when the natural law is fully consumed in knowledge can the possibility of violating this law be lessened.

</strong>

Well you know Sammi, we can always go to Church and let them be our guide until we have full understanding of natural law.

There are good things about violating natural law because until this precise knowledge has arrived in our own mind we must proceed [as if we know] and challenge the existing boundries of our knowledge to beyond the scope of human undestanding. It is in this fashion that we must extent our horizon within this area . . . but it is also for this same reason that we look back in history with nostalgia and a feeling of social and/or personal demise.

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

NialScorva · 09-03-2002, 11:15 AM

Complexity isn't an issue, clear communication and definition of terms is. I have difficulty figuring out what "Legal error" and "human error" have to do with anything, and you don't go into any depth over what your PIKi model is, much less any comparison to other philosophical models that would give one a clear basis of relating your point to knowledge that we already have. My first impression upon reading your post was Sokal-esque without the subtlety.

Mr. Sammi · 09-04-2002, 04:50 AM

NialScorva,

I can admit, I have a few problems with clear communication. I have a tendency to use terms seemingly unknown, but there is a reason for my approach, and here is why.

Given a set of objectives, the patterns in my head which process the means towards the objectives, realise that the recipient of the objectives may be unable to fully process the information in order to derive the required knowledge that illuminates the objectives. To circumvent this problem I use a minimalist approach which should allow the reader the scope to derive the knowledge required VIA the reader's own intellectual processing schemes(my main thrust). It is true in using this approach the reader may "gap" at certain points, or even arrive at a completely different understanding of the subject matter. These effects on the reader I absorb under the protection of error-correction mechanisms.

However, I shall heed your advice and be a little more compromising in my initial information packets, and subsequent replies, after all your attention to these details on this discussion board should not be taken lightly AND will not pass unattended.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi · 09-04-2002, 05:42 AM

Further to my initial post : A legal error in the scope which I am using it is not an error commited in court proceedings. It is an action performed while living life which has been described as outside (not being within) the set of actions prescribed by society through laws passed by the ruling body in the said society. Jay walking is a legal error, consuming illegal drugs is a legal error, driving a car above the prescribed limit is a legal error. The list goes on and on, and can be viewed and learned by anyone interested in knowing all the various legal errors. Lawyers and judges are supposed to be experts in legal errors. Why humans generally are not such experts, may be based on their education systems OR their desire not be become experts on legal errors.

Following the idea of legal errors which are all visibly defined, the idea of human errors rise to the surface. There is no book of human errors which can be consulted therefore the question of WHAT IS A HUMAN ERROR consumes my intellect.

The PIKi model which can be used to appraise legal errors AND as such provide the actions necessary to avoid legal errors IS the basis on which I would like to approach human error, because of its usefullness in learning about legal errors, and its utility in prescribing actions to circumvent legal errors.

The PIKi model is an active model of living life through a bubble, or living life as a character actor (Denett). The particular model is the frame around which the character in the actor becomes visible and apparent. The Perception-Information-Knowledge-Intelligence necessary to support the actor for the actor's role as a particular character IS loosely called the PIKi model. Because of the specificity of the character, that particular model is definable, learnable and provable before live testing commences where the information of experience then truly tests and drives the particular PIKi model. A complex process one can imagine and there are many, many more things which can be said about PIKi models.

We can clearly see some human errors arising due to the lack of human ability in adapting a suitable model. Perception problems may be deemed as a genre of human errors. Inadequate attention spans may be deemed human errors.

In finalising this post, I have come to the conclusion there are various classes of human errors, ranging from simple human errors similar to the two I outlined in the previous paragraph to complicated human errors whose boundries I have yet been unable to define. The question then remains : WHAT IS A HUMAN ERROR?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

09-03-2002, 05:59 AM	#1
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	HUMAN ERROR - LEGAL ERROR WHAT IS A HUMAN ERROR? Most of us may have an understanding concerning legal errors where one ends up in the courts trying to justify our actions which have concerned some within the population. In brief a legal error constitutes of perceptions, information, knowledge, and associated methods (intelligence)(in totality called a PIKi model) which are attatched to sets of actions and are prescribed as the pitch to be used in the motion of the action BUT execution somewhere within the MODEL failed and a legal error occurred, so we must then face the reality in the courts for our failed PIKi model. It can easily be said, that the PIKi model for legal errors can be clearly defined and as such it often becomes a regular effort for others, to confront those accused of failing to provide themselves with success through the particular PIKi model... Moving through the haze of life in order to define a reasonable PIKi model suitable for human interaction becomes difficult because of the infinity of possibilities extant in the humanization process. We can clearly see philosophy (and science) at work underlining its best ontological source so the PIKi model it claims as its own can have a decent regular existence. What would then clearly constitite a HUMAN ERROR apart from a legal error? Sammi Na Boodie (in quandry)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-03-2002, 08:12 AM	#2
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	How about: anything that violates natural law under which mankind must adapt and procreate for the survival of the species. Our humanity is the condition needed to select what is good and evil in this respect because we have learned that if we do things wrong things will go wrong with us.

09-03-2002, 08:24 AM	#3
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	What?

09-03-2002, 09:47 AM	#4
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	One (complicated) HUMAN ERROR can be mis-understanding OR lack of understanding which would qualify it as a HUMAN ERROR under the PIKi model. Amos : How about a mis-understanding of the natural laws which led to a violation of the natural law which in this context, the law, can be said to have been unknown. It is only when the natural law is fully consumed in knowledge can the possibility of violating this law be lessened. NialScorva : The PIKi model can be seen in other terms as a skilled Actor (extending Denett). The preception-information-knowledge-intelligence CHAIN, which drives the MODEL should be implemented in American schools, so the possibilities of problematic Americans in society can be lessened. To understand of what I speak, one has to seperate the FORM of the model FROM the DATA which drives the model FROM the INFORMATION of experience which interacts with the PIKi model. A little complex for this discussion board, I know, but I try to adhere as much as natural law and my PIKi model allows me, to good philosophical pratices. And what of it? Sammi Na Boodie ()

09-03-2002, 10:30 AM	#6
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Clutch, as you reflect on Peter Medawar's question, the subtlety of the complexity of what I have proposed in the PIKi model, with its various levels of examination, necessarily means a very strong reading of the model and its interactions, if one wishes to grasp the full philosophical implication. It was a warning to those who wish to be baptised by fire by using a lightweighted reading . Clutch, are you claiming what I have encouraged you to think of was profound? If you did, thanks - I appreciate the good words and well-meaning encouragement. If you found what was written hard to understand? I sympathise with you, the trail to clear understanding is a long and hard road. Unfortunately the consequent of the proposition of your quote completely fails under the condition where those minds which try to understand the information provided are actually dense(coll.). Perhaps you yourself should have gone for a stronger reading of Medawar's quote before pasting it on a philosophical board. Sammi Na Boodie (picky picky) [ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mr. Sammi ]</p>

09-03-2002, 11:15 AM	#8
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	Complexity isn't an issue, clear communication and definition of terms is. I have difficulty figuring out what "Legal error" and "human error" have to do with anything, and you don't go into any depth over what your PIKi model is, much less any comparison to other philosophical models that would give one a clear basis of relating your point to knowledge that we already have. My first impression upon reading your post was Sokal-esque without the subtlety.

09-04-2002, 04:50 AM	#9
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	NialScorva, I can admit, I have a few problems with clear communication. I have a tendency to use terms seemingly unknown, but there is a reason for my approach, and here is why. Given a set of objectives, the patterns in my head which process the means towards the objectives, realise that the recipient of the objectives may be unable to fully process the information in order to derive the required knowledge that illuminates the objectives. To circumvent this problem I use a minimalist approach which should allow the reader the scope to derive the knowledge required VIA the reader's own intellectual processing schemes(my main thrust). It is true in using this approach the reader may "gap" at certain points, or even arrive at a completely different understanding of the subject matter. These effects on the reader I absorb under the protection of error-correction mechanisms. However, I shall heed your advice and be a little more compromising in my initial information packets, and subsequent replies, after all your attention to these details on this discussion board should not be taken lightly AND will not pass unattended. Sammi Na Boodie ()

09-04-2002, 05:42 AM	#10
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Further to my initial post : A legal error in the scope which I am using it is not an error commited in court proceedings. It is an action performed while living life which has been described as outside (not being within) the set of actions prescribed by society through laws passed by the ruling body in the said society. Jay walking is a legal error, consuming illegal drugs is a legal error, driving a car above the prescribed limit is a legal error. The list goes on and on, and can be viewed and learned by anyone interested in knowing all the various legal errors. Lawyers and judges are supposed to be experts in legal errors. Why humans generally are not such experts, may be based on their education systems OR their desire not be become experts on legal errors. Following the idea of legal errors which are all visibly defined, the idea of human errors rise to the surface. There is no book of human errors which can be consulted therefore the question of WHAT IS A HUMAN ERROR consumes my intellect. The PIKi model which can be used to appraise legal errors AND as such provide the actions necessary to avoid legal errors IS the basis on which I would like to approach human error, because of its usefullness in learning about legal errors, and its utility in prescribing actions to circumvent legal errors. The PIKi model is an active model of living life through a bubble, or living life as a character actor (Denett). The particular model is the frame around which the character in the actor becomes visible and apparent. The Perception-Information-Knowledge-Intelligence necessary to support the actor for the actor's role as a particular character IS loosely called the PIKi model. Because of the specificity of the character, that particular model is definable, learnable and provable before live testing commences where the information of experience then truly tests and drives the particular PIKi model. A complex process one can imagine and there are many, many more things which can be said about PIKi models. We can clearly see some human errors arising due to the lack of human ability in adapting a suitable model. Perception problems may be deemed as a genre of human errors. Inadequate attention spans may be deemed human errors. In finalising this post, I have come to the conclusion there are various classes of human errors, ranging from simple human errors similar to the two I outlined in the previous paragraph to complicated human errors whose boundries I have yet been unable to define. The question then remains : WHAT IS A HUMAN ERROR? Sammi Na Boodie ()

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.