4 ms·

> is aiming to master the rock that is the Earth Genes aren't goal directed towards something higher. > This cause requires no convincing because only winners

> is aiming to master the rock that is the Earth Genes aren't goal directed towards something higher. > This cause requires no convincing because only winners get to play the next round The 'winners', us humans, are literally destroying the ecosphere which supports our life. > Understanding is overrated. That's an appeal to ignorance. > Control does not require it [understanding] We can control something without understanding it? Most of science would disagree.

renewiltord 6y ago
> Genes aren't goal directed towards something higher. No, but "this gene cluster" is me - and I am goal-directed. > We can control something without understanding it? Most of science would disagree. No, they wouldn't. Epistemology has progressed beyond this. Models have various levels of fidelity. And 'understanding' is a colloquial term that refers to a higher standard of fidelity than that required for control. Few drivers know how their cars work. Most drivers can drive their cars. But I do enjoy the amusing attempt at cutting out the sentence to create damning gotchas. Here, I mimicked your style and made one from your comment: > We can control something without understanding it Why, thank you for agreeing with me! Quite gratifying to receive such support.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > and I am goal-directed. OK, straight questiom goal directed towards what? > And 'understanding' is a colloquial term that refers to a higher standard of fidelity than that required for control Don't agree - further > Few drivers know how their cars work. Most drivers can drive their cars. Understanding is about understanding of aspects. They may well not understand the engine aspect (how it works precisely) but "Most drivers can drive their cars" means they control their cars, which means they understand what happens when a steering wheel is turned, and how not to grind the gears, and not to hit accelerator and brake together. They model it. That is the embodiment of their understanding. Without that they could not control a car. > Why, thank you for... Quite clearly there was a question mark at the end it to indicate my implied doubt. Science seeks better understanding of x so it can manipulate x more precisely. Please give me a couple of examples of complex systems which we don't understand but can control, so I can understand you better.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    > OK, straight questiom goal directed towards what? Well, my goals (like anyone's) are far too nuanced to get into in their entirety. But for the sake of this discussion, we can assume that the endurance of sapience is desirable to me. Happy to conclude the 'understanding' discussion by replacement with 'understanding of fundamentals and nth-order consequences for n > 3' if that will do the trick. As for the rest, you're going to have to stop butchering my sentences. > Quite clearly there was a question mark at the end it to indicate my implied doubt. Indeed there was, but I was able to (like you did) chop off the comment and create a 'quotation' that had you take the opposite position. Normally, that would be disingenuous but I did it solely to show you what you were doing.

renewiltord 6y ago

> Genes aren't goal directed towards something higher. No, but "this gene cluster" is me - and I am goal-directed. > We can control something without understanding it? Most of science would disagree. No, they wouldn't. Epistemology has progressed beyond this. Models have various levels of fidelity. And 'understanding' is a colloquial term that refers to a higher standard of fidelity than that required for control. Few drivers know how their cars work. Most drivers can drive their cars. But I do enjoy the amusing attempt at cutting out the sentence to create damning gotchas. Here, I mimicked your style and made one from your comment: > We can control something without understanding it Why, thank you for agreeing with me! Quite gratifying to receive such support.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> and I am goal-directed. OK, straight questiom goal directed towards what? > And 'understanding' is a colloquial term that refers to a higher standard of fidelity than that required for control Don't agree - further > Few drivers know how their cars work. Most drivers can drive their cars. Understanding is about understanding of aspects. They may well not understand the engine aspect (how it works precisely) but "Most drivers can drive their cars" means they control their cars, which means they understand what happens when a steering wheel is turned, and how not to grind the gears, and not to hit accelerator and brake together. They model it. That is the embodiment of their understanding. Without that they could not control a car. > Why, thank you for... Quite clearly there was a question mark at the end it to indicate my implied doubt. Science seeks better understanding of x so it can manipulate x more precisely. Please give me a couple of examples of complex systems which we don't understand but can control, so I can understand you better.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  > OK, straight questiom goal directed towards what? Well, my goals (like anyone's) are far too nuanced to get into in their entirety. But for the sake of this discussion, we can assume that the endurance of sapience is desirable to me. Happy to conclude the 'understanding' discussion by replacement with 'understanding of fundamentals and nth-order consequences for n > 3' if that will do the trick. As for the rest, you're going to have to stop butchering my sentences. > Quite clearly there was a question mark at the end it to indicate my implied doubt. Indeed there was, but I was able to (like you did) chop off the comment and create a 'quotation' that had you take the opposite position. Normally, that would be disingenuous but I did it solely to show you what you were doing.