Religion III

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am only skimming what you write.

You repeat the same old same old, without the background needed to do what you only imagine.

No you do not understand how to work towards a goal. Particularity one that requires experience, That requires learning how in a specific field......past instances of cause and effect....are explicit related. That takes first hand knowledge.

Yes projecting, visualizing, or imagining the outcome of what one goal is, may be a part of the overall process, but never is it all or most.

That visualization or imagining may be part of one's motivation to complete a goal. But way before visualizing the outcome of ones goal can be attempted skillfully, one must be fully present in the here and now with an equal eye on on the past, and what had worked in past instances of cause and effect, to help foster and steer one's goal in the here and now,....... to manifest as desired.

That is my experience. You obviously have none. Only theories and baseball stats. Hey maybe I am wrong. I asked you this before.Tell is one instance in a field you know, where you did create something practically.

Sorry advising a computer programmer is not programming.

I don't need any background in this, that or any other thing -- except how life works and how human beings work!

Nor do I have to understand "how to work towards a goal". I just need to understand WHAT a goal is! A goal is a specific end in mind towards which effort is directed! Period.

And you can keep diminishing the dominance and importance of intellect by reducing coherent, intelligible conceptions to mere imagination, but that isn't how the real world works either. (I'm sure you can imagine scaling up the sides of tall skyscrapers like Spiderman; but what none of can do is coherently conceive achieving that actual ability without the aid of external devices.) However, even if Edison had only "imagined" his electrical device emitting light in a space, then that was his desired effect -- his desired end -- his desired outcome -- his purpose -- all which existed in his intellect long before the bulb itself existed in this physical world.

In fact, what made your official position even more laughably ludicrous was your idea that desire for wanting a thing could only be concurrent with actually having the thing! Again, here's the lunacy you wrote:

HCAP EXHIBIT B:

In no way does the thought of, imagined outcome, or EFFECT desired exist until the device is built. THEREFORE Edison in inventing the light bulb first generated the desire, the knowledge and put into action what was necessary to CAUSE the light bulb.

You're telling us that the desire for the effect doesn't even exist until [after] the freakin' light bulb exists! But why would one have a desire for something -- want something - wish for something - long for something -- that he already has!?

Your worldview is so twisted and convoluted and incoherent, I think it's beyond you to write two consecutively coherent sentences -- and in many cases you can't even compose one such sentence!

In fact, the term "desire" "stresses the strength of feeling and often implies strong intention or aim" (M-W Collegiate, emphasis mine)

So according to the incoherent drivel you wrote above, Edison never intended to invent the light bulb until after it existed! He never had that goal in mind prior to it actually existing! (Remember: goal is synonymous with intention.) Stated differently, Edison never aimed toward any end or effect or until after the fact --until after the bulb existed.

You need some very serious help...the sooner, the better.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I don't need to do anything. Usually when using an analogous example, something heretofore won't have been "spoken about". That's the point of the analogy. I don't need to do anything especially in an argument where the crux lies in accepting final causes because intentionality in nature (again, non-rational things A that regularly produce B but not C or D...require external explanation (besides efficient) for their causal power, i.e., become secondary causes). That's a philosophical position like the choice to accept only efficient causation (and then haggle about sequential order in efficient causation ad nauseam, which no one disputes unless boxcar did somewhere- I don't know).

You must first establish "intentionality in nature among non rational beings". Teleology is not a given among all us "modernists". A debatable conundrum does not lend itself to a workable or clear analogy. Cause and effect among all things......both rational and non rational things.....are not time revers able except on the quantum level...at least among non rational sub atomic particles/waves

[hcap]

Boxcar Exhibit A:

I am not able to think clearly.
And I admit I have no experience first hand in creating practical things, nor know anything about technological stuff

Just as I thought.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Just as I thought.

People who live in glass houses should not be brick tossers:

HCAP EXHIBIT B:

In no way does the thought of, imagined outcome, or EFFECT desired exist until the device is built. THEREFORE Edison in inventing the light bulb first generated the desire, the knowledge and put into action what was necessary to CAUSE the light bulb.

[hcap]

Drop, your bone fido. I am not playing anymore back to the future time games

Arf. Arf.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by hcap

You must first establish "intentionality in nature among non rational beings". Teleology is not a given among all us "modernists". A debatable conundrum does not lend itself to a workable or clear analogy. Cause and effect among all things......both rational and non rational things.....are not time revers able except on the quantum level...at least among non rational sub atomic particles/waves

"Teleology is not a given"...Which is why I labeled it as philosophical, though I'm personally very suspect of the motivation for it's denial. Suppress it in one place, it pops up in another, i.e., its everywhere in nature. For example, you're responding to mostly specific points in my specific post, within a physical system which has been defined as indeterminate by modern physics.

"us "modernists"...The Early Moderns discarded all or partial aspects of teleology due to a philosophically mechanistic conception of nature. That is what is at issue for advocates of immanent teleology in nature.

"A debatable conundrum does not lend itself to a workable or clear analogy."...The analogy was to Halv, comparing the public's apathy to cause/effect with their similar apathy toward a fundamental aspect of physics (QM). That is, unnoticed but important aspects of intelligible reality.

"Cause and effect among all things......both rational and non rational things.....are not time revers able"...Assuming final causes, one looks at the oak to explain the acorn conceptually, not as a time reversal maneuver. I'm unable to see where considering the oak to explain the acorn's final cause, involves violating the common sense experience of temporal time.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

HCAP EXHIBIT B:

In no way does the thought of, imagined outcome, or EFFECT desired exist until the device is built. THEREFORE Edison in inventing the light bulb first generated the desire, the knowledge and put into action what was necessary to CAUSE the light bulb.

I already explained this to you. Last time. I can see how my language was not as clear as I meast it
Drop your bone fido.

.......The actual effect(s) of an actual cause(s)will not exist until acted upon and brought to fruition.

However, it may may be thought of, envisioned, imagined, projected, conjure (up), dreamt of, fancied, fantasized, pictured, or visualized.

The actual real physical effect off Edison's light bulb is not what Edison was able to abstract before it was built. That is why blueprints of a skyscraper although in extreme detail, are not the final outcome or effect of causing the structure to be built completely.

MUCH PROJECTING AND WORK GOES INTO BLUEPRINTS. They are meant as goals not effects.

As I said our ability to project may be one of the reasons we are motivated. As well as fame and fortune.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I already explained this to you. Last time. I can see how my language was not as clear as I meast it
Drop your bone fido.

.......The actual effect(s) of an actual cause(s)will not exist until acted upon and brought to fruition.

However, it may may be thought of, envisioned, imagined, projected, conjure (up), dreamt of, fancied, fantasized, pictured, or visualized.

The actual real physical effect off Edison's light bulb is not what Edison was able to abstract before it was built. That is why blueprints of a skyscraper although in extreme detail, are not the final outcome or effect of causing the structure to be built completely.

MUCH PROJECTING AND WORK GOES INTO BLUEPRINTS. They are meant as goals not effects.

As I said our ability to project may be one of the reasons we are motivated. As well as fame and fortune.

(emphasis above mine)

So...when you say "thought of", you are saying that the effect that Edison coherently conceived first existed in intellect! The effect existed mentally before "actually" (physically)! But this doesn't make the mental activity involved any less real than the physical activity required to bring about the effect in the physical world. And why is this? Because for something to be actual, it means, among other things, that a thing exists in fact or reality. (M-W Collegiate).

But you don't want to believe that our thoughts are real! This is why weeks ago you vehemently and adamantly rejected my premise that mental acts and physical acts are equally valid realities. In fact, in all likelihood, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine and other great thinkers of stature would consider the "realities" to be one reality, since we human beings are composites, consisting of matter and the non-physical. Therefore, the immaterial part of us, such as mind, is a deeper aspect to the one reality of our humanity.

Don't forget: According to Wiki human thoughts are generally aim-directed -- aim-oriented.

You have lost this debate, Humpty, because you have just admitted that effects (ends, purposes, outcomes, results, end products, etc. ) may [actually] exist in our thoughts --that they can indeed be coherently conceived and grasped in intellect. The only way to deny this is to deny the reality of our thought life! It is to deny the fact of our thought life.

Be my guest and take this route; but you will only prove to one and all that you are indeed the Poster Boy for the very Idiocy you champion and advocate, and all your loony posts confirm this fact!

Also,as pointed out numerous times [b]goals entail effects, ends, outcomes, results, aims, purpose and intenionity. A goal without any of these attributes is not a goal! You can try to redefine "goal" until you're blue in the face, but it's not going to fly! A goal IS a specific END toward which an effort is directed.. And goals and ends exist in intellect prior to us acting upon them physically.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I found this after a google search for "goal oriented problem solving in technology" Btw, millions of hits.

https://www.google.com/search?client...30.UZCtagKUOv0

7 steps. But no visualizing the effect before the cause. How come box?

My version of silly dictionary definitions.
Do a search on "effect before cause" problem solving.

Let us know

The topic under discussion is not about "goal oriented problem solving". The topic is whether or not effects exist in intellect prior to existing in the phycial world. This is the singular issue. Goals only enter into this discussion to the extent that specific ends are envisioned, grasped or held in intellect in order for the goal to have a directed effort.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I gotta go through five f'ing pages to found out why Adam and Eve didn't have the same DNA - she came from his rib after all - and how two people with the same DNA could start a line that ultimately wound up with 8 different blood types.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...when you say "thought of", you are saying that the effect that Edison coherently conceived first existed in intellect! The effect existed mentally before "actually" (physically)! But this doesn't make the mental activity involved any less real than the physical activity required to bring about the effect in the physical world. And why is this? Because for something to be actual, it means, among other things, that a thing exists in fact or reality. (M-W Collegiate)

No that is your half baked theory. If you had ever created something you would know the ability to project an aim or goal encompasses that aim in the context of the entire project.

Edison did not have a dream or vision from on high of a light floating off in the distance unconnected to his desire to accomplish his invention. I keep trying to tall you.....before one can envision the outcome of one's invention, some sort of idea of the invention must exist first.

From my own experience I can tell you without going thru' the school of hard knocks and learning from past instances of how cause and effect are inherently related, coming up with anything workable, practical and new.....is a pipe dream.. You forget the first part of the equation, skipping to a later step. Before you can create, you must have the knowledge and ability to envision your goal. It also helps to have motivation and pride in your work.

And who and what preceded you.

Officially in order to earn a patent, your invention gets examined for "novelty" I have done my own patent searches. Used to be before everything was computerized, vast collections of patents were grouped together in the the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in DC., under the agency in the U.S.department of Commerce. Highly organized by various criteria. I could study what was called 'prior art" to see if I could claim specifics for my invention's novelty.

You must be aware of much more that an unembodied floating light.

Do you play an instrument? Try composing a tune without being aware of where the notes are.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

"Teleology is not a given"...Which is why I labeled it as philosophical, though I'm personally very suspect of the motivation for it's denial. Suppress it in one place, it pops up in another, i.e., its everywhere in nature. For example, you're responding to mostly specific points in my specific post, within a physical system which has been defined as indeterminate by modern physics.

I thought you were using teleology as one of your givens.

You said...

I don't need to do anything especially in an argument where the crux lies in accepting final causes because intentionality in nature (again, non-rational things A that regularly produce B but not C or D...require external explanation (besides efficient) for their causal power, i.e., become secondary causes). That's a philosophical position like the choice to accept only efficient causation (and then haggle about sequential order in efficient causation ad nauseam, which no one disputes unless boxcar did somewhere- I don't know).

Please explain

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

No that is your half baked theory. If you had ever created something you would know the ability to project an aim or goal encompasses that aim in the context of the entire project.

Edison did not have a dream or vision from on high of a light floating off in the distance unconnected to his desire to accomplish his invention. I keep trying to tall you.....before one can envision the outcome of one's invention, some sort of idea of the invention must exist first.

From my own experience I can tell you without going thru' the school of hard knocks and learning from past instances of how cause and effect are inherently related, coming up with anything workable, practical and new.....is a pipe dream.. You forget the first part of the equation, skipping to a later step. Before you can create, you must have the knowledge and ability to envision your goal. It also helps to have motivation and pride in your work.

And who and what preceded you.

Officially in order to earn a patent, your invention gets examined for "novelty" I have done my own patent searches. Used to be before everything was computerized, vast collections of patents were grouped together in the the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in DC., under the agency in the U.S.department of Commerce. Highly organized by various criteria. I could study what was called 'prior art" to see if I could claim specifics for my invention's novelty.

You must be aware of much more that an unembodied floating light.

Do you play an instrument? Try composing a tune without being aware of where the notes are.

Blah,blah,blah,blah,blah. Man,are you boring and verbose -- all the name of trying to prove how smart you are.

But you are right about Edison: He didn't have any pipe dreams or fantasies or visions from on high about a floating light. What he coherently conceived in mind was a kernel of an idea for an device that would radiate light by electricity.And that was all he needed to get started. This kernel of an idea was the end he had in mind. And that end (result, outcome, effect) provided him with the specific enough target for him to aim for to have a rational goal in the first place. No inventor or author or designer or artist ever has every single, intricate piece or detail of a thing initially in mind when conceiving an idea. Only God can do that!. Edison's goal, then, was to subsequently pursue ways to implement his idea. His physical work, activity, effort was initiated by his antecedent mental activity.

One cannot have a goal apart from having a specific end (effect or outcome) in mind. (A goal without a specific end in MIND would be as useless as a compass without a needle!) It is in the pursuit of achieving the end wherein all the many details are hammered out and nuts and bolts are discovered. As you yourself have often said, the Goal is not the Effect! Nor is the Effect the Goal. The pursuit of or the effort put in toward achieving the Effect, first coherently conceived in mind, is the process by which all the many details are discovered, researched, tested and worked out. This is what all Edison's experiments were all about -- the pursuit of the end product of his goal.

But you're trying to conflate an idea initially conceived in intellect that grasped a specific effect (end) with the physical process that necessarily involves, among many other things, testing subsequent ideas that would serve as sufficient causes to actualize the desired effect in the physical realm.

You are desperately attempting to conflate the mental activity, wherein the idea was coherently conceived for an electrical device with a specific end (effect) in mind, with the physical process necessary to work toward that specific end which was first conceived in intellect. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the latter activity would never take place at all, apart from the necessary former activity.

Just as it only takes only but a small spark to ignite a raging firestorm, likewise it takes but a kernel of a rational, coherently conceived idea to launch as many experiments as it takes to achieve the desired effect originally contained in the idea.

What I just laid out above in these last few paragraphs is how Effects in intellect must logically precede effects in the physical world. All the subsequent ideas and physical effort involved in the pursuit of a particular end (effect), which would also necessarily entail discovering sufficient causes to realize the end in the physical world, presuppose that the end was held in intellect first. Without an antecedent end (effect) grasped in intellect, there can be no physically, rationally directed effort to accomplish that end in the physical realm. The Effect initially held in intellect is the dominating and controlling impetus that directs any subsequent physical effort to achieve the desired end.

P.S.
Now, tell me, Mr. Halv, that I'm not the King of Analogies --providing two great ones in one post. ;

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...when you say "thought of", you are saying that the effect that Edison coherently conceived first existed in intellect! The effect existed mentally before "actually" (physically)! But this doesn't make the mental activity involved any less real than the physical activity required to bring about the effect in the physical world. And why is this? Because for something to be actual, it means, among other things, that a thing exists in fact or reality. (M-W Collegiate)

Originally Posted by hcap

No that is your half baked theory. If you had ever created something you would know the ability to project an aim or goal encompasses that aim in the context of the entire project.

Edison did not have a dream or vision from on high of a light floating off in the distance unconnected to his desire to accomplish his invention. I keep trying to tall you.....before one can envision the outcome of one's invention, some sort of idea of the invention must exist first.

One of my long term goals was to improve on what is called the "infinitely variable transmission", or continuously variable transmission. Internal combustion engines are most efficient over a relatively narrow band of rotational speeds. Transmissions, either auto or manual are used to try to keep the car engine within those bands........while allowing the vehicles speed to be varied.

The automatic transmission has an infinitely variable "gear ratio" using a hydraulic torque converter. It is smooth, easy to use, quiet, but very inefficient at particular gear ratios, not as efficient as a well driven manual.
There are mechanical varieties of continuously variable gearsets, but as of now limited in power handling.

Variomatic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variomatic
Variomatic is the continuously variable transmission (CVT) of the Dutch car manufacturer DAF, originally developed by Hub van Doorne:[1] It is a stepless, fully automatic transmission consisting of a "V" shaped drive belt and two pulleys, each of two cones, whose effective diameter can be changed so that the "V" belt runs nearer the spindle or nearer the rim, depending on the separation of the cones. These are synchronized so that the belt always remains at the same optimal tension.

[/quote] I attempted all sorts of new ideas using variable hydraulic pistons, to orbital gyroscopic torque multipliers to variable metal to metal "traction" or tooth less drives. Without much success. Very tough problem.

However in the process of working on this main problem I came up with a fixed gear ratio "traction" drive using planetary type orbital pathways. And no teeth on the gears.

There was never an unembodied flash of light preceding that conception. Never an effect visualized. Other than the thought of very high gear ratios used in industrial devices which could be produced for less money than the existing high ratio gearing...... that was used. All the knowledge gained in searching, researching and working on my main goal led to something very different....Serendipitously

Yes the inspiration for what was the final outcome came to me before I built the trial configuration, but it was not a flash out of the blue I imagined .

And it certainly did not come first

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But you are right about Edison: He didn't have any pipe dreams or fantasies or visions from on high about a floating light. What he coherently conceived in mind was a kernel of an idea for an device that would radiate light by electricity.And that was all he needed to get started. This kernel of an idea was the end he had in mind. And that end (result, outcome, effect) provided him with the specific enough target for him to aim for to have a rational goal in the first place. No inventor or author or designer or artist ever has every single, intricate piece or detail of a thing initially in mind when conceiving an idea. Only God can do that!. Edison's goal, then, was to subsequently pursue ways to implement his idea. His physical work, activity, effort was initiated by his antecedent mental activity.

Eh bunky, you said effect may precedes cause in the intellect. A kernel of an idea is not the effect of that idea.

You are not listening to my experience. Rather your own inexperience. You cannot theorize your way to what works in the real world.

Of course you can imagine your way to anything MENTALLY, but so what?oun d: