Alrighty then. apologies.
It’s tied to this sort of thing. Not specifically, but it does deal with some of the aspects involved in the question and answer set. Is it the data? Various forms of human related (psychology and medical, etc) research are only too aware of how data can be corrupting if not properly couched and understood. Physics, at the cutting edge, can be guilty of not dealing with this all too human problem.
Where the trinity of human, question, and answer... all have to be equal to the scenario at hand. Like a three legged chair, with one leg missing, if the human has faults in the relationship to/with the two other... the functionality becomes...non existent.
High level questions with high level answers require high levels of perfection of the human in the hot seat. Thus the line of requiring to raise yourself to the level of the question, in order to reach it. That moment when Richard Feynman was asked to explain the Nobel he received to someone.. and his reply was.. they gave him the Nobel because...-he could not explain it to them.
Once you’ve attacked, I am only properly wary. For all the right reasons.
And in better news today, spinal cords:https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-06-acute-spinal-cord-injury-monkeys.html
Part of how objectivity is a subset of subjective reality. All of science, with it’s expression of objectivity can be put in a jar and put inside the box of philosophy. There’s a lot going on in the science jar, sure. It forgets, though, it has learned improperly, for the vast number of adherents within science. Too many generations, too many layers, too wide a scope.. and it can be, and has been - forgotten. Too many layers of people and this all important fundamental can be lost. That it is ultimately, logically, born from and is a child of philosophy.
But that thing about cutting edge physics and how ALL of the human in the equation must be fully ’in’. (the three legged chair) And that involves human psychology had philosophy. So one had better be equal to the question, otherwise the answer will be garbled, if not worse.
And, I think I've got to lay off the coffee.
Drink a whole pot and that pile appears on the page. Whew.
It’s tied to this sort of thing. Not specifically, but it does deal with some of the aspects involved in the question and answer set. Is it the data? Various forms of human related (psychology and medical, etc) research are only too aware of how data can be corrupting if not properly couched and understood. Physics, at the cutting edge, can be guilty of not dealing with this all too human problem.
Where the trinity of human, question, and answer... all have to be equal to the scenario at hand. Like a three legged chair, with one leg missing, if the human has faults in the relationship to/with the two other... the functionality becomes...non existent.
High level questions with high level answers require high levels of perfection of the human in the hot seat. Thus the line of requiring to raise yourself to the level of the question, in order to reach it. That moment when Richard Feynman was asked to explain the Nobel he received to someone.. and his reply was.. they gave him the Nobel because...-he could not explain it to them.
Why do this sort of thing? The purpose is an exercise in getting a useful grip on what can go wrong. "Norman is born from the fact that the data that is used to teach a machine learning algorithm can significantly influence its behavior. So when people talk about AI algorithms being biased and unfair, the culprit is often not the algorithm itself, but the biased data that was fed to it. The same method can see very different things in an image, even sick things, if trained on the wrong (or, the right!) data set."https://techxplore.com/news/2018-06-inkblot-ai-omg-street-stabbing.html
Once you’ve attacked, I am only properly wary. For all the right reasons.
And in better news today, spinal cords:https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-06-acute-spinal-cord-injury-monkeys.html
Part of how objectivity is a subset of subjective reality. All of science, with it’s expression of objectivity can be put in a jar and put inside the box of philosophy. There’s a lot going on in the science jar, sure. It forgets, though, it has learned improperly, for the vast number of adherents within science. Too many generations, too many layers, too wide a scope.. and it can be, and has been - forgotten. Too many layers of people and this all important fundamental can be lost. That it is ultimately, logically, born from and is a child of philosophy.
But that thing about cutting edge physics and how ALL of the human in the equation must be fully ’in’. (the three legged chair) And that involves human psychology had philosophy. So one had better be equal to the question, otherwise the answer will be garbled, if not worse.
And, I think I've got to lay off the coffee.
Drink a whole pot and that pile appears on the page. Whew.