What’s up everyone, I’m back with a little thought experiment I’d like to share with you. I’m doing it with a new format that I’ve been wanting to try out lately, because it allows me to share more in less time. Plus, you don’t have to end up reading a gigantic long post.
Video has its advantages, but please excuse me if my voice sounds a little weird. I recorded the whole thing right after waking up. Alrighty then, let’s begin. Watch the video below. 
I’ll be doing a follow-up post update after this, but for now, who would you rather trust more? X or Y?
UPDATE: Many of the first 20 comments contain no direct answer to the main question - whether the pick is Mr. X or Mr. Y.
That’s partially due to a blunder on my part for not making the thought experiment coherent enough, so I don’t blame those of you who who over-analyzed the story and came up with hilarious non-answers. 
For example, I didn’t have a particular reason for stating the one day time period it took both Mr. X and Mr. Y to finish their bridges. The stated short time period wasn’t meant to sound like some miraculous feat, but a number of you perceived it as such, which was quite intriguing. Regarding Harvard apparently not offering civil engineering courses, well, it wasn’t meant to cast doubt on Mr. X’s genuine honesty.
Both Mr. X and Mr. Y are good honest men. It’s just that the basis of their bridge building and design efforts are different.
All in all, the feedback was ultimately good because it’s going to help me refine this thought experiment and make it more coherent. It also helps me prepare the ground to move forward with certain related topics I want to begin discussing. More importantly, if we only take into account the answers that did make a clear pick between X or Y, then we have an obvious winner.
Here are the answers (they are limited to ones from the first 20 comments in this post and the first six comments posted over at YouTube):
Zoxuf - “I would go with Mr. X because his method of bridge building has been proven to be reliable in the past while Y’s method has not yet been proven.”
Andrew Brehm - “I’ll have to agree with Zoxuf… I’d trust Mr. X more.”
Elizabeth - “I agree with Andrew. I believe in G-d, but I can’t be sure that Mr. Y actually was inspired by G-d. I’ll pick Mr. X’s bridge.”
Optimist - “I like intuitions and convictions, but only when they are my own, thereby making it hard to trust Mr. Y’s bridge… Honestly, trusting a person with conviction and intuition seems romantic, but in this case it’s also flirting with death. I don’t like crocodiles. So Harvard grad’s bridge it is!”
lirun - “i would trust mr x.. assuming i dont need to double guess his credentials”
Amjad - “I would trust Mr. Y more, because Mr. X is a big fat liar! Harvard University does NOT offer Civil Engineering degrees, so Mr.X is a liar! :P”
yaeli13 - “Yikes, I might rather build my own boat. I’d probably go with Mr. X though.”
StephenM02 - “mr. x”
… and the score is (drumroll)
- Total clear picks: 8
- Picks favoring Mr. X: 7
- Picks favoring Mr. Y: 1
Mr. X wins.
The results don’t surprise me. Do they surprise you?
To some of you, this might just be a simple fun silly thought experiment, but to me, it’s much deeper than that. The answers this experiment generates are precisely the kind that have huge political and social consequences on everyday life.
I trust in reason, and it seems like most of you who gave an answer do too. Whereas when it comes to faith, I only revere and respect the uplifting kind in non-rational and non-empirical matters, which cannot be proven or dis-proven, but I will not be dogmatically bound to it.
More in an upcoming post.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 60 comments… read them below or add one }
I would trust neither because neither of them could have possibly built a bridge over night. It’s all an illusion.
; - p
LOL AK, alright, fair enough ya akheena. Still though, you’ve got to pick one, and given your reasonable answer above, I’m thinking you’ll probably trust X more.
I would go with Mr. X because his method of bridge building has been proven to be reliable in the past while Y’s method has not yet been proven.
I’ll have to agree with Zoxuf.
Mr. X gave us more information and a way to reproduce his results. Using Mr. X’s method I could build the bridge too.
I’m not sure if the one day time period has a meaning here. Do we need faith to believe Mr. X and Mr. Y?
If we assume that building a bridge over night is reasonable, I’d trust Mr. X more.
But if we assume that it is not, and that hence Mr. X’s method as described wouldn’t have worked and we thus know that he lied, then I don’t know whom I would trust more.
i am guessing that this is some sort of rationality point. arguing why so people choose Y ( religion ) over X (science ).
by the way Drima i really enjoy your blogg, im glad to see sudanese thinkers out there in the blogosphere.
I don’t think so. I think the point is not about whether religious people choose one and non-religious people choose the other, but about how people arrive at conclusions, regardless whether those conclusions then include a religion or not.
For example, I believe in G-d, go to synagogue, celebrate most holidays mostly in what approximates a traditional way, but chose Mr X.
Question is, when Mr. Y said he’d build the bridge, did he know back then that he’d have this blueprint in his Nap dream?!!!
I agree with Andrew. I believe in G-d, but I can’t be sure that Mr. Y actually was inspired by G-d. I’ll pick Mr. X’s bridge.
Mazen,
That is an excellent point!
Mr Y was relying on faith, that’s fine. But once you rely on faith and PROMISE the results to someone else, you become a liar. G-d’s good will cannot be promised to other people, cannot be sold, cannot be tested. What Mr Y did was testing G-d, and that’s forbidden (for good reason).
I like intuitions and convictions, but only when they are my own, thereby making it hard to trust Mr. Y’s bridge. Also, his conviction that the bridge is the best one is based on a mere dream…yea, I don’t about that. (maybe if he crosses it right before my eyes first…)
Coincidentally, Mr. X’s bridge is based on his own education at Harvard, even though that’s his own education, it seems to be based on a firm educational foundation backed by scientific rationale. Education and rationality is less shaky and more credible when transferred to other minds, so I think Mr. X’s reasoning seems more comforting.
Then again, physics and scientific facts have been proved wrong many times, which leaves room for doubt about the absolute reliability of Mr. X’s bridge.
Also, we know of Mr. X’s credentials, so he is probably, even if mistake, sane and tried to the best of his ability. But what makes Mr. Y capable of building a bridge and not me? Does he have any intellectual/physical/supernatural superiority over me?
Honestly, trusting a person with conviction and intuition seems romantic, but in this case it’s also flirting with death. I don’t like crocodiles. So Harvard grad’s bridge it is!
Are you sure the crocodiles in your pictures are all actually crocodiles and not alligators? That might really influence my opinion you know…
i would trust mr x.. assuming i dont need to double guess his credentials - i would trust that a higher majority of harvard grads would get it right over the majority of crack pots telling me the saw my bridge in their dreams.. having said that i dont know i would feel the same for intangible crocodiles.. on the contrary i would lean towards the dreamer..
is that hypocritical maybe? but with the physical you need to consolidate your reliance onto one person whereas with the abstract you can share the solution..
i like your riddle.. many life parallels exist.. i cant believe you stole my sign off of peace salam shalom (i recently added ciao and a kiss haha also)..
I would trust Mr. Y more, because Mr. X is a big fat liar!
Harvard University does NOT offer Civil Engineering degrees, so Mr.X is a liar!
Neither of them are particularly trustworthy.
Mr. X has a (unverified, but lets say for the sake of argument that he does indeed have one) degree in Civil Engineering, but that doesn’t automatically make him qualified to build a bridge. I have a degree in Political Science, but you don’t see people running to me asking me to be their country’s president.
Mr. Y doesn’t have any qualifications, but the fact is that he built a bridge that, at very least, is holding its own weight across the river. That’s not an insignificant feat in and of itself. That a total layman could accomplish that as the result of a dream does tend to lend itself to some sort of “diving inspiration.”
I’d say flip a coin, and hope the crocs are dieting.
But building a bridge overnight? Hum…
First I would like to see those bridges.
And then l would ask each one of them to cross the bridge first… as if it were some “Quality Assurance Test”
Actually, they reopened the engineer school:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D07E0DC1339E13ABC4851DFB4678383609EDE
So, I have the unverified background of Mr. X as a Civil Engineer, and the unverified inspiration that Mr. Y had.
Mr. X can even have a diploma, which is not the same as showing me that he actually a person who deserves to hold said diploma. I know nothing of his experience in the field. I do not have a set of his works to observe, and whose engineering quality I can verify by impartial experts. I *do* hold a more than basic understanding of physics - but that is not enough for me to verify Mr. X’s credentials properly. Mr. X can be an actual Civil Engineer and a dangerous idiot to boot. From my own experience both in the academia and my professional meetings, idiots with diplomas can be quite common.
Mr. Y on the other hand, tells me that he works purely by inspiration. He does not present engineering credentials. He might be a self-trained man who has a long experience in building this and that. He might even be a genius for all I know - just not a very organized and methodical one. One of the main characters in a book I’m reading(Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson) is Lawrence Pritchard Waterhouse. He’s a brilliant mathematician. He observes the entire world in purely mathematical terms. As such, he’s eccentric, completely unsuitable for the academic life (he failed in all of his attempts to attain any degree), and the US Navy’s intellect tests marked him as someone only suitable to play on a ship’s band. And this doesn’t change the fact that he can analyze mathematical concepts in his head in scant seconds, and has a natural affinity to finding order in supposed randomness - in short, he’s a cryptographer. An expert at it. And he operates mostly in realms far beyond the understanding of anyone else, who summarily see in him an idiot.
Without additional information, I’d be forced to rely on my scant understanding of bridge construction to attempt and verify the soundness of each bridge before crossing. If I could reasonably verify Mr. X’s engineering expertise, I’d favor his bridge. If I could reasonably verify some aspect of Mr. Y’s inspirational capacity (the mere fact that he manged to build the bridge is an amazing feat in itself!) I might favor his.
But without additional data? At all? I’d pick the bridge of the man who is willing to walk over his bridge all the way to the other side of the river, and then follow after him when I see that he survived.
Andrew Brehm - They did. But they still do NOT offer Civil Engineering degrees. Go check their website. Having an engineering school does not necessarily mean that you have a Civil Engineering program.
In the end, Mr.X lied, and apart from the fact that Harvard University does not offer Civil Engineering degrees, I don’t buy the “I studied all kinds of engineering” BS.
Drima, where the hell is ur follow-up?
I was joshing. The article I linked to was from 1918.
Andrew Brehm - Yeah, I noticed that as well. lol.
LOL, some of you guys have painted hilarious scenarios. This one from Twitter is my favorite though.
Kawdess@dirtymuslimblgr Can’t I just kill Mr. X and Mr Y, chop them up, throw the pieces into the river and swim while the crocs are distracted?
There is a component in all parts of life that’s very important: trust. Look at how this is developing: most people are not only worrying about the difference between science and religion. NO, they are worried about which of them is more reliable and trustworthy.
I fear this is the problem with a lot of people: you can’t campaign against Global Warming and travel the world with high-consuming jets and live in high-consuming houses (Al Gore) and expect the rest of the people to travel in horses and live without electric heating because it endangers the planet.
In this case it’s basically the same thing: in the end, it’s not if science or religion are more or less reliable, but if this particular person is what he/she says he/she is. Imagine Mr. Y has really built bridges the same way before in a reliable way, while Mr. X is a compulsive liar who has forged his certificate. Or imagine that Mr. Y is just a fortune teller with a a lot of imagination while Mr. X has really finished the Civil Engineering program and has built several truly reliable bridges in the past.
For me, the story is not complete, as all the data are not included. But I agree with Roman Kalik: I would use the bridge used by the builder who has walked through his from beginning to end.
Regards.
What RK said. But I would expect it to be Mr. X
before I read the comments, I would trust Mr Y, cuz he is more convinceful, , and in the long time history of inventions ,intuitions were the motor of inventions, not U ni verse ities blah blah
i like the summary - feels like survivor or an antm shortlist
Guys,
I see some mixing up between intuition and faith. The two are NOT the same. They’re different.
RK,
excellent points, but one question though
“If I could reasonably verify some aspect of Mr. Y’s inspirational capacity”
How can you verify something like “inspirational capacity”?
Empirical and rational knowledge are more reliable because they can be verified effectively by different people. I can repeat an experiment, test variables, reason out things, conduct some algebraic equations to see if somebody’s claims are true etc.
Now while I consider intuition to be a valid source of knowledge, the knowledge that comes from it is experiential in nature and happens on an individual level, and hence it is more difficult to verify, which is why I think we should be very cautious when it comes to believing other peoples’ intuitions.
They could be bullshitting for all I know, which happens quite a lot, and I suspect most of the time. Fortune tellers, palm readers etc.
As for my *own* intuitions, they’re not always accurate but through the wisdom of mysticism, meditation, and contemplative traditions like Sufism, Buddhism and Kabbalah, one can indeed sharpen one’s intuitive capabilities and one’s moment to moment awareness of one’s thoughts.
More importantly, it is the through the use of reason that we make a conscience decision to tap into our intuitions and lead them. Reason leads, directs and steers. Hence, it is superior.
But anyways, back to my question…
What methods will you employ to verify Mr. Y’s “inspirational capacity”?
Drima - I have to go with X. Y is just too spooky for me. I guess I am product of my environment. I want to know is this a Salafi versus non-Salafi type experiment?
Salaam
@26, Drima:
More importantly, it is the through the use of reason that we make a conscience decision to tap into our intuitions and lead them. Reason leads, directs and steers. Hence, it is superior.
“reason” is just another word for “deductive logic”.
Are you familiar with the inherent flaw of relying on deductive logic alone? The fact that it produces nothing new whatsoever.
Or to quote Robert Heinlein:
“Beware of the “Black Swan” fallacy. Deductive logic is tautological; there is no way to get a new truth out of it, and it manipulates false statements as readily as true ones. If you fail to remember this, it can trip you — with perfect logic. The designers of the earliest computers called this the “Gigo Law,” i.e., “Garbage in, garbage out.”
Inductive logic is much more difficult — but can produce new truths.”
Or from his book Glory Road:
“Logic is a feeble reed, friend. “Logic” proved that airplanes can’t fly and that H-bombs won’t work and that stones don’t fall out of the sky. Logic is a way of saying that anything which didn’t happen yesterday won’t happen tomorrow.”
It is quite more accurate to say that induction shapes our deduction, not the other way around. If we allow deduction to shape induction for too long, we will become machines - Garbage In, Garbage Out. We’ll spew out the same stuff we’ll have shoved into us, and little else.
But anyways, back to my question…
What methods will you employ to verify Mr. Y’s “inspirational capacity”?
Very good question. I don’t have an answer for that. Few do. At the end inspiration is not a matter of reasoning - you can’t convince someone of the logical result of something that you simply *can’t* ground in what the observer is already familiar with and *knows* to be true or, more importantly, *untrue*.
Sometimes, the system by which we apply our reasoning is either faulty or lacking - in fact, it is *always* lacking to some extent. And then you shoot yourself in the foot when you use it - logically.
RK always says things better than I can… I can’t believe how well you aliens and Raccoons have mastered English…
I would, however, rely on logic before I would rely on faith…in most cases…
I like a comment from the Lubavitcher Rebbe…I will paraphrase:
“If struck with a serious illness, pray, put your life in God’s hands and then seek out the best doctor you can find”.
I think there is logic to some of the ideas of racists, Hitler, al Queda. Listen to Kevin Norton’s soliloquey in American History X about immigrants and such…there is enormous logic in it.
But faith is a real “gesher tzar meod” to borrow from the metaphor…
Hey…it is like the rabbi that slips on a high roof and at last minute grabs onto a rain gutter…he is daggling 80 ft. above the pavement and losing his grip fast.
He looks up to the heavens and says “If there is anybody up there…please help me”.
A deep voice comes out of the heavens and says “Rabbi…just let go”
Rabbi looks up…looks down and says “vat?”
Voice says “You heard me Rabbi…have faith…just let go”.
Rabbi looks up and looks down…looks up again and says “Is there maybe somebody else up there?”
Drima…
With regards to sharpening your intutive capacities through practice…would you not say that the existence of intuition is rather illogical in itself?
Given that comment…I would agree with you though…My dearest friend is a Mexican guy that has a curandero…or faith healer in his family. My buddy was bit intuitive to begin with…but he worked on that skill like a Raccoon might practice strikes or waza or kata’s or other great atheltic feats…My buddy is now the most intuitive person I think I have ever known…quite amazing at times….
Practical skills and logic…emperical science if you will…have given us great gifts along with great problems…but do not answer some of the most essential questions and problems of life.
anyone has heard of Gödel ?
in virtue of his theoremes, I wouldn’t rely on Mr X knowledge, it doesn’t depend on him but on other to achieve his work, there were/are many exemples of errors in buildings construction in the actualities
http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
I would rely more on the intuition of the common man Y that has the paysan natural wiseness, and does realise his project himself, I’m sure he wouldn’t like to fall in crocodiles mouths
“I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly.”
- Michel de Montaigne
Note that I am a real heretic
Drima…
And a much more important side thought…
If the Old Testament…or New or Qu’ran…or Talmud or Church Canons, or Hadith or whatever are the revelations of God…then really dudes…is it any wonder we have zillions of denominations or sub-groups, break-aways etc. ???
Something as simple as your story is interpreted, re-interpreted…read into, over-read into…taken literally, taken metahphorically etc etc etc.
If God unzipped the sky and word-per-word revealed the TRUTH to use tomorrow morning…by evening…we would be fighting and arguing.
I have a born-again fundementalist brother-in-law and we go round and round…he insists…”it’s all right there in the Bible”
Oh really? Dude..you’re a Christian…then why are there like 200 denominations and why can’t you get two people to again on jack?
“Well…they are not reading it literally…it is all there…there are no contradictions…nothing is unclear”…
Right…we can’t even get the alligator story right…it was alligators was it not???
You guys are not being fair to Mr. Y. I could see why many would support Mr X. Any reasonable person would, just based on how our society is structured, and how things are valued. But that doesn’t mean Mr. Y doesn’t have/possess something that’s as equally tangible/effective towards the construction of such bridge.
This question appears rigged from the start anyway.
I just don’t remember many engineering achievements by people like Mr Y.
“I just don’t remember many engineering achievements by people like Mr Y.”
I bet you know nothing of the rural achievements, and not seen “crocodiles farms”
in the occurence it is a bridge that doesn’t apply to an urban place
I just don’t remember many engineering achievements by people like Mr Y.
They’re the ones who invented it in the first place, back when people still thought that crossing rivers was done by throwing your enemies in the river to feed them properly.
RK -
I respectfully disagree with your statement that reason equals deductive logic. The very reason we have two kinds of logic - deductive and inductive - is the fact that both are logic, also known as reason. There is no dichotomy between the two.
Moreover, to claim that deduction is the opposite of creativity is nonsense. Were it the case, Sir Isaac Newton wouldn’t have deduced anything from that apple hitting him on the head. The very foundation of logical reasoning - and by extension, scientific thought - is to doubt as much as possible and to presume as little as possible.
OOOOOOOh. I like your voice!
I don’t know what the material of the bridge is - but as long it is not metal attracting those damn lightenings frying me when I’d be walking on it, I’d go for Mr. X.
Knowledge rather than gut feeling.
I mean, life’s at stake. If it’d be about a business plan, then perhaps I’d go for the dreamer
[and do some studying myself]
@Andrew Brehm, who said: “I don’t think so. I think the point is not about whether religious people choose one and non-religious people choose the other, but about how people arrive at conclusions, regardless whether those conclusions then include a religion or not.”
Ye, I prolly would be walking on the bridge crying out loud: oh God! oh God! oh God!
no matter if Mr. X. the professional built it (though perhaps if Mr. Y. had built it, I’d prolly cry it out even louder).
Drimas got a girlfriend…Drimas got a girlfriend…
Suzanne…I think Drima’s voice sounds like a perfect voiceover for a Disneyland cartoon movies…serious…perfect.
@Howie, and I’m married.
I can still like his voice though
ooor,.. wait… you didn’t mean it as saying as a fact that Drima has a girlfriend but you are implying here… that - as kids always do - that i’d be his gf?
Hi Ron,
“I want to know is this a Salafi versus non-Salafi type experiment?”
Nope, just one on faith Vs reason.
Shalom RK,
““reason” is just another word for “deductive logic”.”
Okay, I don’t know if you’re defining reason on such a simplistic level for the sake of debate or because u truly believe that.
I hope it’s the former, because reason is so much more than just that narrow definition you gave.
Reason is the foundational basis of scientific thought as Abu Sa’ar mentioned. It gave us a lot. Because of it, you and I are communicating right now via this awesome medium called the internet or more specifically blogging.
It is also through reason that we come to realize the limitations of reason itself, and hence make room for intuition (which isn’t necessarily as accurate as reason, and also cannot undergo an effective methodology of verification).
It is also through reason that we discover the various silly claims made by sacred texts when they are read literally.
Furthermore, organized religion’s evolution from its bloody and irrational past periods to today’s relatively benign and humanist form is not a result of faith or dogma but a result of reason’s dissent from within or its pressure from the outside, (and thanks too to secular humanism, largely a product of reason).
Reason is not based on dogma. Its extension - scientific thought - is intellectually honest. Whenever new better evidence presents itself, the old one is discarded. It is forever evolving and progressive.
Simply put, reason is awesome and much more than your narrow definition.
“What methods will you employ to verify Mr. Y’s “inspirational capacity”?
Very good question. I don’t have an answer for that.”
Neither do I. That’s why basing things on reason in the public domain is much better and more reliable than knowledge or presumed knowledge obtained through intuition. Reason or empiricism based ideas are verifiable.
“Sometimes, the system by which we apply our reasoning is either faulty or lacking - in fact, it is *always* lacking to some extent.”
You’re absolutely right. And I’ll happily be the first to admit that reason alone is an inadequate tool for engaging reality and understanding it fully. Intuition has an important place too.
Gosh, I think I’ve gotta finish my draft post on this subject fast. This is getting looong!
Marie,
“I would rely more on the intuition of the common man Y”
Hang out with people who accept superstitious things like palm reading for a while. Something tells me you’ll change your mind very quickly.
Howie @33,
“Something as simple as your story is interpreted, re-interpreted…read into, over-read into…taken literally, taken metahphorically etc etc etc…. we can’t even get the alligator story right”
I know!!
Kingsley,
“But that doesn’t mean Mr. Y doesn’t have/possess something that’s as equally tangible/effective towards the construction of such bridge.”
How will you verify Mr. Y’s “effectiveness”? Wrong bridge, and you might die.
Suzanne,
“OOOOOOOh. I like your voice!
”
LOL, so when do I get to hear yours?
“If we assume that building a bridge over night is reasonable, I’d trust Mr. X more.”
If you have ever seen a military engineering bridging unit in action, you’d know it is reasonable. These might be Bailey Bridges, or Pontoon Bridges- either can be assembled quickly. Even with only low technology available, Pontoon Bridges can be set up quickly. Vietnamese engineers frustrated American generals by rebuilding overnight the bridges that had been bombed the previous day.
Does this then shift your trust to Mr. X?
I did indeed use a simplistic definition for reasoning, and for that I apologize. I should have taken the due time to better formulate my arguments.
So, starting over…
First, a few basic definitions. “Reason” is a system. It is a system by which we may perceive our world, interpret what we perceive, and act based on the conclusion we reach after running this input through our system.
It is not the only such system, but more on that later.
This system is based on axiomatic assumptions as its groundwork, followed by collecting bits and pieces of observed data and constructing theorems that use the axioms as their foundation, the observed data as points on a line, and then attempts to resolve the next step. If it manages to do so, it is accepted. If later it is found to be wrong, it is discarded. If one of the axioms on which it was built is shown to be false, it is discarded. Axiomatic foundations are added and subtracted as time progresses.
So far so good, right? We’ve built ourselves a box for our minds to operate in. This box is limited by:
A. The axioms that those before us have assumed to be true, and on which they have built.
and,
B. The theorems that are currently considered to be reasonably accurate.
This is our first hurdle. It’s a big one. It’s the kind of hurdle that brings me to return to my quote from Glory Road:
“Logic is a feeble reed, friend. “Logic” proved that airplanes can’t fly and that H-bombs won’t work and that stones don’t fall out of the sky. Logic is a way of saying that anything which didn’t happen yesterday won’t happen tomorrow.”
That is precisely our problem. And it is now that we return to deductive logic and inductive logic. Deductive logic is based on applying given axioms and “proven” (proven, in this system, merely meaning “Accurate so far”") theorems to build new theorems, and make decisions. Deductive logic not only produces nothing new beyond that which is already in front of you - it also makes that box, the one I mentioned earlier… it makes it a whole lot smaller.
This, by and large, is scientific dogma. And if you believe that scientific dogma does not exist, allow me to bring the following quote from the book Passages from the Life of a Philosopher by Charles Babbage:
“On two occasions I have been asked,—”Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?” [...] I am not able rightly to comprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.”
I can, unfortunately. Babbage mainly interacted with like-minded individuals. He didn’t realize that the vast majority of the world’s populace take the easy option. And what do I mean by that?
Before answering that, we come to inductive logic. What is inductive logic? It is the axiom-creator. It changes the basic laws. It creates something new instead of merely correlating what is known in a slightly different manner. And it breaks old axioms in the process. It is the chaos to the deductive logic’s order.
It is uncertainty. It is fear. It is that which makes you wonder if what you know today matters, if what you have today will last, if your life won’t end in a back-alley robbery gone wrong. Uncertainty is death, so we do our very best to make it go away. We design our society to make sure that we know that tomorrow will not be hazy, that we won’t lose what we have, that nothing drastic will change. And in doing so, we make the box in our minds smaller with every step.
But we have a system, don’t we? The Reasoning Box. This is our safety. It is our solace. Our minds are the key, we must but use them properly. With Reason, we shall triumph. It is our savior.
Feeling the dogma yet, Drima? There’s more to come.
Now we shall move on to give a rough estimate of the spread of Deductive Logic and Inductive Logic. How about 99% Deductive to 1% Inductive? How about a great deal worse?
And why? Because I haven’t mentioned something yet. To a large extent, we are what we are taught. We are where we grow up. We are who our parents are. We are the society we live in. We are truths that we know. We are the prejudices that we learn until the age of 18.
And that is our “common sense”, by the way. We turn theorems to axioms within our mind. “Science has Proven!” and so on and so forth, and we agree. Science has proven because science is the box, or so it tells us.
‘Science’, ‘Reason’, ‘Logic’ - These are just labels (apologies for going all the way to Academic Nonsense Abstract mode - I try to avoid it when possible). And we pretend to understand what the labels mean. We rely on it because it is our foundation. It is our mental crutch.
Imagine that the moon disappears tomorrow. Just… goes away. And a little moon then suddenly develops around each and every human head on the planet. Just an example.
How many people will die? How many will become insane, and then kill themselves or others around them? How many are able and willing to handle such drastic changes in their personal reality?
This is because we live on a foundation of axioms and observed data, in this particular box. And based on this, we build axiom-theories. Science that becomes gospel. We all do it, every day, without even noticing. So do scientists, the people who are supposed to define and maintain the Reason Box. Hence planes don’t fly, and H-bombs won’t work, and stones don’t fall from the sky. If it didn’t happen before, it can’t happen. Ever. We’re chickens living in our little closed chicken-space, and we build our little chicken theories and dream our chicken dreams, and we know that there is a Door, but it never opened before… why should it?
And when the landlady Opens the Door and takes a chicken and slaughters it, well… Chicken apocalypse ensues.
It’s a cold and scary universe out there, folks. So let’s pretend we can understand it, shall we? Otherwise we might have to consider the alternatives - and there are so many of them, aren’t there? And most of them aren’t really the nicer kind…
Perception and Survival, in the mental and physical sense. How they limit us…
And now we return to Deduction and Induction. Without Induction, there is no Deduction, but Deduction can live on freely once Induction makes but a single step. It can exist in this state forever, a cold and logical machine that turns and turns and turns… And when you have A Forever to turn the machine in, everything is predictable. Every state of the wheels and cogs will repeat itself in time.
You say that Reason rules Intuition, Drima? That it is supreme. Reason is not Induction because induction is not an applied form of thinking. It does not the box when applied to assist us in deciding how to live. It The Box. Deduction is our thinking withing the Box, while Induction helps change its shape and borders… But once you’ve built the box, you live in it. And people who live in the Box can’t redefine it - they don’t see anything beyond it. The Box is a wall in the mind.
So will you wait until someone redesigns this barrier in your mind for you, Drima? It may take a while, and it doesn’t look like we have food on our side of the river - as far as the alligators are concerned, we *are* the food. We don’t have a Theory of Everything. We barely have a Theory of Anything At All. And that’s not going to change - we want to believe that we *can* have a Theory of Everything because it means that the universe is Safe. That we can manage it. That we can predict everything and live without uncertainty.
And that’s precisely the kind of thinking that will make us gator-food. It’s *not* safe out there. It’s *not* predictable, at least not 100% predictable. The fact that apples fall from trees today does not mean that they will do so tomorrow. The rules we invent may have little, if anything, to do with the fay things actually are.
And now, I return to the matter of Other Boxes. The most important part about such mental boxes - the boundaries in the mind, if you will - is that sometimes their creators or caretakers prefer exclusivity to help cultivate their box.
But whoever said that you have to live by only one box? It doesn’t make life easier, sure - it means that you have several spheres in your mind defining how you think, and these spheres must then interact with each other in your day-to-day life. It means difficulty, and internal conflicts, but it also allows these boxes to flourish a great deal more as it stops you from locking yourself in and battering down the hatches.
By the way, Raccoon:
The very foundation of logical reasoning - and by extension, scientific thought - is to doubt as much as possible and to presume as little as possible.
In the ideal world, true. But then, in the ideal world, Communism is the perfect form of government, isn’t it?
The path of supposedly doubting as much as possible and presuming as little as possible is itself a presumption. And it is a presumption made by a very limited form of being.
Drima, I wasn’t talking of supertition, but of intuition that any creator or inventor needs to find his inspiration, ideas, art works… thouth reason is also need to set them in an understandable expression or a fonctionning work. What I ment, is that the academic knowledge doesn’t help you to become intelligent, but an academician, often with no new ideas, just parroting some writings.
umm, some would like to believe that men are smart
whent they jus are retards, cuz the “nothin box” is likely not evolving
(humor video)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=773_1228741223
RK -
Thank you for the elaboration. I disagree once again. I am afraid that you misunderstand logic as system on one hand and misapply some philosophic principles on the other.
But I will have to post my long and boring retort later on. Empire: Total War just finished downloading
But I will have to post my long and boring retort later on. Empire: Total War just finished downloading
I’m going to give it my customary one month to actually make it a finished product. Apparently, that saved me from some very painful experiences both with NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer and GTA IV, particularly the latter.
For now, I shall focus on playing Russian-made pirate games:
http://akella.ru/Game.aspx?id=379
http://akella.ru/Game.aspx?id=1808
I like it when a modding team makes a broken game like Corsairs 3 ever so slightly whole again, to the point when said team is then hired by the publisher to start the series over.
“For now, I shall focus on playing Russian-made pirate games”
Korsarui.
(How do you transliterate ы?)
Any good?
Dudes, we’ll talk this out in Tel Aviv.
Twice.
Korsarui.
(How do you transliterate ы?)
Any good?
Pretty good, yeah. That’s about as close as you can get in English.
“Pretty good, yeah.”
I meant the game.
You know I am always looking for strategy and trading games.
I think we really know what the question is.
Western civilization often believes there’s logical explanation for everything. And by implementing Science, Tech and other modern marvels, they(we) have indeed managed to solve/demystify many unanswered questions in life. Ultimately, a belief has been firmly established within a population set. This is the case of Mr. X
I assume Mr. Y would be the “supposedly” backwards religious fanatics, seeking 200 wives in paradise, and what else . He believes in an absolute, and he’ s not seen as very pragmatic, therefore he’s often, if not always accused of been ignorant. Because he fails to reason to a standard defined as logical thinking by others. (Whereas X often pulls from Y’s playbook, when it’s convenient). Gotta give props to Y for not faltering in his belief. Unfortunately for Mr. Y, his way of seeing things, doing things is lacking, or considered inferior when compared to presets scales of progress (defined by X). So because X’s method is already proven, Y can never really be right, or sufficient. Granted, Y himself has never really brought anything to the table to prove his point, but i feel that’s no reason to write him or his methods off
lol..ok back to question.
I cannot debate over Mr.X’s method, simply because his approach is considered proven, as we see in daily lives. But i can point out scenarios where this proven approach has failed to live up to standards (Bridges constructed by the engineering minds have collapsed before, granted the ratio is lop-sided, but it has happen), so no matter how much you believe in Mr. X’s approach, you would still cross his bridge with some doubts in your mind. That alone equates both scenarios, because nothing is a given. So whether you believe some god showed you how to build the bridge (which is what i think you were really implying with Y) or the bridge was
Nothing is a given, you cannot be “absolutely” sure which bridge to choose. Remember, you said it was a matter of life and death, so the best opti…..OMG….WTF!!!
Am i even making any more sense. I’m just ranting here…sorry guys.
I meant the game.
Pretty good. Both games seem to be very solid, though they mix an RPG-like system for the characters with a Caribbean region trade system.
Neither is available in English as of yet, though. You’ll have to either live with Russian or wait to the eventual release of City of Abandoned Ships as Age of Pirates 2 - should happen sooner or later.
“You’ll have to either live with Russian”
I think my Russian teacher would appreciate it if I played a game like that. Do you think it is playable if it takes the player ages to read even short texts?
It’s just barely playable that way, really. The dialogue with other characters in the game if often not in standard Russian but more of a seafaring slang.
You could try, of course.
“not in standard Russian but more of a seafaring slang.”
Where is the next ice-free harbour, tovarish?
Drima I am laughing cause I think you are just trying to wind people up! But go for it we needs more of this in your face shit thrown at the faces of the hypocrites and mother fuckeerrrrrrs
Leave a Comment