http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnaugh_map
You might find the logic mapping technique above helpful when dealing with sets of circumstances more complex than a two by two matrix. As you should be well aware, things are not the simple binary case in real life. For example if you have an indeterminate situation to be manipulated, you might find yourself dipping into : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_matrix When studying relationships between observable factors and outcomes, it is a good idea to be aware of : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias When deciding upon alternative interactive processes leading towards a goal, see also : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics It helps to know where you are going in the big picture : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_planning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management Before plunging into tasks, it might help to review : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_statement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_logic_programming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_propagation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_modeling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_methods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(science) Anyhow, to get specific instead of general : When you are aware, your awareness is shaped by your personal experiences. Until you practice introspection to do a critical analysis of your thought processes, you're not very aware. Before introspection, you would be exhibiting programmed behavior rather than enlightened thought. While being a robot is comfortable, it yields your free will to outside influences. You might as well be a mouse rather than a human being. Actually I have observed people who exhibit less self awareness than a mouse, since mice are sensitive to the world, as evidenced by twitching noses... With free will manifested through awareness, the burden of responsibility falls upon one's shoulders for the consequences of one's behavior. A rejection of this is exemplified by "I don't know and I don't CARE!" Priority allocation is exemplified by "Why should I care?" and "Do I have time for this???" The usual answer is "It's not my problem!" Irresponsibility is exemplified by "Who cares about consequences? I'll do what I please!" Which results sometimes in "Please yourself, and suffer the consequences..." Even a self aware person is absolved of responsibility for their behavior when their choices are constrained or dictated by others. "Be careful what you ask for, you may get it." "Judge not, lest ye be judged." "Expect the worst, and you'll get it." "You asked for it, now take your medicine." This principle has guided my approach to life since 1997 when I was declared insane by government psychologists. See definitions of "caricature", "burlesque", and "lampoon". The shrinks seem incapable of distinguishing the difference between acting crazy and being crazy... My first encounter with a shrink as a person to be judged sane or insane was in 1974. That shrink concluded that I "had a lack of respect for authority and/or authority figures" and was "unable to adapt to a regimented lifestyle" and that I had a "passive aggressive personality." Anyone for mental judo? Lonnie Courtney Clay On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:37:26 PM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > Okay... I can agree with a lot of what you say, > Lonnie....generally.... > > Personally, think along the lines of "how"/ what do".... Concept / > Reference.... Plan/ Action..... Idea / Matter... (all the same , > basically) > > I try to apply that "way" of thinking to whatever it may be that I am > considering....from the run-of-the-mill simple and mundane... to the > complicated or difficult to understand.... "How".... What do"..... > > Of course, I don't know everything about everything.. I definitely > know very little inmost "hard science" areas.... but I think... > "how?"... "what do?" can apply to "digging a hole in the ground".... > or understanding "Einstein's theories or higher order Physics".... > > is something "doable"?.... is so. should it be "done"?.... first > question is "ontology"...second question is "ethics".... > > let's talk economics with a very small "e".....pick one... they are > all "doable", so it is an ethical "choice" > > Live modestly / work....Live affluently / steal > > Live modestly / steal....Live affluently / work > > how about sex... with a small "s" again all "doable", so another > "ethical" choice > > Lust / have sex with anyone....Love / have sex with mate > > Lust / have sex with mate...Love / have sex with anyone > > > See.... I like to talk in "specifics".....whatever they may be... then > think of the options.... > > Care to try a topic of your own ? > > > > > > > > On Aug 22, 6:23 pm, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Hmm... I thought that it was obvious. Well, here goes. > > Before I start, I reference the terms "Renaissance Man" and "The Age of > > Invention." > > > > Throughout the world there has been a shift away from admiration of > thinkers > > and inventors. The trend started somewhere between World War Two's start > and > > the Korean War. The first symptom was idolization of Albert Einstein for > > E=mc2 rather than Oppenheimer for his work on the first atomic bomb. With > > > his wild hair and sour expression, Einstein became the face of the "great > > > thinker" to the public. The public (while pretending to admire his mind) > > told stories about mismatched socks and getting lost in public. By > contrast > > Oppenheimer was well groomed and sharp in his public persona and mostly > > ignored. > > > > Before long we had "The Nutty Professor", "It Happens Every Spring", and > > other such movies saying that anyone with a thought between their ears > was > > in some way a bit crazy. Other symptoms were "It's Been Done", "Not > Invented > > Here", and "Not My Problem". Along came terms for thinkers as culturally > > clueless and socially unacceptable such as "Geek", "Nerd", "Wimp", and > > "Dork". As people turned away from showing interest in thinking, the > classic > > "Got A Quarter? ... Call somebody who gives a damn." joke came along. > > > > The emphasis in schools changed from fostering the learning of how to > think > > into the travesty we have today of whether or not you have memorized the > > answer to the questions that the teacher led you to expect on the test. > We > > have a society of unthinking button pushers who couldn't solve a problem > to > > save their own lives. People do not respect thinking, just results. So > very > > few people actually think as a habit, and they have learned to conceal > the > > fact that they think when not in the company of other thinkers. > > > > One more parting shot before I post. Have you watched the "Back To the > > Future" movie series? I rest my case. > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Monday, August 22, 2011 10:57:20 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > Okay... Lonnie.... Here's a "straight" question..... Can I get some > > > "substance" from you?... and less "style" .. or shall I say... > > > "process"? > > > > > How and What are you trying to say concerning.... what ever concerns > > > you? > > > > > On Aug 17, 3:22 pm, Lonnie Clay <clay...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Thanks einseele! > > > > > > Yes indeed, CONTEXT rules! Contextual influence can be summarized as > > > > "information alters consciousness". The person with information > thinks > > > about > > > > the information in the context of a chosen receiver(s) ability to > > > > understand, which includes language, culture, shared experiences, > > > knowledge > > > > base, and receptiveness among many factors. If you are like me, then > you > > > > make assumptions regarding intellectual capacity of the readers on > > > newsgroup > > > > "epistemology" which would not be justified for readers of other > > > newsgroups. > > > > You SHAPE the presentation of information to FIT the audience. > > > Furthermore, > > > > you might have a presentation with multiple LAYERS of insight > possible. > > > You > > > > accomplish this by presenting information in order such that reading > > > passes > > > > through the presentation after the first pass cause further > information > > > to > > > > be apparent, due to heightened awareness and understandings based > upon > > > prior > > > > passes. So it is a good idea in general to re-read presentations from > > > > those > > > > who are known to package information in nested layers of > understanding... > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:15:21 AM UTC-7, einseele wrote: > > > > > > > I dont quite believe in a model of communication where two parts > are > > > > > in play, > > > > > Usually explained like a transmitter-receiver pair > > > > > > > Like binary ideas use to do, that model simply does not see a third > > > > > > party, > > > > > > > In any communication set there are 3 parts intervening > > > > > > > Whatever you consider like transmitter, whatever you consider as > the > > > > > receiving part, and a reference code > > > > > > > We talk to each other "through" a reference, like for instance > English > > > > > in this case. > > > > > A third person is needed in all cases. There is no language without > > > > > > third persons, and that is valid for any comunication structure. > > > > > > > If I can talk to a machine, that is because there is an interface, > > > > > which is the same as saying a third person "listening" the > > > > > conversation > > > > > > > We can have of course more than 3 instances, but we never have less > > > > > > than that > > > > > > > I believe this is important because the message is because of this > > > > > always different. It is never like the starting party intended, it > is > > > > > never like the receiving instance understood, and of course does > not > > > > > exist by its own. > > > > > > > While passing from point A to C, it needs to go through a sort of > "B" > > > > > which is nowhere > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 10:24 pm, Lonnie Clay <cla...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > A) I see a problem. > > > > > > B) Ask me if I care. > > > > > > A) You might, if you knew more. > > > > > > B) Try me. > > > > > > . > > > > > > . > > > > > > . > > > > > > B) I've heard enough, I can't make heads nor tails of it, go > away. > > > > > > A) If you reasoned better, then you would understand. > > > > > > B) You say I'm stupid!? > > > > > > A) Well, I could teach you how to understand what I am saying. It > > > > will > > > > > take > > > > > > a while. > > > > > > B) Got unlimited long distance? > > > > > > A) Yes, why? > > > > > > B) Make random calls until you find someone who cares. BYE! > > > > > > . > > > > > > . > > > > > > . > > > > > > . > > > > > > A) Hello? I see a problem. > > > > > > > > The question which I pose to the group regards the ethics of > > > > > communication. > > > > > > At what point does the obligation to tell the truth shift from > the > > > source > > > > > to > > > > > > the receiver. In other words, is the source obligated to > relentlessly > > > > > > > pursue > > > > > > receivers until finally the truth is understood? > > > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/cq3agfBhfSQJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
