Bobbaro Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Going back to the topic's author, ScoutPL, I don's see me saying much of anything different, only differently. On patriotism: For me generally, when I see a noun made into an -ism I start looking for the salt, feeling in need of a grain. That is because those isms become as easily blinders as items of utility. I think back on the historical accounting of our revolt against what was then our country, England. Except for that third who did not give a damn, there were patriots all around. But, they did not agree upon where to hang the allegience. The difference was enough for them to go about killing each other. That Canadians did not fall in with this pattern has not seemed to mar the outcome for them as individuals. And for the U.S and Great Briton, the citizens of each respective nation seem to be reasonably satisfied with their situations as nations, and with each other finding amusement and insruction in simularities and differences alike. Among these three the debate is not over some great gulf of separate national conceptualization, but rather in the differing ways we share in the same ideals roughly simular forms. Indeed, at times debates are stronger within country than among them. Yet we shed blood together in those days and called ourselves patriots. Patriotism seems to me to be exemplified by the home town or team spirit. Give two of us a thread of commonality and it is sufficient to form a team. That such a thread is sufficient cement to glue a strong and binding tie, often enough on flimsy grounds, a tie upon which one can hang an emotion regardless of justification is simetimes seen in bloody and deadly sports riots. Regardless of the jingling thinking via slogan passed down through the pages telling of those Revolutionary times, it is difficult for me to see in them much that reflects any reality that would have lead to the result. That a reality existed and did lead to that result can not be questioned, but what was it? What would lead a Patrick Henry to shout "Liberty or Death and mean it, while Canadians right beside the other colonies did not much agree is a tantalizing fact. It reflects upon the arguements about the arguement that revolution was an absolute necessity. Personally, it seems to me to be the result of the usual human pigheadness all around; one of those circumstances that come about to plague indidual relationships as well as nations out of plain human cussedness. But, getting back to Patriotism, it is kind of like opinion (or the anal structure), we all are in possession. We are the children of our birth place, whether in our physical beings or our current sense of mental belonging in some rebirth. We will make where we live our home. Indeed it seems we must. When such allegience exists, whether voluntary or not, common interest is served when individuals commit their support to the causes of that allegience, and therefore in the main, individual interest as well. But, something stronger lives in us to make such relationships biologically effective, a herd instinct, a pack instinct that comes alive in ferocious and bloody action entangled in more momentous personal survival instincts once the battle is joined. We see the same as a cat defends its territory, committed to the action, yet harboring caution and fear as well as agression. Ambivousless is a shared mammalian trait and exists in all to some degree. It provides some of that variety in behavor in the race that helps to insure survival regardless of circumstance and the fate of individuals. Patriotism has its uses as long as we remain in possession of it and ourselves rather than it owning us. Otherwise, it is possible that we find ourselves herding our fellow human beings together for a death chamber because our team happens to be lead in that direction at sometime. Oh, it could never happen here. Sure. We are above that, we are above human nature. Just like everyone else. Then it might not need be a death chamber, just a little killing here and there for convience and sport. Never underestimate the motive of team boredom. Or self- rightousnes. And oh God, it is not always clear. Forgive us our trespasses as we forget who and what we are. Pigheaded and libelous of swine. [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Bobbaro wrote: A most intriging discussion; don't see old K. Godel mentioned that often. Then you move in different circles than me... Old K.G rigorously proved that every symbolic system contains a contridiction, if I am putting it rightly, hopefully at least approximately. Quite close. He proved that we have to make a choice with all sufficiently powerful symbolic systems (where a system is "sufficiently powerful" if it can express the theory of natural numbers): either we have to make the system inconsistent or we have to make it incomplete. In effect, you have to make a choice between having an incorrect answers now and then or having questions that you can't answer. (Sometimes you can't even know whether you can answer a question or not). Note that one might argue that humans are "sufficiently powerful". So we might all be inconsistent or incomplete. - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 I think we can count on Chaos Modeling to be chaotic modeling. It will yield resemblences without providing exactness. We may be blinded by the resemblence into thinking it a likeness. But, of course a likeness is not the same as an isness either. Unless one is speaking presidentually, where one may is or not is as one sees in a fit. What that fit is is also up for relative fitting in that case. And obviously such a case justifies encasing a thing in any old convienent case regardless of the shape of the office, ovality or circularity being beside the point. Any shape will serve as long there are not too many splinters along the edges. Put that cigar in and see if it smokes. Gee it has been wonderful being an American. (appologies to the nationals of the rest of the hemisphere, which should be more properly called Columbia; no, that would be confusing also. Hell, as long as there is speech, there is confusion. Speech and confusion are the same regardless of what we say or how we claim otherwise, especially when you, rather than I say it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Tommi, put that way it sounds much like Heisenburg did about particles and waves. Kinda makes it difficult to put ones finger on anything, verbal or physical, and be sure of what is going on, at least in minute detail. I am afraid that as far as K. Godel and my circle goes, the thing has a radius of unity; until now, wherein it is unity + 1. That is disregarding books. And not many of them. When I first encountered the thing, I was astonished and gratified. Astonished that such a thing could be calculated and validated, and gratified that something that seemed so intutively apparant was objectively verifiable. That the thing had wider implications than in what many seem to regard as magically imbued with mysterious and singular properties, mathematics, seemed a strong possibility, as that dicipline appears to me to be as commonplace an artifact of human craft as old shoes, its high placement in the human firmament of accomplishments being due to the fact that most of us are just not cobblers. Me included. Anyway math has grammar, parts of speech and all the other properties appropriate to a language, only called by other classifacations, and seems to be as subject to being rearranged to suit what ever convienence comes along, just so the arrangement has some kind of consistancy. Such rearrangements can be likened to making languages appropriate to a culture or a task, so topology, and the geometries and God knows what all with their individual lingos. Therefore, why should not the theorem apply to those symbolic forms we call French, Italian, etc.? Militariese? You had your own justification for extension, and one coming from a different direction than I had thought of. Interesting. Very good. Valid? I ain't qualified, but I'll take it so, as it fits my biases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Wow, now this is a mutha beautiful thread. First, to say that we will never understand the human mind and that computers will never be complex enough to do ignores one fact, that the mind is material. If necessary, we will build our own brains to understand them, though I think that is a little farther than 20 years, it is neither impossible nor improbable. Second, to say that a simulation must do everything everything correctly to be correct is a trap. If you want 100% simulation of WWII, that is far into the future, if ever, and has the likes of Schrodinger and Heisenberg standing in your way. These guys are the Bruce Lee and Mike Tyson of physics, so this is no mean feat. 99.99999% accurate, however, allows you to use some tricks and some caveats to achieve your result. While this is ugly when predicting the future, it is quite reasonable for understanding the past. We might not get the individual soldier's reactions right a lot in 20 years, but we will be damn close. As to the whole "Q-computers are only good with prime numbers argument," I agree that it is true now but I think that their basic design is such that they will move beyond that. It isn't very romantic but it will work, barring disasters in human society that prevent the expenditure. Like I said, my timeline may be off but the basic concept is just that, basic. People are not unknowable, rather they are complex, and complex systems are what Chaos Theory is all about. Remeber, Chaos Theory does not say that anything is unknowable or even chaotic, rather is states that complex systems with more components than can be tracked produce results that are inherently unpredictable. Once we have enough of the components, the system is no longer complex and chaos no longer describes it, much like simulations used to design new cars and planes. I will offer one line of retreat and that is the existence of something unknowable in humanity. If each of us has a soul or aspect that is greater than our parts, then this situation is moot. I don't believe we do but we might, as something like that, that is something outside our physical world, is inherently unprovable. The romantic in me would love for these simulations to always come up wrong and be unable to understand character, honor and duty but history has shown that humanity has an amazing ability to figure things out. Back to you, Scout. And by the way, I've been scared to all hell in my life and I've been in a couple amazing situations and if they manage to do these things I predict, I'm going to put together a terrorist organization and go Dhostyovsky all over their butts. Edited because, "Brain must slow down, typing must catch up" ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein [This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 I'd like to reply to one last point and that is the argument that these arguments will never come to a conclusion that, as one of you put it, one man's truth is another man's poison. That argument is wrong. Why? 2 + 2 = 4 If you told me 2 + 2 = 5, you would be wrong. Poison or not, there is a right answer to that and a wrong answer. If you try to build a plane and ignore physics it will not fly. If you run a particle accellerator and predict the results based on your gut instinct, unless your gut has a PhD, you will be wrong. There are right answers and there are wrong answers, this is the basis of science. We have always had unanswerable questions get answered and this will continue, regardless of how complex they are, until we answer everything there is to be answered or the human race is destroyed. ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 14, 2000 Author Share Posted October 14, 2000 A couple points in reverse order. We're not talking science issues here, meeks. We're usually talking about issues that few if any of the debators really have a firm grasp on academically. And on a lot of the discussion topics even the experts cant agree on. If we were discussing what makes an engine run or what makes water boil or whether 2+2=4 then you might have a valid point. but we're talking about men and their emotions and their thoughts and we're critiquing their actions. really not too scientific any way you look at it. Patriotism: News flash guys! I joined the army to go to college too! Thats how I got my commission. Enlist, ETS, go to college, ROTC. But there are a hundred different ways to go to college. The government is practically giving away money these days. If a person joins the military "to go to college" then I would argue at some level they are practicing some patriotism. One of you guys want to define selfless service to me? Sounds pretty patriotic to me. If you've got guys in your unit that you can honestly say are just there for the money then you dont have soldiers, you have mercenaries. Get rid of them, because when it hits the fan they wont be there for you! GP, I would agree 100% that when in combat its soldiers relationships toward each other that get them through, not their realtionship with their country. But its usually their relationship with their country that got them there in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T34Rules Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: Meeks, I dont disagree tha the technology wont be there for the eggheads to play with. But have you ever been scared ****less? Ever been around 20 or 30 other guys that were just as scared as you were? I'm sorry but I dont think a computer program can accurately model how those guys are going to react. The historians cant even agree if every rifleman in a particular squad used his weapon or not. The problem with your idea is tha tthe program will be written by humans, which means it will be flawed from the start. Yeah you could come up with a simulation that would figure out, probably very accurately, what would have happened if Hitler had unleashed his armor on D-Day. But one that could simulate what the guys on Omaha were going through, wha they were feeling and how they reacted? I still am not convinced. And no I'm not a naysayer either. I think technology is a wonderful thing. But I have seen many of the negative connotations of a reliance on tech in the military and it makes me wary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are perhaps a handful of vets left that know what it was like to experience Omaha Beach. And i dont care if you have been in the modern military since you were in diapirs.......even you have not the slightest idea of what an Omaha Beach experience was like.....or Tarawa.......or Saipan.........or any of a dozen others. Let us hope than none of us ever have to know!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bobbaro: A most intriging discussion; don't see old K. Godel mentioned that often. We understand the elements of our existance in many ways, language being the most noisy one of them. Old K.G rigorously proved that every symbolic system contains a contridiction, if I am putting it rightly, hopefully at least approximately. [This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 10-13-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Close but not exactly; there are a number of ways to express what Godel proved, but the simplest to understrand is that "Every logical system must be either incomplete or inconsistent", which among other things, implies that there are logical truths that cannot be proven, and Godel's theorem killed logical positivism, the idea that everything can be reduced to simple logical elements (an idea nevertheless still very much alive today). It also means that there will never be a perfect simulation of reality, so it is not only a question of faster computers and better programming. BTW, Quantum Computers (if ever) would be a lot faster than 10^9 operations per second, which is about the speed of the fastest computers today.Hybrid opto-digital computers shuld surpass 10^12 /s in the next few years. I hope this clears things up a bit. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 Mercenaries? Tel the army to stop recruiting that way. The marines do fine and their pitch is still about duty, honor, and being part of an elite. The army is till taking about bonuses and college money. If patriotic fervor were a requirement for joining, we'd have a problem. How many volunteers did we have in WWII? How do you classify the draftees who did their duty? How do you rate their nationalism, patriotism? My grandfather volunteered in 1943 because a friend convinced him that they were about to be drafted so it was better to join and get your "choice of service." Regardless of the reasons people join the services it the basic bonds of comradeship that enable them to sustain combat. Patriotism is utterly irrelevant. If I got rid of all my soldiers who joined just for the college money, I'd be P4 tomorrow - nonmission capable. [This message has been edited by RMC (edited 10-14-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted October 15, 2000 Share Posted October 15, 2000 P4? i thought the code was G4... is this the US army or another country? ------------------ "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted October 15, 2000 Share Posted October 15, 2000 The US Army Unit Status report has four areas: Personnel Training Supply Equipment Readiness Each area is rated at one of four levels using a two digit code with the first letter of the area followed by the number (P1, T2, S3, R4) The rating for the lowest area is then used to determine the overall readiness of the unit which is expressed as a C1-4. So if I had to ditch all my soldiers who joined for non-patriotic reasons I'd fall to P4 in personnel which would make me overall C4 and nonmission capable. references AR 220-1 This the link to the reg in HTML format but I couldn't get it to work. http://books.usapa.belvoir.army.mil/cgi-bin/bookmgr/BOOKS/R220_1/CCONTENTS And this the one to get the PDF. ftp://pubs.army.mil/pub/epubs/pdf/r220_1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzvg Posted October 16, 2000 Share Posted October 16, 2000 Not to take a great thread into the depths, but lay off that "get rid of the mercs 'cause they ain't no good crap" You are a professional soldier, as a former professional soldier, I respect your views on most things military and try to not tell you your job. But you aren't a merc, since you think mercs are some low order of life, that tells me you really don't know much about them, (not that there are many left, and we are all "private security" for oil companies for the most part) I get a real gut laugh out of people thinking we will run at the first sign of trouble, Hah unlike my days in the army, nobody in this line of work, has any delusions, we are where we want to be, and getting shot at is part of the job. Oh, RMC? go ahead and get rid of 'em all, we're always hiring qualified people. (Do not contact me regarding employment, the above statement is my own and does not reflect the views of my employers, I cannot give you a job, try the human resources offices of major security outfits or large overseas corporations, not affiliated with any group currently wanted by the FBI or Interpol, post no bills) had to throw that last one in ------------------ Pzvg "Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts