The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Aug 21, 2006 15:36:15 GMT -5
Spawned by another thread I thought I'd ask: What defines a different TYPE of construct? In some cases it seems they're defined by function, at least within the world of shields (mirror, bubble, repulsion), and others seem to be defined by manner of construction (such as thread shields.)
Opinions, ideas, comments, snide remarks? (Use the last with extreme caution. i have a rake and know how to use it.)
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
innerfire
Author
Respected Member
--Unknown--
Posts: 399
|
Post by innerfire on Aug 21, 2006 16:00:07 GMT -5
How about both function and construction manner? I really don't think you can have a true definition without either, as both the function and the manner of contruction affect the true nature of the construct. Like you can make a basic single layer mirror shield, or you can give the shield additional layers and structural visualization for added resilliance. Both are technically mirror shields but they are still yet different. And obviously you can make two different things with the same construction method and they could be completely different.
So thus I think at the bare minimum a construct but be defined by BOTH function and method of construction.
|
|
|
Post by yokusa on Aug 21, 2006 19:30:55 GMT -5
I think since psionics isn't technically "known" by everyone, it's difficult to put labels on anything psionic-related. Because it's not a general everyday topic, and there are psionic communities that may disagree in nearly every aspect, one may classify constructs by manner, function, or even some other classification. It's so different from classifying living species into genus, species, phylum, and all that good stuff because nearly everyone excepts the manner of which they are classified. Now if one could come up with a system that fits everyone's criteria, or we were to agree on most criteria, we could then classify based on how we all see fit.
Just the first thing that popped into my mind. Back to you at the station.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Aug 21, 2006 20:49:26 GMT -5
The question was about definitions. How do YOU define them, Yokusa? Could you be more specific.
Also it's not that different from classifying living organisms. the more we discover the more things get re-named. Class pelecypoda became bivalva (It has a third much less easily spelled name.) (note this is the Class to which clams belong.) The exact proper classifications are STILL being hashed out, and the systems are slightly different in europe and the US, though for the most part they ARE the same.
No system fits everyone's criteria, I'm simply interested in what people think differentiates one construct from another. Is a thread shield that reflects like a mirror, still a mirror shield? Is construction one set of classification, and purpose another? When most people I have encountered speak of mirror shields they essentially mean a reflective bubble shield, which means it can't be a thread construct... but a thread shield can be made to DO the same thing. Do you see where I'm going with this?
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by yokusa on Aug 21, 2006 22:25:23 GMT -5
The question was about definitions. How do YOU define them, Yokusa? Could you be more specific. Oh okay. Because you said ideas or comments, so I thought it was open for general discussion. That's fine I'll edit the post with some of my definitions tomorrow because I don't have my psionics notebook handy. Sorry, but if you'll allow me to quickly get sidetracked. Then I'll get straight to the point of the thread. Also it's not that different from classifying living organisms. the more we discover the more things get re-named. Class pelecypoda became bivalva (It has a third much less easily spelled name.) (note this is the Class to which clams belong.) The exact proper classifications are STILL being hashed out, and the systems are slightly different in europe and the US, though for the most part they ARE the same. Don't mean to be stubborn, but I'd still have to disagree. Here is my reason: When we classify living organisms, we have clear 100% living breathing evidence that this is how the science of nature, biology, ecology or whatever works. We have strict evidence that shows that this animal is different from this animal because of such and such a characteristic. But because we as psionic researchers do not have naked eye evidence or even smaller evidence that psi does exist, there is no way we can classify anything and say it is as clear as that of classifying living organisms. It's like psionline could classify a construct by how it functions while UPC classifies constructs as their manner of construction. But neither of us can rightfully say each other is wrong. Yes you could also classify animals in a different way, but that would be silly because the way we know have it is more universal, so that scientists can understand each other. That's why each living being has a genus/species name. But since psionics isn't even accepted worldwide, we have no way of creating a concrete method of classification. No system fits everyone's criteria, I'm simply interested in what people think differentiates one construct from another. Exactly. I completely understand. That's why I was trying to chose my words carefully by saying most everyone's criteria, or almost no one's criteria or something like that. Anyway. When I classify my constructs, I'd probably have to classify each one in terms of their functions. I wouldn't classify them in manner of construction only because you could construct the same construct in a different manner, and then would it not be what it was before? But it will always have the same function unless you specifically give it a different function. Yes, you could make a different construct with the same function, which would classify it under that function. For example: When I classify my shields, I classify them in terms of first; passive or aggressive. Then I go from there. ~Yokusa, rambling
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Aug 23, 2006 21:35:03 GMT -5
OK. Most of that made sense, Yokusa. I disagree about the argument regarding the difference of opinion on how psionics is classified vs. the silliness of using a different system for biological taxonomy. We can define how stuff works or functions through personal observation and a system that takes in passive/agressive, conceptual/maual, telepathy/empathy/sig recognition/etc. type elements of the shield. Do you follow me?
I tend to classify my shields either by function or by visualization for personal preference and use in conversation with people who have scanned said shields and discussed them with me previously.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Aug 24, 2006 8:43:41 GMT -5
Actually when classifying living organisms we also have to classify EXTINCT organisms, of which we do not have living breathing examples, and only rarely get handed them. (These 'wow we thought that was completely GONE' type organisms are called 'living Fossils' The Ginko is one of them, which is why most geology departments plant them.)
In Taxonomy a variety of methods are used to assess where an organism falls and its relationship to ther speices. It is a combination of physical characteristics and any genetic materiel we can garder from fosiles or living specimines. It is not EXCLUSIVELY one or the other, and it changes. It changes REGULARLY. Orders and phylum go away, new ones are added. Superclasses and very specialized Orders come and go as more is learned. Taxonomy is far from a concrete system. (The things you learn in Historical Geology) Like the current discussion as to how to relate Therapsids and Aves.
And you said fits EVERYONE's Criteria. If you're going to claim you're watching your words, please actually do so.
Yes, I said ideas and comments but Ideas and comments on how things should be classified, and how you classify them, and what you are refering to when you say this type of shield or that type of shield. Not whether we should be bothering. YES we should be bothering. Why? So we can UNDERSTAND what each person is saying when they're using these terms. Psionics will never enter the world of science if we can't even offer newbies a consistent idea of what each shield is and does, and how they can know what bubble shield means if one person is using it to mean the most basic raw pushback shield... and another has an elaborate thread shield that does similar things much more efficiently but very few newbies could hope to duplicate it.
There are constants, we just never get into detail enough because 'Well that would be silly everyone does it differently' Yes. everyone does it a little differently which makes the constants stand out even MORE.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by yokusa on Aug 25, 2006 17:37:24 GMT -5
Actually when classifying living organisms we also have to classify EXTINCT organisms, of which we do not have living breathing examples, and only rarely get handed them. (These 'wow we thought that was completely GONE' type organisms are called 'living Fossils' The Ginko is one of them, which is why most geology departments plant them.) This was kinda one of those things you picked out of my post that was really serving no purpose in the main discussion, but thanks for the info anyway. And you said fits EVERYONE's Criteria. If you're going to claim you're watching your words, please actually do so. Maybe you misread the context of which is was placed. Here, I'll post it again: "Now if one could come up with a system that fits everyone's criteria, or we were to agree on most criteria, we could then classify based on how we all see fit." As you can see, that "if" in the beginning of the sentence implies that I'm talking about a situation that could potentially happen, but has not. It was not stated as a fact, and therefore is not a false statement or even far fetched. Believe me, I know how you can pick out the tiniest, insufficient mistakes and use it to drive the main issue. I'm watching my words, and something tells me you don't even read my whole post. Yes, I said ideas and comments but Ideas and comments on how things should be classified, and how you classify them, and what you are refering to when you say this type of shield or that type of shield. Not whether we should be bothering. YES we should be bothering. Okay. Then if I may please ask you to be more specific when you ask the question so I can answer it correctly the first time. So we can UNDERSTAND what each person is saying when they're using these terms. Psionics will never enter the world of science if we can't even offer newbies a consistent idea of what each shield is and does, and how they can know what bubble shield means if one person is using it to mean the most basic raw pushback shield... and another has an elaborate thread shield that does similar things much more efficiently but very few newbies could hope to duplicate it. Which is exactly what I was trying to say. I could tell a newbie what type of shield they are trying to use and then you could refer to the same type of shield with a different name, which would be inconsistent. You want to offer newbies a consistent idea, but you're asking us to give you all of our individual and personal ideas of classifying our shields. In Taxonomy a variety of methods are used to assess where an organism falls and its relationship to ther speices. It is a combination of physical characteristics and any genetic materiel we can garder from fosiles or living specimines. It is not EXCLUSIVELY one or the other, and it changes. It changes REGULARLY. Orders and phylum go away, new ones are added. Superclasses and very specialized Orders come and go as more is learned. Taxonomy is far from a concrete system. (The things you learn in Historical Geology) Like the current discussion as to how to relate Therapsids and Aves. And whenever they make changes, the people who follow the current system will almost assuredly change the system along with the rest. Again, this seems quite off the main issue. There are constants, we just never get into detail enough because 'Well that would be silly everyone does it differently' Yes. everyone does it a little differently which makes the constants stand out even MORE. Alright what you just said is if things are different, they make things more constant. But I obviously have read it wrong and will be told what it really means. If you're going to claim you're watching your words, please actually do so. Perhaps you should watch my words, seeing as you have misquoted me. Perhaps you should look at how you just quoted me and then look back at how I said it: 'Well that would be silly everyone does it differently'
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Aug 26, 2006 19:27:33 GMT -5
1) Then why did you post the Taxonomy analogy in the first place? You can't just drop details because you don't feel like including them at the moment.
2) No system is fully agreed on; however, we can't just run around calling an apple tree a pear tree, either, saying "You can call it whatever you like, we'll just know what you're talking about!" Psionically that's essentially what we're doing. (More with the advanced constructs/shields/techniques than the very basics.)
3) The people using the current system STILL refer to Bivalva as Pelecypoda, even though the latter term is no longer technically valid. Just because the system change doesn't mean the language changes instantaneously.
4) You could also watch your words, and actually read what you write before you post it. The quote was intended as a summation, and not a direct quote of specifically you. You expect me to read your mind, do me the reciprocal curtousy of reading mine.
5) I said the differences make the constants STAND OUT more. Saying that there ARE constants INSPITE of diffrences not BECAUSE of them.
Please either discuss the topic at hand or refrain from posting in this discussion completely. The question was and still is 'how do you classify shield constructs: By type or function?' If you want to argue that we shouldn't be discussing this at all, please create your own thread on that topic.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by yokusa on Aug 31, 2006 14:04:23 GMT -5
I answered the question already. I hope you were in full reading mode when I posted it, because it's there, among other things. Did you say you had a rake or a toothbrush?
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Aug 31, 2006 14:42:37 GMT -5
Your primary argument has been that we shouldn't be classifying these things at all. Yes, I read the whole thing. Though it seems that you missed one point: Manner of construction is not the same as METHOD of construction. Manner of construction is the STRUCTURE of the shield. Method is how that structure was arived at. Shields with the same structure can do different things depending on their programing. Two shields that do the exact thame thing could have vastly different structures. How would you classify such things such that it was clear exactly what shield was being used?
This is where I'm going with this question. Not that we shouldn't classify things, but that we need to be CLEAR in how we explain shields so when we get beyond the basics there aren't 3 different definitions for the structure known as 'thread shields.'
I have both rake and toothbrush. You haven't rated beyond that yet.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by yokusa on Aug 31, 2006 15:39:10 GMT -5
Understandable. Which is a goal I believe should be set in the psionic community so that most of us are at a complete understanding.
Maybe I should have emphasized that I wasn't just worried about clarification on this site. Where does that get us if we don't help clarify this with other main psionic sites like UPC and PsiPog?
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Aug 31, 2006 20:33:59 GMT -5
Yokusa: [Stage Direction: To be read with deliberation. Mentor to student.] If we don't start here, on psionline, how are we going to present something logical and coherent at a much wider level? If we do not clearly understand one another at levels ABOVE the common newbie, how can we explain to the newbies? It is much easier to take a system that has withstood usage and tests and show it to other communities, and back it up with "This already works" than simply trying to hash something out with everyone all at once. We have tried that. It failed rather misserably.
Moderator: Please could we get this moved to the Advanced forum? The discussion would benifit from the assumptions that forum makes.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Aug 31, 2006 21:03:28 GMT -5
I am going to have to agree with DA on this. This conversation is a lot more advanced than any new person on this subject is prepared for. We need to move it somewhere where there are assumptions on what people are capable of following and understanding. I am currently rejoicing that I was homeschooled for freshman Taxonomy! I couldn't have stood arguing with others of that level of mental maturity (and still can't).
|
|
|
Post by yokusa on Sept 5, 2006 13:56:08 GMT -5
Wolf, I'll be honest, I'm not capable of discussing Taxonomy at this point. I just mentioned it because it was one thing that came to my mind....
Anyway, DA, I definitely understand where you're coming from. I totally agree, but I think since we're consistent members of psionline, we're only taking it from our point of view. Decisions don't need to start at psionline. It can, but here's the problem that's coming up in my mind, which is the same problem that I've been thinking about in the discussion about goals in the General forum:
Say we as members of psionline come to whatever conclusion about psi. Then, we have UPC, which is another close member of our psionics community that comes to different conclusions and uses the energy known as chi. We've spent all this time separately looking and developing results for our own ideas until we finally decide to collaborate and find that some of our ideas are totally different. Collaboration on different ideas do not always work out the way we plan. They do sometimes, but considering the fact that our ideas may contrast so much and for such a long time that we've developed so much evidence to constitute our ideas, it may well not turn out so good. It may, or it may not. I'm no good at precog, but that's all that I'm thinking about. If we want to collaborate ideas, sooner would definitely be better than later. Personally, I hate even having one community with many different websites. It would be much easier for all of the mods and admins to just collaborate on chat or something and create one great psionics community. It probably won't happen, but the way I see it, we'd get a heck of a lot further than what we're doing here and newbies would be a lot less confused knowing that most of us agree on most things.
But again, I can totally see where you're coming from, that's just what my ideas all boil down to.
|
|