Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:If I can't understand sumthin' it's because some one has purposefully distorted or muddied it for the express purpose of 'it' not being understood.

Why would folks intentionally complexify shit?

To make things more capable. If it was simple it wouldn't be able to do anything. You think a simple computer would be able to do much? (and I'm not talking about the user interface).

If you don't understand something, it's because you lack the requirements, which can be anything. I would first go for interest though, you're not actually interested in understanding, and so intentionally make yourself dumb with respect to the subject.

My hammer is the simplest machine I know.

I can build with it; destroy with it.

Simple is good.

Add bells and whistles to my hammer (complexify it) and it moves from 'useful' to 'worthless'.

#

In my experience: I (or, anyone) can understand anything if it's raw and laid bare (sometimes by force), which is -- of course -- why so much is refined (muddied) and covered up (often by force)...

#

"You think a simple computer would be able to do much?"

Like any good tool, it would do what it was designed to do...simple is not synonymous with simplistic.

henry quirk wrote:Like any good tool, it would do what it was designed to do...simple is not synonymous with simplistic.

No, but that was neither the point, my question remains, would a simple computer be able to do much? Or do you think you'd need a more complex computer? Complexity is made up by layers of simple things, and you need a lot of simple things packed into this complex thing which is modern computers, if you're gonna have it do what you want and which we normally use it for. Anywhere from Google (which is insanely complex) to video playbacks and desktop display.

henry quirk wrote:My hammer is the simplest machine I know.

I can build with it; destroy with it.

And for all it can do it's virtually worthless in modern construction work, and quite tedious to use, in comparison with a nail gun it's a calculator meeting a laptop in efficiency. Building anything with a hammer takes lots of time, lots of unnecessary effort and you can only do a limited amount of things: there are only so many ways and things you can hit something with a blunt instrument.

Portable cement trucks, real machines (for cutting, shaping and shooting), vehicles for lifting heavy things (and transporting things, we no longer use horse and mules), and so forth replaces the screw driver, the shovel and the hammer, those are tools of the last century and what you buy when you can't afford real stuff (alternatively what you have lying around if your real stuff breaks down, but maybe have two then in case because I've known hammers to break down as well).

"you need a lot of simple things packed into this complex thing which is modern computers"

The above misses my points but allows me to make them again: simple is good, and, when laid out and raw anything can be understood.

If the 'resource management' you promote can only be understood by the few, the 'expert', then that 'system' must be viewed with suspicion.

And: I answered your question...here, let me do it again:

Q: Would a simple computer be able to do much?

A: It would do what it was designed to do. That is: as long as you asked the 'simple' computer to do what it was designed to do, it would do it. The more you ask of it, the less capable it would be. Networking simple machines together nets you increased capability...building more powerful (complex) machines nets you increased capability...in either case: simple leads to complex...if you can understand the parts, you can understand the whole...your 'resource management' scheme must bear up under similar scrutiny or -- again -- it should be viewed as suspicious.

#

"virtually worthless in modern construction work, and quite tedious to use"

HA!

Go talk to a construction worker...ask him what uses he has for a hammer...tell him the hammer is 'worthless' and 'tedious to use'...prepare for ridicule.

Anyhow... ...all those machines you cite (nail gun, cement trucks, etc.) wholly understandable by the average shmoe if said schmoe is inclined to take the time and effort. No 'expert' is needed to, replace a valve, hammer out the bend in a nail magazine, change a belt, change the oil, replace the brakes, bang out a dent, etc.

Similarly: no 'expert' is needed to understand what motivates a man or woman, what drives an economy, why societies function as they do, etc.

#

"Google: insanely complex"

No, not really...don't take my word for it...research it yourself.

henry quirk wrote: Q: Would a simple computer be able to do much?

A: It would do what it was designed to do. That is: as long as you asked the 'simple' computer to do what it was designed to do, it would do it. The more you ask of it, the less capable it would be. Networking simple machines together nets you increased capability...building more powerful (complex) machines nets you increased capability...in either case: simple leads to complex...if you can understand the parts, you can understand the whole...your 'resource management' scheme must bear up under similar scrutiny or -- again -- it should be viewed as suspicious.

It seems to come down to what you want to do with the computer. If you are using a computer to do something, It's a tool, then the simplest tool that will do the job is best. Some people don't need all the bells and whistles on their computer to do what they want to do. My primary use of the computer is to get on line, I store very little in the memory.

Then you have people who want to play with the computer itself and the more bells and whistles the better for them. They may not be doing anything in particular but they are on the computer using all the different features that no-one else needs or wants.

The Voice of Time wrote: And for all it can do it's virtually worthless in modern construction work, and quite tedious to use, in comparison with a nail gun it's a calculator meeting a laptop in efficiency. Building anything with a hammer takes lots of time, lots of unnecessary effort and you can only do a limited amount of things: there are only so many ways and things you can hit something with a blunt instrument.

You really demonstrate your lack of understanding of tools. A hammer may be limited in what it can do and how fast it can do it, but a nail gun, while being faster at doing one thing, can only do one thing, it seriously lacks the versatility of a hammer. And once set, adjusting the power of a nail gun is tedious and difficult, where as a hammer can be swung hard or lightly with no needed adjustment to the tool itself.

henry quirk wrote:If the 'resource management' you promote can only be understood by the few, the 'expert', then that 'system' must be viewed with suspicion.

I didn't say understand, but know, it takes time to intimately know a lot of information, an education only a few could afford to have. I neither said anything about "resource management", and to talk of it as resource management would be faulty, it completely avoids the real subject.

thedoc wrote:You really demonstrate your lack of understanding of tools. A hammer may be limited in what it can do and how fast it can do it, but a nail gun, while being faster at doing one thing, can only do one thing, it seriously lacks the versatility of a hammer. And once set, adjusting the power of a nail gun is tedious and difficult, where as a hammer can be swung hard or lightly with no needed adjustment to the tool itself.

The worth of something is for its usefulness and not its ability to be used at all. That's quite a superior understanding I'd say.

The Voice of Time wrote:

thedoc wrote:You really demonstrate your lack of understanding of tools. A hammer may be limited in what it can do and how fast it can do it, but a nail gun, while being faster at doing one thing, can only do one thing, it seriously lacks the versatility of a hammer. And once set, adjusting the power of a nail gun is tedious and difficult, where as a hammer can be swung hard or lightly with no needed adjustment to the tool itself.

The worth of something is for its usefulness and not its ability to be used at all. That's quite a superior understanding I'd say.

A hammer is much more useful than a nail gun, since it can be used for more than just driving nails. Any person in the building trade would give up the nail gun before giving up the hammer. You are demonstrating an inferior understanding of a hammer.

I once worked with a person who refused to own a hammer, since he referred to one an "an implement of destruction", yet he stated that he would use a Clog to hammer a nail into the wall to hang a picture. He condoned the action but condemned the proper tool for the job, just a bit stupid in my opinion.

thedoc wrote:A hammer is much more useful than a nail gun, since it can be used for more than just driving nails.

Only if it's actually used and does a better job.

I have yet to see a builder who does not carry and use a hammer through out the job on all aspects of building.

thedoc wrote:I have yet to see a builder who does not carry and use a hammer through out the job on all aspects of building.

Yes I'm sure that in the aspect of setting up the concrete walls there's a lot of hammers used...

Don't say something if you know it isn't true.

The Voice of Time wrote:

thedoc wrote:I have yet to see a builder who does not carry and use a hammer through out the job on all aspects of building.

Yes I'm sure that in the aspect of setting up the concrete walls there's a lot of hammers used...

Don't say something if you know it isn't true.

Over the years I have watched numerous builders on construction sites. During the summer and fall of 2009 I watched several crews building my new house. There were always hammers carried and used throughout construction. You are the one who needs to stop talking about what you know nothing about. You seem to be enamored with the newest technology, believing that it makes obsolete and useless the old technology, you are totally wrong, and what you are posting indicates that you know nothing about construction. Stick your nose back into your computer, you know nothing about the world outside the basement.

technology... let's build a form in which the concrete is poured...

use a nail gun to set the rebar...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:technology... let's build a form in which the concrete is poured...

use a nail gun to set the rebar...

-Imp

On my old house I poured some concrete and used wood framing and plywood for the forms. When my new house was built the forms for the concrete was steel that was all pinned together, no place for a nail gun, but they could have used some of the nails to twist around the rebar.