Please log in. To create a new account, enter the name and password you want to use.
If you supplied an email address when you signed up or added a email later, you can have your password reset.
This user name doesn't exist. If you want to create a new account, just verify your password and log in.
This user name exists. If you want to create a new account, please choose a different name.
Enter the current email address you have registered in your profile. You'll get an email containing your new password.
You have no email address in your profile, so you can't have your password reset.
Password reset. Check your email in a few minutes
That account does not exist.
The email address specified is not registered with this account.
Delivery to this email address has failed.
Mnessie said ("How was your day" thread): "I would like to debate this (the statement: "Path without a goal can still nurture progress").
The path is nothing more than the sum of the whole. If you can not appreciate the whole road from start to destination the path is about taking blind steps. Effectively then you are saying that every step is progress. This is unlike saying that improvement as a person in itself is a goal. This is saying that you can make progress without a destination. I disagree on this and will explain why.
But first... I just learned something important again from discussing together like this. I said it before and I'll say it again, it's a pleasure talking to you.
At first I didn't agree but after careful consideration I noticed that I ended up agreeing with you on the point that the destination is not required to take the actions. What I disagree with is that it can be considered progress. The path in itself can be more then just "start-end" if you use "start-unknown state" However there is a problem with this logic. It is since you would have to measure that improvement to a finite state which can determine if the progress was actually progress requiring a state of perfection as base comparison. (If there is not a state from which we can tell if you have closed in or moved away then all we can say is that we moved.)
Reasoning behind upcoming analogy To help explain this somewhat difficult bit of information... and mind you that I am not trying to condescend here... This is no easy material and I spent considerable time just to try to properly forumulate my views and ideas and would appreciate feedback on each point you find debatable. This would be a scientist that made better things all along but has no reason or understanding why he does this. He simply does much like an automaton follows instructions. You would not call it progress at this point but action.
Stating that progress is a measure of improvement of state of happiness or self-perception means you can not compare this to anyone but yourself. Then how could you possibly know that you made any progress when all you can determine is that you were not what you were before. I am at A and now I am at B. That is all you can be certain of without comparing to other states. In other words how would you know that you made a step in the correct direction? You can not say more than that you moved away from A towards B. You can not compare to any other path like this. You could be doing /random in an n dimensional space. This would not be like the automaton which is a slave to its instructions but rather a state of insanity/chaos.
If the starting point were to fade there is no problem, it is all about the destination. Then progress itself would become still differentiating you from your distance to your goal. If progress were to stop that would mean that we have a constant state and are in effect again meaningless or need a motivator to start walking again somehow (Debatable but fairly solid. consider how being the same forever is not the same as living forever. You would not experience anything in this situation)
*This point I am still mulling on , feel free to help* You need to be able to measure yourself with everything in the work space. Consider that "with all due respect" narrow minded people can be perfectly happy as long as they find themselves making progress in their self defined work space. (I sometimes wonder If I'm not the fool for picking such a large work space)
Continued part 2 of the debate
In the case of the maximum workspace you must measure your own progress towards perfection yet you will never reach it since the workspace is of infinite size. You have tha goal and will fortunatly not achieve it as otherwise you would disprove your own "raison d'etre". Effectively every step undermines the very road itself. The scientist would then have made himself perfect yet obsolete at the same time. This is obviously an impossiblity yet a goal we are walking towards everyday. (Good old x/2 where x [0..∞], that's what we're doing and it is utterly pointless. And yes Gregol, even though it is pointless it can be a lot of fun ^_^. For example I would say building killer robots that require no remote controls. If I ever were to build one I won't call it SkyNet btw)
Improvement as a person is debatably meaningless in this scenario if you do not intend to use it to reach perfection. The improvement is a step towards the destination. The only other option is infinity, that's a discussion I'd love to start but then I'd poke you in a 1v1 conversation as I could spend "a lifetime" talking about it (pun intended). What is the meaning of Infinite life also sounds a lot more 2012.
On a sidenote I would like to add for purpose of humor that my intuition keeps saying that progress can be made on a path without a goal. I'm such a hypocrit aren't I! ^_^
Oh and btw. I had a very good time thinking about this. And also you can stop worrying about typing to much :D
Sadly, this debate went on without me before it switched subjects, but I suppose I can reply to it now, here, where it's relevant.
The whole discussion whether you can measure progress when you can't reach your goal is centered around a few axioms. And some of them were not even defined in the original discussion.
SK7000
11 months agoSadly, this debate went on without me before it switched subjects, but I suppose I can reply to it now, here, where it's relevant.
The whole discussion whether you can measure progress when you can't reach your goal is centered around a few axioms. And some of them were not even defined in the original discussion.