Aikido.. The reality?

[JowGaWolf]

At what point in human flight was something designed that wasn't supported by any prior evidence?

At the beginning. We can used the Chinese story about a ruler throwing people off a cliff to their deaths. He wasn't trying get them to fly. He was just trying to execute them there was plenty of evidence that they wouldn't fly. That is until one did one person did. Based on that story there was no evidence that a human could fly using a kite before that point which is supposed to be the historical reference of when the. Everything before that point about kites are best guesses assumptions and beliefs. Which makes it difficult to verify or check assumptions, theories and beliefs.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I intentionally did this on purpose. Because when you speak of kites and human flight, you may have to introduce accidental discoveries. Things that are discovered to be true when evidence nor belief was needed.

For example, history doesn't show that kites were originally designed for human flight. The chances that discovering that a kite can lift a man in the air is something that a kite maker who was interested in seeing how big he can make a kite would have probably experienced. The bigger the kite the more likely this becomes a reality.

Eventually you'll have ask yourself. Was the kite originally designed for the intention of human flight. Or was it something that was discovered by accident when someone decided to make a big kite and fly it. You will also have to ask about the history of kites and how it came about. Was it something that was created by sailors? No one knows. Because of that lack of knowledge you'll end up with a bunch of people having theories and beliefs about how the first kite was created and how did it come about. So I picked a specific area about flying that would make it possible to research and actually find how it came about.

For marital artists we have the worst focus. The title of the thread is about Aikido and here we are talking about kites.

Yes, accidental discoveries are absolutely a part of the evidence in the chain. And likely the origin of the kite was accidental - someone's sheet (or paper, or whatever) blew in the wind, while tangled in something.

But theories are not the same as belief. Scientists come up with theories all the time that fit the available evidence, which they say are the most likely (or sometimes, just, "a likely") answer to how something happened. Sometimes their conclusions lead to beliefs. And sometimes those conclusions (and even beliefs) are wrong. This is built into science - you're expected to challenge your own and others' conclusions.

I'm not sure how any of that changes the fact that we can see a chain of evidence that would easily lead to the point where we have knowledge of the progression. There's absolutely no reason I should believe someone had to make a leap past the available evidence, except in their experiments (which are an attempt to gain evidence, so can have hypotheses that go beyond the limits of existing evidence).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends on where your knowledge exists. Are you creating something new that has never existed or are you seeing what others have already created and building off on that knowledge.

That's an entirely different question. I can't for the life of me think of a single advancement that isn't incremental. Everything that is created is a step beyond something that existed before it, so uses the evidence of those prior things.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

At the beginning. We can used the Chinese story about a ruler throwing people off a cliff to their deaths. He wasn't trying get them to fly. He was just trying to execute them there was plenty of evidence that they wouldn't fly. That is until one did one person did. Based on that story there was no evidence that a human could fly using a kite before that point which is supposed to be the historical reference of when the. Everything before that point about kites are best guesses assumptions and beliefs. Which makes it difficult to verify or check assumptions, theories and beliefs.

Let's assume that is a factual story (I've no idea if it is or not). Do you think that person had never seen a kite before? Was this the first kite ever flown in their presence? Or had they seen kites, and knew that a larger kite, in a stiff wind, could pull a man hard enough to make him take a step? Which makes it a step - not a leap - to say that a large, well-designed kite, in the right wind could carry a man (or at least let him down gently).

It seems you're trying to limit evidence to an exact thing already done. But that's not how evidence works in inductive reasoning. If I see someone do a hip throw on the left side (and it's the first hip throw I've ever seen), I will likely conclude that a hip throw can also be done on the right side. I have the evidence of the throw I saw, plus my knowledge that the body is roughly symmetrical. Assuming no very different physiology between myself and the person I observe (they aren't massively stronger, I don't have different obvious physical limitations, etc.), I could also conclude that it's probably possible for me to do a throw like that with some practice (since past experience provides me evidence that most skills take some practice).

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think you're confounding evidence and conclusion, now.

No I'm not confounding the two. What conclusion have I made? Lets take a look about what I stated. "There is an abundance of evidence that animals live in the deepest parts of the ocean. Name one human that lives there? Yet there is a lot of evidence that life is there. "

1. "There is an abundance of evidence that animals live in the deepest parts of the ocean." Is this not true?

2. "Name one human that lives there?" What conclusion is this? Can you name one human that lives there? Is it true that human's don't live there?

I state this question because in order for you to make #2 a reality, then you will have to believe that there's a way to make it possible for people to live there. Ironically all of the the things you listed were reasons why? we don't live there vs why it would be possible to.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No I'm not confounding the two. What conclusion have I made? Lets take a look about what I stated. "There is an abundance of evidence that animals live in the deepest parts of the ocean. Name one human that lives there? Yet there is a lot of evidence that life is there. "

1. "There is an abundance of evidence that animals live in the deepest parts of the ocean." Is this not true?

2. "Name one human that lives there?" What conclusion is this? Can you name one human that lives there? Is it true that human's don't live there?

I state this question because in order for you to make #2 a reality, then you will have to believe that there's a way to make it possible for people to live there. Ironically all of the the things you listed were reasons why? we don't live there vs why it would be possible to.

I didn't say anyting about you drawing a conclusion.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Vanishingly few advancements jump past the evidence.

I think this is because humans created so many things that previous technologies and solution provide a lot of information to build on. I would say very few areas are brand new areas in which a previous knowledge doesn't serve as a driving force. We now know multiple ways of flying and all of that information can help create new ways to fly. People who were creating new flying machines had to learn through trial and error the things that today's 10 yr olds know.

 

[JowGaWolf]

But theories are not the same as belief.

Yeah that's an entirely different rabbit hole. I wouldn't call beliefs theories either..

That's an entirely different question. I can't for the life of me think of a single advancement that isn't incremental.

You would have to think of inventions and then trace it back through it's origins in order to see if it was created new, or if it was influenced by something else.

look at inventions that were designed to solve a problem. Traffic light, phone, cotton gin. Helicopter maybe? The bicycle?

 

[Martial D]

Is that even a complete sentence in English?

Please, tell me, which cooperative larping fantasy touched you, and where.

I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. Let me break it down in a way that maybe even you can understand.

If you train in a way that involves 0 live resistance ( that is when the other guy is allowed to react in a non scripted way, if my wording is too difficult) , as most traditional styles tend to do ( a style being a particular martial art, to clarify), then what you are doing is larping(this means live action roll playing).

If this is still too difficult for you to understand, please let me know and I will explain it again slowly using smaller words.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah that's an entirely different rabbit hole. I wouldn't call beliefs theories either..

You would have to think of inventions and then trace it back through it's origins in order to see if it was created new, or if it was influenced by something else.

look at inventions that were designed to solve a problem. Traffic light, phone, cotton gin. Helicopter maybe? The bicycle?

None of those would be without prior evidence. A traffic light was simply a light that rotated, with different colored lenses. Mechanical rotation, light, and colored lenses were all established technology. The phone was an advancement built upon knowledge that frequencies could be transmitted over wire, and that sound could be created from vibrations, and those two lined up with other knowledge that made it possible to take the next step- someone just had to figure out the last technical bits to get there.

The helicopter is an interesting one. There are seeds that use a similar shape to a rotor blade, to drift long distances. And the rotor principles have been used in toys for a long time (again, some history of this in China).

It would be amazing to find a single invention that actually wasn't based on conclusions drawn from existing evidence. The most surprising inventions are just that, paired with either a new step in technology (like the phone) or a new concept in use (like the iPod).

 

[drop bear]

In a sense. Through trial and error, they believed certain methods after proof of concept. Take Daedalus for example.
While some were attempts to directly duplicate birds (gluing on feathers) others were very far removed from the flying wing of a bird (rotors, hot air balloons).

I get where you are going. You could argue SM was applied. I would argue a similar approach (in man's understanding) has been used in Christianity (I cannot speak for all religion) since the inception.

So go ahead and lay it on me.

Exept we can't discuss religion.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I believe you believe that it’s evidence based.

Well yes, and that is quite an astute o

I was making a joke. I believe you didn’t get it.

you are actually quite funny. I like your jokes.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

None of those would be without prior evidence. A traffic light was simply a light that rotated, with different colored lenses. Mechanical rotation, light, and colored lenses were all established technology. The phone was an advancement built upon knowledge that frequencies could be transmitted over wire, and that sound could be created from vibrations, and those two lined up with other knowledge that made it possible to take the next step- someone just had to figure out the last technical bits to get there.

The helicopter is an interesting one. There are seeds that use a similar shape to a rotor blade, to drift long distances. And the rotor principles have been used in toys for a long time (again, some history of this in China).

It would be amazing to find a single invention that actually wasn't based on conclusions drawn from existing evidence. The most surprising inventions are just that, paired with either a new step in technology (like the phone) or a new concept in use (like the iPod).

I don’t know this to be a fact but how about Archimedes screw?

 

[Oily Dragon]

I'm not responsible for your lack of reading comprehension. Let me break it down in a way that maybe even you can understand.

If you train in a way that involves 0 live resistance ( that is when the other guy is allowed to react in a non scripted way, if my wording is too difficult) , as most traditional styles tend to do ( a style being a particular martial art, to clarify), then what you are doing is larping(this means live action roll playing).

If this is still too difficult for you to understand, please let me know and I will explain it again slowly using smaller words.

"Most traditional styles...LARP"? Again, can you name a couple?

Once again buddy, your problem seems to be that you're mired in "0 live resistance" fantasy land of Wing Chun. Great news! I've been sent here through time by the dragon gods to tell you there's live resistance Wing Chun out there, waiting for you. You have to want it though.

I'm not responsible for your unwillingness. Aikido is all about acceptance, after all. Oh yeah.

 

[JowGaWolf]

None of those would be without prior evidence. A traffic light was simply a light that rotated, with different colored lenses. Mechanical rotation, light, and colored lenses were all established technology. The phone was an advancement built upon knowledge that frequencies could be transmitted over wire, and that sound could be created from vibrations, and those two lined up with other knowledge that made it possible to take the next step- someone just had to figure out the last technical bits to get there.

This is why I say it's necessary to trace it back to the origins. You have to determine if there was something that already exists or if it was a variation. Then you have to determine why it was created. Was it created because someone saw a light, or knew of mechanical rotation. Or was it something that was created to solve a problem where it's necessary to come up with ideas that you think would work.

For example. The invention process for the original traffic light might have followed as such.
1. How do we direct traffic
2. Ideas come up idea 1, idea 2, idea 3,
3. How would we make the ideas that we believe will work a reality? This is where evidence in technology come into play to turn what is in the brain and what is believed to be the solution to work. You have to have the idea first so you know what evidence (if any) you'll need to look at.
4. You build a prototype. This is where the testing come in to see if your idea and belief in it will work as you believe it would.

The first light ran on gas and it blew up on an officer. According to what I've been able to find, there was nothing before this. And it was based on how officers were directing traffic with their arms. The lights were seem to be a feature that came later in the design. After they had the idea for it, someone probably wondered how to see the signals at night. I don't know if officers used gas lights at night to signal traffic. I didn't dig that deep. Point is. It came about due to a a problem and someone came up for an idea that they believed would work, then went about finding evidence on the best way to make it work.

I couldn't find any information on if the idea of a traffic signal existed before Other than man directing traffic. It turned out that gas and making a traffic signal based on the arm signals of an officer was not the best way to go about it.

 

[JowGaWolf]

None of those would be without prior evidence. A traffic light was simply a light that rotated, with different colored lenses. Mechanical rotation, light, and colored lenses were all established technology. The phone was an advancement built upon knowledge that frequencies could be transmitted over wire, and that sound could be created from vibrations, and those two lined up with other knowledge that made it possible to take the next step- someone just had to figure out the last technical bits to get there.

The helicopter is an interesting one. There are seeds that use a similar shape to a rotor blade, to drift long distances. And the rotor principles have been used in toys for a long time (again, some history of this in China).

It would be amazing to find a single invention that actually wasn't based on conclusions drawn from existing evidence. The most surprising inventions are just that, paired with either a new step in technology (like the phone) or a new concept in use (like the iPod).

Remember the idea of for the training equipment that I want to build? The idea of it came before the evidence. It started out very simple.

1. I want training equipment that I can build and use for A, B, C.
2. I want it to be portable but not heavy

I had the idea first and then came into the forum to ask gather the evidence of what might work "What can I use for..." based on how I believed the equipment should look and function.

 

[drop bear]

"Most traditional styles...LARP"? Again, can you name a couple?

Once again buddy, your problem seems to be that you're mired in "0 live resistance" fantasy land of Wing Chun. Great news! I've been sent here through time by the dragon gods to tell you there's live resistance Wing Chun out there, waiting for you. You have to want it though.

I'm not responsible for your unwillingness. Aikido is all about acceptance, after all. Oh yeah.

There is live resistance in Wing chun. But where there isn't the style suffers for it.

 

[dvcochran]

Exept we can't discuss religion.

Haha. I thought we already have been.

 

[dvcochran]

Yes, accidental discoveries are absolutely a part of the evidence in the chain. And likely the origin of the kite was accidental - someone's sheet (or paper, or whatever) blew in the wind, while tangled in something.

But theories are not the same as belief. Scientists come up with theories all the time that fit the available evidence, which they say are the most likely (or sometimes, just, "a likely") answer to how something happened. Sometimes their conclusions lead to beliefs. And sometimes those conclusions (and even beliefs) are wrong. This is built into science - you're expected to challenge your own and others' conclusions.

I'm not sure how any of that changes the fact that we can see a chain of evidence that would easily lead to the point where we have knowledge of the progression. There's absolutely no reason I should believe someone had to make a leap past the available evidence, except in their experiments (which are an attempt to gain evidence, so can have hypotheses that go beyond the limits of existing evidence).

I don't mean to, and I know this may derail the thread but, this line of discussion makes me wonder about how/when someone figured out it is good to cook meat over fire.
I am glad that it happened, but it always makes me wonder how that sequence of events came about.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I don't mean to, and I know this may derail the thread but, this line of discussion makes me wonder about how/when someone figured out it is good to cook meat over fire.
I am glad that it happened, but it always makes me wonder how that sequence of events came about.

Maybe frozen food wast the spark? If man new how to make fire then they would know that it kept them warm.

Say it's winter and your clan/ tribe hunts in the winter as well. Temperatures would cause the meet to harden. Think of frozen steak in the freezer. I can see them keeping the meat close to the fire in order to keep it from freezing. Depending on how close the meat was to the fire, it would have cooked it.

I'm not saying that's what happened, just trying to think of ways to accidentally cook meat. The problem that is it makes the assumption that human in warm climates didn't cook their food.

Edit: This train has been off the tracks for a while now lol