ShadowBase blueprint

I decided to take a different route for the introduction and first present how me and my brain process information as this is the most relevant information regarding any contributions I would make on this site.

My philosophies

Have no opinions in a discussion on facts, only backed and unbacked data.

Don't be unbiased, be biased on both sides. Analysing information is more effective starting from a "everything is true" stance exploiting the brains bad wiring.

---
Background info regarding theory

The human brain is a biased piece of machinery balancing input-analysing between memory and actual input. This structure gives a great performance in everyday life and vital for survival, not so much for heavily logic based work. Initially using a "everything is true" stance while processing new information one may get a priority benefit by forcing the brain in to a "infancy state" decreasing the reliance on soft-coded memory.
"No need for a think tank if you can't think blank"
---

We are in need of a shift in focus. No more only focus on searching for who has/are/will do what, to get most facts within a need to know system one must focus on what someone has/are/will not do.

No data is bad data. The only bad kind are data you don't have.

Don't be greedy, any additional data regarding any topic should be shared disregarding personal opinions on said topic.

Disrespecting suspected hoaxers before proven guilty (or any else for that matter) just gonna come back and bite you in the ass.

Bad theories often contain good information


Regarding topics of interest there is no point of listing all as I find every detail on earth and beyond fascinating but primarily focus on following shortlist:

Psychology

Physics

History

So now there are a fallback if anyone would have any questions regarding the inner workings of my posts. Guess thats the point. Thank you for your time.

NB! post may see further updates

edit on 19-4-2012 by ShadowBase because: bbcode error

Hi! WELCOME to the Introductions Forum of the ATS community. For now you can reply to any thread in any member forum you wish, as well as send & receive (PM's) Private Messages to Staff only.

****Remember the introduction forum is for new member introductions only (please read) and you need 20 posts before you can start a topical thread. ****

Once you have achieved 20 posts, you will then be able to start your own threads and additionally send & receive messages to and from fellow ATS members.
Terms & Conditions - Please fully read!!

General ATS Discussion Etiquette.

Index of Important ATS Related Threads

New Rules for Avatars and Mini-ProfileBackgrounds

Hey new members!! Come here if you need advice

Starting a New Thread ?... Look Here First

Signature Guidelines


Take some time to look around and orient yourself.

greeneyedleo (aka GEL)

Originally posted by ShadowBase
I decided to take a different route for the introduction and first present how me and my brain process information as this is the most relevant information regarding any contributions I would make on this site.

My philosophies

Have no opinions in a discussion on facts, only backed and unbacked data.

Don't be unbiased, be biased on both sides. Analysing information is more effective starting from a "everything is true" stance exploiting the brains bad wiring.

---
Background info regarding theory

The human brain is a biased piece of machinery balancing input-analysing between memory and actual input. This structure gives a great performance in everyday life and vital for survival, not so much for heavily logic based work. Initially using a "everything is true" stance while processing new information one may get a priority benefit by forcing the brain in to a "infancy state" decreasing the reliance on soft-coded memory.
"No need for a think tank if you can't think blank"
---

We are in need of a shift in focus. No more only focus on searching for who has/are/will do what, to get most facts within a need to know system one must focus on what someone has/are/will not do.

No data is bad data. The only bad kind are data you don't have.

Don't be greedy, any additional data regarding any topic should be shared disregarding personal opinions on said topic.

Disrespecting suspected hoaxers before proven guilty (or any else for that matter) just gonna come back and bite you in the ass.

Bad theories often contain good information


Regarding topics of interest there is no point of listing all as I find every detail on earth and beyond fascinating but primarily focus on following shortlist:

Psychology

Physics

History

So now there are a fallback if anyone would have any questions regarding the inner workings of my posts. Guess thats the point. Thank you for your time.

NB! post may see further updates

You say too much!
"No data is bad data. The only bad kind are data you don't have."
I, programming now and then, know for certain there is bad data! And if you were to argue there is no "bad", I'll have you on that too!

"Have no opinions in a discussion on facts, only backed and unbacked data."
Is it of your opinion that that data is backed?

"Don't be unbiased, be biased on both sides."
Don't be wrong, be wrong and right!

"No more only focus on searching for who has/are/will do what, to get most facts within a need to know system one must focus on what someone has/are/will not do. "
I might explain how / in using slashes if you don't use them correctly / when writing you tend to want to convey messages in clear terms / .

I could go on, but I will saving the second thrashing for later.

You remind me of a certain white rabbit, *calls Alice* "I believe this one is one of yours?" Welcome to ATS.

Originally posted by capob
You say too much!

I would agree

Originally posted by capob
"No data is bad data. The only bad kind are data you don't have."
I, programming now and then, know for certain there is bad data! And if you were to argue there is no "bad", I'll have you on that too!

Would I be wrong if I argued that the world ain't perfect and if you god forbid should have a debugging situation it would be beneficial to know the bad data? I would contend that to extract good data you need to have an understanding of your bad data, which in turn makes the bad data inverted and useful.

Originally posted by capob
"Have no opinions in a discussion on facts, only backed and unbacked data."
Is it of your opinion that that data is backed?

That would be data presented with reasoning, test results or other applicable sources.

Originally posted by capob
"Don't be unbiased, be biased on both sides."
Don't be wrong, be wrong and right!

Keep within context. This is research technique, not data presentation.

Originally posted by capob
"No more only focus on searching for who has/are/will do what, to get most facts within a need to know system one must focus on what someone has/are/will not do. "
I might explain how / in using slashes if you don't use them correctly / when writing you tend to want to convey messages in clear terms / .

I could go on, but I will saving the second thrashing for later.

Nothing to argue against here, good feedback and I'm grateful.

"I would agree"
You're too kind

"Would I be wrong if I argued that the world ain't perfect and if you god forbid should have a debugging situation it would be beneficial to know the bad data? I would contend that to extract good data you need to have an understanding of your bad data, which in turn makes the bad data inverted and useful.
"
Oh, you use logic to horrid aims! For, I need only a model of good data to know that some data is not conforming.

"That would be data presented with reasoning, test results or other applicable sources. "
I did not take this further because I only intended to convey the fact that probability lies in just about everything; and where probability leaves gaps, opinion fills. Is it your opinion to trust the results of the test done by X?; or to trust the methods used? To take this further because I suspect you will likely trip over yourself again if I don't make the path smooth enough: the statistics behind calculation of probability have a hard time applying to the enormous environment which is reality, and, even if they didn't, the judgment of whether to act on something using probability, say, a %60 probability of success for some action, is still an opinion even if it is made policy.

"Keep within context. This is research technique, not data presentation. "
The context I was using is the root of all contexts! logic! And, in the context of logic, being two exclusive things at once (biased on both sides) is impossible! You might say, "argue with the bias of one side, then argue with the bias of the other", as being two exclusive things at different times is not necessarily impossible.

"Nothing to argue against here, good feedback and I'm grateful. "
I have some more crumbs for you - see above.

Originally posted by capob
I did not take this further because I only intended to convey the fact that probability lies in just about everything; and where probability leaves gaps, opinion fills. Is it your opinion to trust the results of the test done by X?; or to trust the methods used? To take this further because I suspect you will likely trip over yourself again if I don't make the path smooth enough: the statistics behind calculation of probability have a hard time applying to the enormous environment which is reality, and, even if they didn't, the judgment of whether to act on something using probability, say, a %60 probability of success for some action, is still an opinion even if it is made policy.

Just to clarify, we are talking about backed data and not backed "fact" here right? Backed data does not equal fact, it would be a matter of maximizing probability.

Originally posted by capob
The context I was using is the root of all contexts! logic! And, in the context of logic, being two exclusive things at once (biased on both sides) is impossible! You might say, "argue with the bias of one side, then argue with the bias of the other", as being two exclusive things at different times is not necessarily impossible.

My explanation of the phenomenon may be unclear. I'll see if I can figure out another way to put it down. Not always my strongest side.

Appreciate it

reply to post by ShadowBase


"Just to clarify, we are talking about backed data and not backed "fact" here right? Backed data does not equal fact, it would be a matter of maximizing probability. "
If you would like to make that distinction, sure, we are talking about backed data; the measuring tools, method of recording, and transport of data all provide for the introduction of probability and opinion - not even counting the interpretation of the data As such, it should be clear, and no a matter of probability, that I am right and you are confused.

"My explanation of the phenomenon may be unclear. I'll see if I can figure out another way to put it down. Not always my strongest side. "
Good enough for me.

Now, I hope I have silenced you, new member, from daring to share your opinion about things. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time

reply to post by capob


Haha. Good one. I would not use that attitude in thread posting if you want to be taken serious. You to enjoy ATS