And I'm back, busy weekend...
The beginning of the Ergonomics board is oneself..
From within, we assemble the simple philosophies to which we live by and appropriate as necessary.
When it comes to physical movements, we use our hands and consume energy to complete work.
The antithesis of ergonomica is any option that either reduces the amount of work completed or increases the rate of consumed energy per sustained unit of work..
For example, when a standard rectangular keyboard inevitably causes RSI, our productivity drops or even cease.. This directly decreases the amount of work completed.
When a standard keyboard is inefficient in layout it requires more energy to do the same work..
So the philosophy followed as in all other endeavors is an optimization of performance to energy ratio..
This aspect, while principally illusory, as equivalent exchange can not be violated, is a pillar of modern living.
So now, why does life want to maintain itself in such a fashion, teetering in this wobbly construct.
So then, why hasn't everyone made one?
I'll answer that for you. Because the energy expended in producing such a board is more than that recovered from one individual using the result, which goes counter to your argument. It is LESS efficient for an individual to develop such a board. I hope for it to end up being more efficient through my effort in developing it to allow it to be used by others without them having to do the development, and thus resulting in an overall improvement in efficiency, but it required going AGAINST the natural order to CREATE it, by my own WILL and DETERMINATION and there is no certainty of this occuring. It was certainly not the result of a repetition of simple natural processes. It required the intervention of an external conciousness for inspiration and creativity to problem solve both the design and physical implementation. Quite frankly I consider it an insult to deny that. Philosophise all you want, I know what went into it.
If we limit the scope of our analysis to size of our solar system.. we can proceed thusly..
The sun.. outputs an ocean of radiated energy.. the Earth is but a luke warm pebble in this sea.. As those radiated waves hit the earth.. The buildup of energy on the surface and its interactions creates life..
So what is biological life.. turns out, we're just friction.. An inefficiency in the all consuming entropy.
Relative to the total amount of energy exchanged by the sun into the rest of the empty pockets of the solar system.. we are quite insignificant..
In the HUGE sea, we're on a pebble, which was hit by a wave, which caused the pebble surface to warm up ever so slightly, such that the patterns upon crystal lattices were replicated and mildly BARELY sustaining..
It's human hubris to over estimate our importance. but in truth, we are but our mass. The energy that we ourselves store, and PRESUME to generate, is actually just radiation that was already passing by..
It's as if the shrimp on a boat claims to have invented the ocean...
So life.. is the friction built up on earth as it floats in a sea of radiation.. life is a slight warming-effect..
This perfectly and succinctly explains humanity and its endeavors (including ergo keyboards).. we are the friction in the way of and sustained by solar winds..
It's been a natural consequence, not a choice..
It's nice to think at planetary size level since it's probably the simplest view of our universe. Going larger we have dark matter, gravitational lensing, extreme quantum and relativistic effects, etc to try to deal with and explain. Going much smaller we have more of the same, freaky quantum effects, forces we don't yet understand (weak and strong nuclear force), etc. Looking at things from a human perspective, though (the level we naturally perceive with our senses without machines to extend them into the massive or tiny), we have the most complex level of existence to understand or explain. The individual conciousness and existence of applied independent "intelligence".
----
Your world view vs Tp4's
Tp4's world view is all encompassing.. but it recognizes its limitations and its own relative SIZE..
Your world view is narrow, as it forces everything through a single antagonizing phenomenon.. that being there is magic.... and you can 't prove otherwise... This is the same pin hole used by all religions to stop people from having to think further. and Though I can see that your brain works.. you're not really letting it be free..
----
Reality is perceptual.. NO it is not..
Reality is physical, and using those physical detectors, we estimate portions of reality, and COMPUTE a abstract model of what MIGHT BE, using a physical processors, the brain.
----
Basing your life on evidence..
How silly.. A sufficiently complex forgery can fool all of your senses.. Total trust as in -being fully convinced- is NOT possible, because an abstraction in our computational framework will only approach but never be the real thing..
You can measure for an eternity, and it will still fall short, because you've measured it with a stick built with only the PARTS of what you're attempting to measure.. it will never be long enough... EVER..
Here we have a contradiction. You say reality is physical, yet you require sensors and signals being fed to your brain in order to experience it. And then you say all your senses can be fooled. Which means all the EVIDENCE of your senses, still requires FAITH in order to be accepted as "real".
Reality is thus 100% perceptual. Your senses detect phenomena and send signals to your brain which then interprets them. In order for you to interpret the signal as "real" requires previous evidence of such a signal meaning a particular thing and your faith that it now means the same thing.
You could well exist as simply a construct inside a machine, being fed sensory input to simulate a "reality" and you would not be able to tell the difference, unless it were for an outside conciousness somehow communicating to you that you are inside a simulation, like in the Matrix.
It's all based on evidence and faith.
Some hypotheses (such as "this keyboard I am typing on exists") are simple enough and have enough evidences for, to require very little faith to be accepted as true. Others require more faith, either due to being more complex, having less evidence or you having a worldview (picture of reality) in which such a thing is not likely to be true.
We do, however, have a
shared perception of reality. Through communication with each other we reinforce the evidences of what is "real" and what is not, making the database of evidences very large. It could still all be simulated, but the likelihood becomes smaller and smaller with the
complexity of the perceived reality. This is yet another argument that the universe and "reality" are truly complex, since you accept the existence of the physical so readily.
When the evidences overcome your level of unbelief, your worldview is adjusted to include this new aspect of your "reality". This is especially difficult to achieve when your worldview is very set, but an "open-minded" person has a more plastic worldview. This is something that requires a balance, though, since a worldview that is too flexible and requires very little evidence to change is rather pointless, floating around from one concept to another and never growing closer to a complete or accurate view of reality (a very gullible person who believes anything they're told, for example).
Evidences need to be tested before they're allowed to change your worldview. We create an action that will have a different outcome based on the vailidity of the hypothesis. The result then provides more evidence either for or against the hypothesis, but it requires some action. Doing nothing but thinking will not make your perception of reality any more accurate or complete. Thought needs to be backed by action. Lather, rinse, repeat. The more cycles you go through, the more confidence you can have in your hypothesis, assuming the database of results favour it.
I have built up a worldview over many years of actively going through these cycles. It doesn't include a spaghetti monster, but it does include a Creator. And it places people firmly in the "important" category as opposed to the "insignificant" one. This factor is an important one in the creation of my ergonomic keyboard. Without it, it would not have come about.
