Question Contest

[Shadowseeker]

Nobody discussed mine [img]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif[/img]

I'll start with what i thought then.

Shadowseeker (ID:50659)

What is the definition of success, if that exists at all?
And I mean not only saying when things go the right way, I mean an abstract idea, always within every successful event, even if it's only a pyrrhic victory or a complete win.
Or even a loss, if the greater goal is achieved that way.
So success is something depending on the point of view...what is it without that, seen in abstract?

Basically sucess can be represented by an arrow, right?

The beginning is where you originate from, the tip is where you end. The sucess is what happens in between, and depending on what direction it shows to different actions take. Several small arrows form the big one, the smaller ones being the actions taken.

Now, you remove the direction. Doesn#t that imply sucess is just change, no matter what? You personalize this change as a loss or a win, but in fact what some see as a win are losses for others, the direction you chose to look at as positive determines whether you see change as sucess.

Just a random theory, perhaps I have another regarding this..interested as to what you come up with.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Grido

[Grido]

i was going to...i wanted to...but everything i came up with i though of a counter argument for, or a way to disregard it, would love a proper answer to it though


**Probably edit in something more useful in here when i've finshed reading the rest of the forum

[Kafuuka]

[quote name='Shadowseeker' post='34330' date='Jun 22 2009, 07:15 PM']Basically success can be represented by an arrow, right?

The beginning is where you originate from, the tip is where you end. The success is what happens in between, and depending on what direction it shows to different actions take. Several small arrows form the big one, the smaller ones being the actions taken.[/quote]

Often there are different means to achieve an end. There are different arrows that are equal candidates for success. I'd say that success lies in the end. If you look at the sketch below, you can either end in the green or in the red area. Any arrow that ends on the dark green interval is a representative of success. One could say that a success is better if you are more to the left on the interval and that the rightmost dark green dot represents a narrow victory. If you look at it that way, then both the light and the dark blue paths are equally successful. For success it does not matter which path you take. (it'd matter if you asked what is happiness.)

Furthermore, if you were to divide the paths into smaller intervals, it is clear that for the dark blue one things are not always going in the right direction. Sometimes you need to take a step backwards before you can advance. You cannot substitute a part of the dark blue line for the light blue line and still end up at the same endpoint.

I do agree that success implies change. You have to start outside of the green area and follow any path that ends inside it. Success is also objective in this sense: if you know a persons goals, you can see whether or not he/she attained them. The subjective part is how much you care about those goals and their interaction with different people and their goals.

[img]http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/8615/succesm.png[/img]

[Shadowseeker]

So, the best sucess would be seen as highest efficiency/lowest time needed.

Good, now why has time to be a factor inside this?

Let's assume we have a plane where no time exists. How could you achieve success then, or would that be impossible?

[Kafuuka]

Time doesn't have to be the most important factor but it was the easiest example I could come up with.

There are three regions: success, undecided and failure. If you plan on achieving something, you usually have a set of conditions that allow you to determine success. The difference between failure and undetermined is often difficult to determine, except if you have a clear deadline.
The opposite is possible too. If your goal is to keep a secret, the conditions for failure are very simple: having one or more of the people that should not know it find out the secret. But when are you successful? If you managed to keep it until you died? What if people find it a year after you died? (this is similar to the halting problem [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem)[/url]

Since we both consider success to be related to change, I don't see how you can have success in a timeless plane. Also, most interesting examples won't be 2D, but include a lot of conditions... alas my drawing skills are quite poor in 2D already and >3D is out of the question anyway.

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

[quote name='Shadowseeker' post='34457' date='Jun 23 2009, 01:15 PM']Let's assume we have a plane where no time exists. How could you achieve success then, or would that be impossible?[/quote]

I don't want to veer off your subject too far here, but we already live in a plane where time does not exist, and incidentally, perhaps steps would be a better description of the stated concept. The greatest success is the achievement of the goal in the smallest number of steps or incriments.

I don't agree with it, as that would imply that the greatest success is achieved in the most simple way, but i would think that a more appropriate way of wording whats been said.

Z

[Kafuuka]

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' post='34464' date='Jun 23 2009, 03:30 PM']I don't want to veer off your subject too far here, but we already live in a plane where time does not exist, and incidentally, perhaps steps would be a better description of the stated concept. The greatest success is the achievement of the goal in the smallest number of steps or increments.

I don't agree with it, as that would imply that the greatest success is achieved in the most simple way, but i would think that a more appropriate way of wording whats been said.[/quote]

Only when time/number of steps is limited. In the example I gave it was... probably a very poor and misleading example, but in my defense it was close to midnight when I wrote it. It seemed useful to me, in that there is a point where success and failure meet each other and it thus gives an easy way to put a quality or even a quantity on the success or the failure. In other cases time is irrelevant, except that humans have, as far as I know, a limited lifespan and hence a limited amount of steps to actually do, even if they can choose from an infinite amount of different steps.

[No one]

why all this blabber , the explanation is even simpler then this:

[quote name='Shadowseeker' post='34330' date='Jun 22 2009, 06:15 PM']What is the definition of success, if that exists at all?
And I mean not only saying when things go the right way, I mean an abstract idea, always within every successful event, even if it's only a pyrrhic victory or a complete win.
Or even a loss, if the greater goal is achieved that way.
So success is something depending on the point of view...what is it without that, seen in abstract?

Basically sucess can be represented by an arrow, right?
...
Just a random theory, perhaps I have another regarding this..interested as to what you come up with.[/quote]

[b]success is : achieving a goal[/b] .

you can discuss about the time, the goal, the action taker, bla bla bla.
In the end : [size=4][b]success is : achieving a goal [/b][/size]
Simple as that

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

[quote name='No one' post='34472' date='Jun 23 2009, 03:28 PM'][b]success is : achieving a goal[/b] .[/quote]

whose goal? and do you know of the goal?

Z

ed - Incidentally, what is a goal?

Edited June 23, 2009 by (Zl-eye-f)-nea

[Talos Salvitore]

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' post='34474' date='Jun 23 2009, 03:49 PM']ed - Incidentally, what is a goal?[/quote]


Well, this is another question with several levels of complexity. There are 3 types of goals, those established by society, those established by quality of life, and those established by the individual themselves.

The last one is pretty self-explanatory wherein you seek to overcome an obstacle. When you overcome it, you achieve the goal.

The first is pretty much anything that the vox populi suggests should be something to strive to obtain, that could pretty much be anything.

The quality of life instance has a myriad of definitions; health, economic success, mental welfare, etc. The most basic goal to achieve within this section would be the leaving of a trace. Nozick would claim that to leave a trace is the ultimate goal of any living being, wherein the success of leaving a trace (whether it be through a genetic footprint or a social/artistic/historic means) is what all living beings seek to obtain.

It is in this line of thought that we see success as immediately obtainable at any point in time, so long as the memory of the individual remains in some manner of speaking.

Therefore time as a definitive construct that aids in the progression of said "success" is entirely relative to begin with, as are the goals established by society since society is a constantly mutating entity and as such cannot be regarded as a "timeless" means by which success can exist.

In short, success can only be defined subjectively and immediately since the only true means of judging success is by measuring the affluence of a certain statistic, which in turn will indefinitely be overturned by another living being due to the competitive nature of evolution.

[Shadowseeker]

No more replies? Guess I'll present my other theory then.

Every person has a circle expanding with every action (or time, depends how you define it, time can pass with no movement, actions can however take years or seconds.) they do (major, minor also, but less influence).

Now, with the first action the radius is 1, the next means it becomes 2 etc. Depending on the persons interests and abilities, the radius will differ, but I normed it to 1 unit. Some may have 0.8, some 1.5, etc.

Within this circle they can influence things. It's not a perfect circle though, because we can't go in every direction teh same way, and so these parts get cut out..from the outer, and possibly closer to the middle if the limiter is so high.

Even though it's obvious, specialisation means they can get to a certain direction better, but that does not mean it's sucess if they get farther. It depends upon where the goal is whether they are sucessful or not.

When the goal is within their circle (or whatever form it has after limits) they are sucessful. Is it on it, they barely make it, and outside of it it's out of reach. Out of reach however can mean that it is reachable after so many steps, but it's unsure how many sometimes.

Now, my theory: Absolute sucess is the ability to explore the circle to the fullest and to be able to predict when the circles reaches certain places. With explore I mean the ability to get everywhere within that circle, a real circle, not some other shape.

However, that's an overkill in a sense, because you can do anything you possibly could do, and means you cannot do all of them, making it a waste of potential.

Sucess in normal for me then is the ability to specialize so much (putting a limiter, shaping your circle into a needle e.g.) in a way that you will be able to reach the goals and then being able to change the direction of that needle. Moody persons will never reach the goals then, that#s why I add and are able to determine when it is worth changing teh direction.

I think this is all common knowledge, but can't you think of lots of theories?

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

IF success is the achievement of a goal, then at minimum following must be considered:

What is a goal? Do we know of the goal? and who made the goal?

Talos suggested this comes in various segments, so a goal can be many things defined by various sources including yourself. Talos posits 3 types of goal: Societal, "quality of Life" based and finally personal.

To be the abstract, extracted fundamental of success and not just the concept of it would remove the necesity for consideration of levels. For if levels of such a thing were to exist it would remove the imbued "cellular" core that it would be. So for now I will ignore levels for those who understand that idea. As an abstract concept, this would to me mean success is simply an indicated point of finality. There is none better or worse in abstract terms, only are or are nots.

Moving on from this, I have to wonder, is a goal truely 3 separate (or more) concepts? or only one? What is important for me here is the word who, and when I say who i could be meaning the universe or an individual or any influencing force...yet...perhaps even the who is an irrelivant concept. Consider breeding. Some people believe that one of the basic things about existing is to continue to exist as a species, not just on an individualised basis as leaving a mark, but also on a fuller universal basis for the sake of what is and is not or can and can't be. Now...if I were to breed, on this theory, I would be an overall success, and yet, one could say this were only success in the eyes of the universe, but it is I who performed the action. I don't want to get too elongated here so hopefully that is enough, but my point is simple, success is not anymore than one thing, and im not even sure goals have anything to do with it....and potentially lets look at Shadow's analysis for a possible solution....


IF success is the ability to specialise within your given circle of (im going to call it movement but it can be called whatever you like) "movement" then at minimum the following must be considered:

How is this circle defined, who defined it, does it expand and of so when and how

So here we have one individual with their circle of movement. Any action performed therein towards one specific goal is success on this basis if I am following correctly. So again this is a goal based theory, and extracting previous commentry perhaps we have the circle and the arrow as visual indicators of it. On a conceptual basis, as a non abstract, perhaps I would agree both with Talos and with Shadow....however...that wasn't the original question. Originally we wanted to find the fundamental core of success, so I am not going to speak of subjective goals, nor of arrows, indicators or circles....

Let us consider a man who cannot walk. On a spherical realm of action theory he is quite restricted, yet, I believe he can step outside of his boundary, because in effect...im not sure there really is one. Not for success in this term. Consider a bulb, it sits at the edge of a piece of tracing paper, where is the light? and then after that...where is the light?

Lets not look at humans, let's take an eraser. Lets assume both erasors were created with the purpose of erasing pencil marks. Does an erasor that rubs things out well signify a successful erasor and one that does not signify an unsuccessful one? If the answer is yes then success would be the fulfillment of purpose, and the better it was at erasing, the more successful it would be, but once again we hit the trap of non abstraction. if the answer is no, then what makes the erasor successful? I might attempt to suggest the following: No matter it's movement inside, outside or around abouts it's sphere if there even is one, the erasors are completely equal in terms of success (remember the levels earlier?) if this is the case, then their being able to erase or not to is irrelivant, what is relevant is their being at all.

So then...if anyone even vaguely followed that mess up there (you have to make a lot of jumps to my thought process without me scribing forever, which i appologise for) I think I would say this:

On a subjective level, the fulfilment of a purpose may be the key to success, the fufillment of a goal is the key to the sensation of success but not necessarily success itself.

On an abstracted level, perhaps there is not such a thing as abstracted success, or perhaps it is simply the fact that something exists or doesnt exist at all.

Z

[No one]

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' post='34770' date='Jun 25 2009, 10:37 AM']IF success is the achievement of a goal, then at minimum following must be considered:

What is a goal? Do we know of the goal? and who made the goal?

Talos suggested this comes in various segments, so a goal can be many things defined by various sources including yourself. Talos posits 3 types of goal: Societal, "quality of Life" based and finally personal.
...
Z[/quote]


Z, let me give you an example of "goal" and some example of degrees of it, ok ?

so : goal = KILL Z

degrees of success:
0% - failed to kill, failed to find, didn't even started
10-60% - found the b[spoiler]..[dude]..[/spoiler]d
60-90% - attepmt has been made, he is injured
100% - Z is DEAD


is that complex enough for you ?


Then lets put it simple: success = 1, failed = 0, all is binary and there is nothing in between


LOL Z, shut up, or at least after you finish the the writing ... cut the first and last line, delete the rest and complete the post it is too darn long

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

[quote name='No one' post='34845' date='Jun 25 2009, 05:18 PM'] is that complex enough for you ?

Then lets put it simple: success = 1, failed = 0, all is binary and there is nothing in between

LOL Z, shut up, or at least after you finish the the writing ... cut the first and last line, delete the rest and complete the post it is too darn long [/quote]

My my arnt we grumpy today...

The purpose of discussion...is to discuss and analyse one anothers points....if I were to shut up, it would add little value to the point of the thread. If you don't like to read what I write, then I am not forcing you to. Do I really need to point that out?

And no. It isn't anywhere near complex enough for me. Obviously. It would be nice if you elaborated your points instead of having a tantrum. Or would you prefer nobody ever questions your points instead? I can accomodate that too if necessity dictates.

Z

[No one]

c'mon Z, put a smily face in there, I'm joking

all I wanted to say is : put first the short version and after that the elaborate one, just like a TOC (Table Of Contents)

I would really want to read your point of view, but ... at this time (MD server time) and after 9 stressful hours ... I cannot read more then 3 lines without losing the point.


c'mon don't be upset on me
(I will let you kill me once once you get to MP5 )

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

lol a table of contents?? a short version?? well it will kind of miss the point but I'll try to break it down for you:

Subjective success wasnt the original question.
Success as abstract has no levels.
Shadow's spherical action theory could be manipulated to allow ANY possibility, not only those in what may be perceived at first to be your sphere.
Hitting a goal is a feeling of achievement, not success, and certainly not abstract success.
Fulfilment of a purpose may have something to do with success
Success may not have an abstract version, or if it does, maybe existing or not existing in and of itself is enough to be successful.

I vow never to be MP5! .. so you're safe (or maybe im safe ^^ lol)

Z

[Shadowseeker]

*bumps this alive because of boredom*

Nobody saying anything else anymore? Success isn't easy..

If people believe in fate, then the existence itself is the success. If you believe you are not governed by something higher, what is it then?

[Kafuuka]

Now that you mentioned fate and without going into a debate on fate, determinism and free will..
Consider the butterfly effect: a minor action changes another minor decision later and that one changes a larger decision and such until the entire future changes. Throughout ones life one makes an immeasurable amount of small and large decisions. Each decision we make influences other peoples future, the choices and decisions they will have later on and which will again influence us. A simple choice might lead to two entirely different futures and both of those futures will have choices of their own and will split again and again. (for the sake of simplicity I will ignore the possibility that two branches join again; there to be different paths that lead to the same future)
If we take a human, this process will end with the human dying in all branches. Sometimes early, sometimes after a long life, but in all branches the human will die. We can then look at all branches and ask the question: which ones were success and which weren't? We would probably look at the happiness of the person in each branch and thus order them from most happy to most unhappy and give them a number. Going back to the beginning, look at the first time the path splits, and for each possibility, determine the average, deviation, minimum and maximum of all subsequent branches sprouting from that choice. What would you consider the best decision, the one with the highest average, the highest minimum or the highest maximum? Or the smallest deviation?
[b]If[/b] you want to divide success into small steps, I suggest each of the decisions to have a small quantum of success or failure, although it is still subjective in that it is related to a final goal: being happy. You'll have to debate on which criteria make a decision better: average, max gain, least loss? You could assign weight inverse to the number of subsequent decisions...

Of course in practice this is all random and perhaps even depressing.


example:

................start
.................|
..............3/.\4,5
............../...\
............./\....\
............/..\2...\
.........4/....\.....\
........./...../.\....|\
......../\.....|..|....|.\
.......6.2...1..3..4..5

is going left or right at the first branch better? If you keep going left, you arrive at the best outcome, but if you go right the first time, you'll never end up at a very bad one.

[Shadowseeker]

Actually happiness doesn't lie within your actions, rather just the way you perceive the world. The thing is, positive thinking can make an optimist be happy whatever happens, so happiness doesn#t seem to work as a factor. Not to mention, we're talking about abstract success here...wouldn't happiness drag it into subjectivity again?

Edit: To clarify..what I mean is, no matter what, as long as you do not have ultimate power over anything within your radius of actions, wouldn't that mean you are not successful from a certain point of view?

And yeah, the sad thing is: If you wish to achieve a personal, subjective success, then you need to be able to know what happens if you choose that branch...which would be related to someone needing to be omnipotent again.

At the very least the way this debate spins makes me think there's no abstract success at all.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Shadowseeker

[aero]

Success is whatever you want or need it to be. Therefore everything could be a success depending on how you perceive the outcome. Success is a mental construct. Nothing more.

[Kafuuka]

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='25 June 2009 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1245922664' post='34770']
IF success is the achievement of a goal, then at minimum following must be considered:

What is a goal? Do we know of the goal? and who made the goal?
[/quote]
1. Do we know the goal?
Obviously, if we want to be aware of the success, we need to be aware of the goal. Unless awareness is somehow part of the goal, being aware of it does not change whether the goal has been met. I would say that success can exist even if we do not know the goal.

2. Who made the goal?
Any person, creature, object or even a concept. We can ascribe goals and perceived success to everything. You could argue that it is us, humans, who invented the goal, but if you agree on 1, then it is not required for the thing having the goal to be aware (of the goal). Without the thing, we would never have thought of its goal, so we did not make it entirely by ourselves. Causality?

3. What is a goal?
A set of conditions to be made reality OR a set of conditions never to be made reality.
A goal should have either the property of being easily verified if it has been met (success), OR being easily verified that it has become impossible to meet it (failure). It can have both and if you don't believe in infinity, I suppose it always has both.
If you disagree on either 1 or 2, you will probably have to add other properties. I doubt you could do without this one though.

[quote name='aero' date='23 August 2009 - 10:11 AM' timestamp='1251015065' post='40026']
Success is whatever you want or need it to be. Therefore everything could be a success depending on how you perceive the outcome. Success is a mental construct. Nothing more.
[/quote]
You could easily extend this reasoning to everything and then you arrive at solipsism. And it is my belief that solipsism should be either ignored or have its own thread.

[Shadowseeker]

Seeing as this topic is pretty much dead I'll necromance it:

Success, as via definition, is a state we are in, whereas the relativity of it depends on subjective judgement. However, one can claim it's related to things like fate or hope, and as such is a state which can be attained in future, or currently being in place. The past only matters when that state is lost, due to whatever circumstances.

Now the question is, what is the success for every single person? Mankind strives for happiness, some others say freedom, or many other things, so the basic idea of success implies acquisition and usage of power. Power as in abilities to do certain things if wanted.

[Grido]

Success....fun thing to describe

Defintion is listed as;
–noun
1. The favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors.
2. The attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like.
3. The achievement of something desired, planned, or attempted.
4. The gaining of fame or prosperity.
5. The achievement of one's aim or goal.

That's from Dictionary.com / Wiktionary.org if anyone is interested.


From Wikipedia.org;
Success may mean:

[list][*]a level of social status[*]achievement of an objective/goal[*]the opposite of failure[/list]It's also apparently a few places in America, some Ships, a couple of Banks, and a few other things, but guessing not talking about them.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


So success would be you achieving what you set to do, getting lots of money or fame, seems it boils down to one of those according to definitions. Or the opposite of failure...i like that concept for it.

But you want an abstract view of it...hmm..

So going from the concept i like, success is the opposite of failure, so as long as you dont fail to do something, you succeed? ....or perhaps that is too simple, i'm not sure.

Success, by those definitions, indicates a destination, without aiming to achieve or do something, then you cannot succeed at it, cos, well, it doesnt exist TO succeed at....

So if you represent it as an arrow...then sure, you can do that, start where you make the plan/idea/whatever and the destination where you manage it, or succeed in it. The destination would be what the success is, not the journey. You remove the direction, you remove, or change what you aim to achieve, and therefore what, for you, success is constituting in this moment.

Change is not success...unless you wanted that change, a general change is nothing, it you want a change and it happens, you succeed because the change happened...
As an e.g. ; Going after someone to go out with them, and then going out with them, that'd be a success, because you achieved something...but merely asking them could be considered success as well, as you successfully asked them, even though you failed to get a positive responce from the question.....So it's relative, the destination can change as you go along...

eh...think i was going to put something else, but i got distracted, cant recall it now.

[apophys]

Success is a goal having been achieved.
(e.g. trying to beat a personal speed record at Minesweeper within the next hour, and doing so)
The timespan for completion of the goal must be specified with each goal (the upper limit, and the default, is the expected span of the target's lifetime, because my definition of "you" does not apply to corpses). Time of action, etc is irrelevant unless intrinsic to the goal.

Partial success is having gotten closer to the goal without having achieved it, determined after the goal becomes unachievable. This is considered failure by perfectionists.
(e.g. Going after someone to go out with them and getting a "maybe later.")
With some goals, partial success is impossible.
(e.g. trying to beat a personal speed record at Minesweeper within the next 10 tries)

Failure is not having gotten any closer to achieving a goal, determined after the goal becomes unachievable.
(e.g. attempting to ... uh...
Make an example for me, I've given up trying ) <--- an example where failure is success. xD


Success as a level of social status is a success at the goal of attaining a higher status, i.e. wealth (as determined by society).



The presented models (arrows, distorted circles, etc) are rather distracting.


[quote name='Kafuuka' date='23 August 2009 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1251034480' post='40052']
2. Who made the goal?
Any person, creature, object or even a concept. We can ascribe goals and perceived success to everything. You could argue that it is us, humans, who invented the goal, but if you agree on 1, then it is not required for the thing having the goal to be aware (of the goal). Without the thing, we would never have thought of its goal, so we did not make it entirely by ourselves. Causality?[/quote]

I must disagree slightly.

Who made the goal? The opposing team. (jk)
Any being (or collection thereof) conscious enough to be capable of doing so can make a goal.
A personal goal is one you made for yourself.

Edited September 25, 2009 by apophys

[awiiya]

In the spirit of Mr. Falstaff (http://www.william-shakespeare.info/shakespeare-play-king-henry-iv-part-1.htm):

Success is living. Congratulations, you all succeed.

Awi