Call for Help/ This American Life (Merged)

[Boatguy30]

Interview was replayed localled today; anyone catch the line of the interview:

"The first place we were going they don't take money"

WTF??? Don't take money??? Did they just have really only cruising guides or is this part of their overall marketing scheme??

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The origin may be unimportant. It's the very nature of existence that some believe to be worthy of reflection...

There is no self. There is only emptiness.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by weavis

Introspection is the examination of one's own conscious thoughts and feelings.[1] In psychology the process of introspection relies exclusively on observation of one's mental state,

while in a spiritual context it may refer to the examination of one's soul. Introspection is closely related to human self-reflection and is contrasted with external observation.

So in this example, you have corrected Salty. Whilst you are HALF right factually- you are completely wrong in your statement.

Your statement negates the validity of your comment.

Perhaps you should examine why you felt the need to correct Salty or rather, perhaps you should ask yourself why you didnt check the facts first? That is introspection as I wrote it.

You failed to point out anything invalid in my comment.

I merely pointed out that the metaphysical reference by Paul L. wasn't technically incorrect, as introspection is by its nature metaphysical.

[SaltyMonkey]

No you have things mixed in order.

Metaphysics is NOT a subclass of Introspection.
Psychology is NOT a subclass of Introspection.

There are not associated.

Introspection is a component utilized by both, with different specialized attributes and methodologies and goals.

You are wrong and you need a spanking.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

No you have things mixed in order.

Metaphysics is NOT a subclass of Introspection.
Psychology is NOT a subclass of Introspection.

There are not associated.

Introspection is a component utilized by both, with different specialized attributes and methodologies and goals.

The lack of logic in your argument astounds me. I didn't imply an order, just a relationship.

If introspection is a component of psychology and of metaphysics, an association may exist, regardless of order. It would be quite difficult for you to argue that introspection of metaphysics is different than introspection of psychology, and I'm not sure why you'd want to waste space in this forum doing so, unless it's the usual ploy of going off topic to avoid discussing the subject matter of the thread.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You failed to point out anything invalid in my comment.

I merely pointed out that the metaphysical reference by Paul L. wasn't technically incorrect, as introspection is by its nature metaphysical.

Well if you really insist.

The term introspection is also used to describe a research technique that was first developed by psychologist Wilhelm wundt Also known as experimental self-observation, Wundt's technique involved training people to carefully and objectively as possible analyze the content of their own thoughts.


"Introspection has been the word most frequently used to describe Wundt's method," explains author David Hothersall in his text History of Psychology. "The choice is unfortunate, for it may be taken to imply a type of armchair speculation, which was certainly not what Wundt meant… Wundt's introspection was a rigidly controlled, arduous experimental procedure."


In Wundt's lab, highly trained observers were presented with carefully controlled sensory events. These individuals were then asked to describe their mental experiences of these events. Wundt believed that the observers needed to be in a state of high attention to the stimulus and in control of the situation. The observations were also repeated numerous times.


What was the purpose of these observations? Wundt believed that there were two key components that make up the contents of the human mind: sensations and feelings. In order to understand the mind, Wundt believed that researchers needed to do more than simply identify the structure or elements of the mind. Instead, it was essential to look at the processes and activities that occur as people experience the world around them.

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The lack of logic in your argument astounds me. I didn't imply an order, just a relationship.

If introspection is a component of psychology and of metaphysics, an association may exist, regardless of order. It would be quite difficult for you to argue that introspection of metaphysics is different than introspection of psychology, and I'm not sure why you'd want to waste space in this forum doing so, unless it's the usual ploy of going off topic to avoid discussing the subject matter of the thread.

There is no relationship.

There is a subclass of Introspection:

Introspection => MetaphysicalIntrospection
Introspection => PsychologicalIntrospection

Psychology.components[PsychologicalIntrospection]
Metaphysics.components[MetaphysicalIntrospection]

Usage does not imply they are related in any way outside of some common abstract definitions that are not implemented in the base. They each have unique properties and goals that are unique to their domain space.

You can't have this and expect well formed results:

Psychology.components[MetaphysicalIntrospection]
Metaphysics.components[PsychologicalIntrospection]

You still need a spanking

[weavis]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

There is no relationship.

There is a subclass of Introspection:

Introspection => MetaphysicalIntrospection
Introspection => PsychologicalIntrospection

Psychology.components[PsychologicalIntrospection]
Metaphysics.components[MetaphysicalIntrospection]

Usage does not imply they are related in any way outside of some common abstract definitions that are not implemented in the base. They each have unique properties and goals that are unique to their domain space.

You can't have this and expect well formed results:

Psychology.components[MetaphysicalIntrospection]
Metaphysics.components[PsychologicalIntrospection]

You still need a spanking

This is why I drink beer..........

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by weavis

Well if you really insist.

Thanks. I think you've made my point.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

There is no relationship.

There is a subclass of Introspection:

Introspection => MetaphysicalIntrospection
Introspection => PsychologicalIntrospection

Psychology.components[PsychologicalIntrospection]
Metaphysics.components[MetaphysicalIntrospection]

Usage does not imply they are related in any way outside of some common abstract definitions that are not implemented in the base. They each have unique properties and goals that are unique to their domain space.

You can't have this and expect well formed results:

Psychology.components[MetaphysicalIntrospection]
Metaphysics.components[PsychologicalIntrospection]

You still need a spanking

One which you're incapable of rendering.

Because it is impossible to prove that Psychology.components[MetaphysicalIntrospection] is not related to
Metaphysics.components[PsychologicalIntrospection.

While you are correct that there might not be a relationship, you haven't proven that there isn't one.

[ka4wja]

Becky, et al,
Perhaps I can add some more info/facts/assistance, that may help everyone???

Originally Posted by oldragbaggers

I know this is interesting for all the old salts to kick around.....
But I think it is also a great discussion for wannabes to read. Probably even more so for the wannabes because mostly the old salts already understand the forces at work "out there."

Considering what a robust vessel the Rebel Heart was, there is a great lesson to be learned here about the power of the ocean.

And, PLEASE let's not get into the "robustness" of vessels....(as I personally have never found that discussion to be anything more than an argument!!)...


So, in addition to the rest of the "lessons" that some are referring to, if anyone wishes to take something else away from all of this here, please read all of this below, and the referenced links....


Okay, so I've been away from here for a few days...and now that I've read ALL of these 420 postings!!! (Yes, I read them ALL!)

EDIT....
Oh, good God....when I started writing there were only 420....and now there are 461!!!
You guys are TOO MUCH for me to keep up with...
Sorry about my ramblings below, as I doubt anyone will read 'em, or care (since I'm not willing to argue!)...
I'm unsubscribing now...
Fair winds to 'ya all...


I suspect that nobody (or darn few) have read, or remember, my postings in this thread from last week...(they were WAY back at the beginning...posts #8, #17, #22, #24, #49, #50, #61, and #67...)
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/call-for-help-this-american-life-125942.html#post1537953
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/call-for-help-this-american-life-125942-2.html#post1538030
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/call-for-help-this-american-life-125942-2.html#post1538097

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/call-for-help-this-american-life-125942-2.html#post1538117

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/call-for-help-this-american-life-125942-4.html#post1538434

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/call-for-help-this-american-life-125942-4.html#post1538435

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/call-for-help-this-american-life-125942-5.html#post1538587

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/call-for-help-this-american-life-125942-5.html#post1538614

In addition to thanking Eric for coming on here and answering questions, my posts were mainly just clarifying some of the facts (using Eric's own words from his NPR interview and his postings here), and/or informing everyone on some communications facts, etc...

But, I see there are some here (and NOT just "newbies") that could use some more help understanding some "communications" issues, etc...as well as many of those looking for "lessons to learn", unfortunately missing a BIG one....
I thought maybe I should post some more here (instead of just unsubscribing and moving on)???

Please note that I'm only interested in helping, not arguing....and that I continue to wish Eric and family well..

Originally Posted by ka4wja

Eric (Rebel Heart),
Welcome home!
I'm glad you and family are doing well.

Please know that the thoughts and prayers of everyone here are with you and your family (and especially that your daughter makes a full recovery).


Fair winds..

John
s/v Annie Laurie

So, with that in mind...here are what I think might be VERY important facts to understand....(i.e. "lessons to learn")

1) There is talk here (and elsewhere) of "SSB", but not of "DSC"....
And, few here understand the limitations of "SSB" Voice communications, nowadays, as a way of alerting / calling....(nor the proliferation of MF/HF-DSC in the maritime world....and its use in signaling/alerting)

Yes, I am a BIG fan and promoter of "SSB" Radio, "HF Radio", "Ham Radio", etc...and they DO work VERY well, but for the past 20+ years, DSC (Digital Selective Calling) on VHF-DSC, MF-DSC, and HF-DSC is an integral part of the GMDSS....and is one of the only ways to signal/call/alert shore stations and/or other vessels in your region..
Understand that while SSB Voice IS still used a lot (by cruisers, it's mainly "cruiser's nets, weather nets, etc.), it's use in the GMDSS is primarily for communications / coordination AFTER signaling/alerting by another method (such as DSC, or EPIRB, etc.)

In the past 15+ years (since Jan 1999) "SSB Voice Radio" watch-standing is NO LONGER a requirement...not by coast stations, nor by other ships at sea....
And truth be told, even by the 1990's most vessels (and many shore stations) were NOT standing-by on "Voice Watch" except for the two "3-minute" times at the top/bottom of the hour, but rather almost all of their "long-range" radio watch-standing was being done by "two-tone alarm watch receivers" (which listened to 2182 for the "doo-DOO, doo-DOO" emergency alarm from another commercial vessel)....
But, since Jan 1999, it's an MF/HF DSC-Radio Watch, NOT a SSB-Voice radio watch (save for the USCG, Aus AMSA, and NZ Maritime Authority/Taupo Radio, as well as WLO, etc.), that all the hundreds of coast stations (and 1000's of commercial vessels) are listening to!!
(YES, there STILL are currently operational 100's of coast stations!!!)

So, for the past 15 - 20 years, it's been only a few coast stations that have had "VOICE SSB" watch-standing....and while there is still the USCG, Aus AMSA, NZ Maritime Authority, etc. that monitor the GMDSS VOICE SSB frequencies, ALMOST EVERYBODY ELSE IS ONLY MONITORING THE DIGITAL SELECTIVE CALLING FREQUENCIES....

Please see this page for some details...
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=cgcommsCall

MF-DSC and HF-DSC monitoring by coast stations worldwide is PROLIFIC!!!
(~ 84 HF-DSC coast stations and ~ 450 MF-DSC Coast Stations, not to mention the >1000 VHF-DSC coast stations)
As well as all the 1000's of commercial SOLAS vessels at sea, also monitoring VHF-DSC, MF-DSC, and HF-DSC...(but NOT monitoring MF-HF-SSB VOICE...)

This does NOT mean that they (mariners and coast stations) don't use SSB-Voice comms....to the contrary, they DO.....but it is NOT monitored and is only used AFTER a MF/HF-DSC call, EPIRB, etc. (i.e. nobody is listening there unless something/someone tells them that someone needs them to, via a MF/HF-DSC call, and/or an EPIRB alert, etc.)


{FYI, the GMDSS (Global Maritime Distress and Safety System), is a system originally designed/adopted in 1988 (and changed/implemented in the 1990's), which amended the SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea) conventions; by the International Maritime Organization (a UN agency devoted to safety improvements and pollution reduction, of shipping), and became mandatory for all SOLAS / IMO signatories and all SOLAS ships in Jan 1999!!!
So, this is nothing new!!}




2) Perhaps with the knowledge above, some here will now understand the meaning (and the "why") of what I wrote earlier...

Originally Posted by ka4wja

When are "cruisers" going to understand that "SSB Voice" will only do "so much" these days....and "DSC" is an important feature to fully understand and make your equipment decisions accordingly??? (not simply say that they cannot afford the extra $1000, but then have a new iPad sitting next to them???)

PLEASE understand this change to MF/HF-DSC signaling/calling is NOT new....it has been with us, the sailing/cruising community, now for more than 15 years!!!
And, you've not been able to buy a new marine VHF radio without DSC, nor an HF-SSB radio without DSC...for a decade now!!!
I'm still amazed by the fact that so many sailors/cruisers are not aware of all of this.....but since the advent of "e-mail at sea" (via Sailmail, etc.) and the plethora of used marine SSB radios on the market (from commercial vessels being mandated to carry DSC radios) in the past 10-15 years, it seems that nobody wanted to "upset the apple cart"....(well, please allow me to do this here....again and again!!




3) I know "Lake Superior" had a rough time trying to use his HF-SSB radio during his Atlantic circle a few years ago (and we've discussed this before, so we do NOT need to do it again here )....
But, here you mention a VERY VERY important thing....and one that the GMDSS (and in this instance, specifically the MF-HF-DSC system) was specifically designed to avoid/eliminate!!!

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

IMHO, the satphone trumps a SSB on most fronts. My wife knows how to dial help on an satphone. I'm not sure I could get help on an SSB without some serious training. In her case, no way. Then again with the satphone in play we didn't have to make the onerous effort to be smart on the SSB.

The fact is that using a MF/HF-DSC-SSB radio to signal/alert is as simple and easy as pressing ONE button!!! (and it's a RED button, all by itself!)
There is NO "training" involved at all (and that has caused some early problems with "false alarms" in years passed), and if a human being (man, woman, young, old, etc. etc. etc.) can dial "0" on a phone, then they can send a DSC-Distress message....
It's REALLY that simple....
And, it is designed to not only be simple / fool-proof, but also VERY robust!!
The MF/HF-DSC transmission is 13 - 15 db "stronger" / "more robust" than a comparable SSB-Voice signal on the same band/frequency would be....
This is like transmitting a Voice Mayday in the old days, with a 3000 watt - 4500watt transmitter, compared to the 150 watt transmitter!!!
(this is REAL, not some BS....and is very basic radio communications fact....narrowing bandwidth increases s/n, etc....similar advantage that PACTOR has over voice..)
Also, remember that this narrow-bandwidth MF/HF-DSC signal, is sent with both Forward Error Correction (SITOR-FEC), which further increases the signal's robustness.....and it is repeated multiple times, over and over again during the 30-40 second transmission (and then multiple transmissions spaced a couple minutes apart), ALL completely automatically!!!
All the human does is press the one button (and hold it for 5 seconds)....and if you desire to send an all-frequency DSC-Distress message, you simply press a button, hit enter, and then press 'n hold the RED button for 5 seconds!!!

This part of the GMDSS (Mf/HF-DSC) is specifically designed to REMOVE / REDUCE both, the human factors and the mother nature factors from the maritime distress signaling process...thereby attaining the goal of "high probability of YOUR exact distress message reaching both shoreside RCC ("coast stations") and all vessels in your region".....
It does this by the robustness of the signal, the FEC, the repetition of the information, the multiple transmissions, the multiple/varied frequencies, etc...as well as automatically including YOUR identity (MMSI#), YOUR exact position (GPS data), and if you select it your specific type of distress...
And, ALL of this is done automatically (after someone presses the button)...
AND....
AND THEN, just as automatically, your radio is listening for BOTH a DSC response ("ACK") AND a VOICE response (BOTH simultaneously), on the appropriate channel/frequency!!!
Again, this is done automatically by the DSC controller / DSC-Radio, and hence this requires NO specialized training (anyone can "press the button and wait for a response", and then pick up the microphone and speak to the guy calling YOU....no training required...)


It is the flippant comments that a "satphone works better", etc. that worry me about this thread (and some other threads like this)

Originally Posted by onestepcsy37

same here. satphone and epirb. rebel heart had it right...

Here both new sailors / wanna-be cruisers, and even old salts, might be laboring under the FALSE impression that HF radio is either useless or antiquated...Fact is neither is even close to true!!!

What has changed (15 years ago) for cruising sailors is that you need to use MF/HF-DSC to signal shore stations and other vessels FIRST, and then speak to them using HF-SSB-Voice.....

I won't ramble on and on here with the details of DSC, etc., as that is not the intent of this thread...so, I'll just direct you other threads where you can all get as much info as you like....

These are all different posts, with much useful info....please read them for more details...
http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f13/call-on-hf-dsc-maybe-125573.html#post1532922

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f13/call-on-hf-dsc-maybe-125573.html#post1533735

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f13/call-on-hf-dsc-maybe-125573.html#post1533816

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f13/call-on-hf-dsc-maybe-125573.html#post1538599





I do hope this helps clear up some confusion....

Fair winds....


Oh, and THANKS Ann, for posting this!!! (and for the flattery!!)

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Honestly, it is not difficult to learn how to operate an SSB enough to handle emergency communications. And, it is always a good deal to have backups to your backups when you're well away from civilization.

k4wja (regular CF radio master) probably could teach the both of you together how to operate SSB, or possibly could suggest someone closer to you. Don't make the mistake of thinking your wife couldn't learn it. If you plan to go offshore she may really want to help out that way.

Just my two cents. I have a bias towards wives becoming competent in new areas because it helps both of you, and builds her confidence, as well.

Ann

Couldn't agree more!!


Fair winds..

John
s/v Annie Laurie

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

One which you're incapable of rendering.

Because it is impossible to prove is that Psychology.components[MetaphysicalIntrospection] is not equal to
Metaphysics.components[PsychologicalIntrospection].


They may or may not be the same, so your argument is inconclusive.

Of course they can be proved. They have complete different domain space / problems to solve. If the domain space problems are different, and their results pass testing within their individual expected results, yet are different against each other, its provable.

EDIT: Introspection is abstract. It needs a domain problem to be realized, and then becomes specialized.

A good B. F. Skinner spanking would help bring clarity to you. We are here to make you sane.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Thanks. I think you've made my point.

lol.. Far be it from me to ever let my common sense get in the way of my stupidity. I say we press on....

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by SaltyMonkey

Of course they can be proved. They have complete different domain space / problems to solve. If the domain space problems are different, and their results pass testing within their individual expected results, yet are different against each other, its provable.

EDIT: Introspection is abstract. It needs a domain problem to be realized, and then becomes specialized.

A good B. F. Skinner spanking would help bring clarity to you. We are here to make you sane.

I would suggest that the domain space between metaphysical and psychological introspection for an individual overlaps.

[Steve W]

RH took more risks than most that attempt this passage. They ended up on the bad side of those risks. Whether it is 1 in 10 or 1 in a 1,000, when you end up on the 1 side of the equation it isn't good. 1. Taking a child so young was a significant risk. 2. Taking crew that did not have passage experience was a risk. 3. Having the only crew majorly engaged in caring for two young children was a risk. Many Pacific passage makers accept risk #2 and a fair number risk #3. Only few do risk #1. RH has stated that the boat condition had little effect on the final decisions. I mostly accept that as reasonable, although things may have been different if more reliable communications had stayed in place. Since they would have been communicating with stateside medical, I suspect the typically overly cautious medical personnel would have continued to encourage the evacuation, so the outcome may not have been any different.
__________________
Paul L

I think Paul nailed it. They took more risks than most attempting this passage and ended up on the wrong side of those risks.