I don't think that's true. Humans are incredibly good at solving problems, so I really don't think "can't" is really ever applicable. The tighter the spot, the more ingenuity it takes to solve the problem. But a solution can always be found or created.
You may not be able to solve the program now, but you can probably do something to help you solve it later.
This is reductive to the point of absurdity, if this were true no one would ever die from any problem (i.e. drowning, falling, etc.) They'd simply activate ingenuity.
Some problems do not have a solution in a given circumstance.
E.g. I'm locked in a prison on a sinking ship that's already 1km underwater, and my cell is completely full of water and I've held my breath for 2 minutes now.
I should've added "given enough time" to that statement.
My take is that if you accept that there's nothing you can do, then that's it. If you don't accept that, you have a chance of improving the outcome, even if it's small. Giving up never improves your outcomes, there's always something you can try that both won't make things worse and might make things better.
In your scenario, you have two options: accept death or try something. Since you aren't going to make it worse, you might as well try something. Some options:
pick the lock
break the lock
squeeze through the bars
try to use magic to grow gills or something
Literally any of those has a higher chance of success than doing nothing, and if you had more time, one of the first three might even work. If by some miracle you get out, the next step is to look for a pocket oh air. And so on. Take it one step at a time.
Ok, I can agree with this logic "it's better to try than to give in" much more than "there's always a solution".
That to me still leaves some people starving of hunger due to a lack of money and an excess of bills. But I agree that even in that horrible situation it's better to keep trying than give in.
I was worried the argument here was closer to "you're in this terrible situation because you didn't try enough" which I wholeheartedly disagree with.
I feel now that we're in agreement though?
If there's no solution, there's no point in trying, so you need to believe there's always a solution. Maybe there's no apparent solution, but with some effort one can be discovered.
some people starving
And if they do nothing, they will continue to starve. If they try something, maybe they won't. Some options:
apply for government assistance, if available
apply for additional jobs
scavenge
sell things to buy food
change other spending habits
steal
commit a crime bad enough to go to jail (prisoners get fed)
Each of those has difference costs, chances of success, and chances of making your situation worse. You know what you'll get if you do nothing, so it's probably better to try something.
in agreement
IDK, my goal in online discussions isn't to reach agreement, but to fully explain my side and understand the other person's side. Maybe I'll convince them, maybe they'll convince me, but either way, the discussion should provide value for the next person who comes along and reads it.
Of course there are unsolvable problems. This is true in both theory and practice. If your family member has late-stage cancer, let's suppose.
I don't think that's true. Humans are incredibly good at solving problems, so I really don't think "can't" is really ever applicable. The tighter the spot, the more ingenuity it takes to solve the problem. But a solution can always be found or created.
You may not be able to solve the program now, but you can probably do something to help you solve it later.
This is reductive to the point of absurdity, if this were true no one would ever die from any problem (i.e. drowning, falling, etc.) They'd simply activate ingenuity.
Some problems do not have a solution in a given circumstance.
E.g. I'm locked in a prison on a sinking ship that's already 1km underwater, and my cell is completely full of water and I've held my breath for 2 minutes now.
I should've added "given enough time" to that statement.
My take is that if you accept that there's nothing you can do, then that's it. If you don't accept that, you have a chance of improving the outcome, even if it's small. Giving up never improves your outcomes, there's always something you can try that both won't make things worse and might make things better.
In your scenario, you have two options: accept death or try something. Since you aren't going to make it worse, you might as well try something. Some options:
Literally any of those has a higher chance of success than doing nothing, and if you had more time, one of the first three might even work. If by some miracle you get out, the next step is to look for a pocket oh air. And so on. Take it one step at a time.
Ok, I can agree with this logic "it's better to try than to give in" much more than "there's always a solution".
That to me still leaves some people starving of hunger due to a lack of money and an excess of bills. But I agree that even in that horrible situation it's better to keep trying than give in.
I was worried the argument here was closer to "you're in this terrible situation because you didn't try enough" which I wholeheartedly disagree with.
I feel now that we're in agreement though?
If there's no solution, there's no point in trying, so you need to believe there's always a solution. Maybe there's no apparent solution, but with some effort one can be discovered.
And if they do nothing, they will continue to starve. If they try something, maybe they won't. Some options:
Each of those has difference costs, chances of success, and chances of making your situation worse. You know what you'll get if you do nothing, so it's probably better to try something.
IDK, my goal in online discussions isn't to reach agreement, but to fully explain my side and understand the other person's side. Maybe I'll convince them, maybe they'll convince me, but either way, the discussion should provide value for the next person who comes along and reads it.
Of course there are unsolvable problems. This is true in both theory and practice. If your family member has late-stage cancer, let's suppose.