andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-12-19 08:11 am
andrewducker) wrote2003-12-19 08:11 am
(no subject)
We spot patterns. Spotting patterns is what we do.
We see things happen and compare them to things we've seen happen before, and if we find something that's close enough, then we assume that the pattern will occur in the same way it did the last time.
Building up the library of patterns is called 'learning' and the collection of patterns is called 'experience'.
After a while we get the hang not just of spotting patterns, but of spotting tehe variances in patterns - seeing how apparently similar similar patterns may act in quite different ways if the difference is significant. Or that the same pattern may act very differently under different circumstances. Or that two patterns that look very different may have certain things in common.
Some people are only good at spotting patterns that are very similar to each other - things look like themselves and nothing else. Other people can see similarities between vast arrays of things, links not just between things that look or act the same, but huge arrays of links between things that are in any way reminiscient. In fact, things can be considered 'reminiscient' or 'similar' insofar as people people find them to be.
The brain sees glimpses of things, or edges and fills in the gaps, filling them in, so that when our eyes see a few colours and shapes, our brains link them together into a picture of a person or a car or a tiger. It then backfills as more information is gained, so that it seems to us that we always saw whatever it was our brain eventually concluded was there. This is why you will sometimes fail to hear something clearly, say "What?" or "Pardon?" and then realise that you had heard what was said after all. Your memory will tell you that the person said "Pass the Salt", when your brain didn't actually understand this until 2 or 3 seconds later.
Artists, scientists, writers and other creative people are those who are good at spotting similarities between patterns that others may not. The use of metaphor, simile and parables is the art of finding similarities between a seemingly complex situation and a simple one that can be easily understood. Any description that tells you that something is 'like' something else is using the power of the brain to see two things and find similarities between them to allow you to understand something you have no experience of.
The further along the line a person is, the more likely they are to make connections and the less likely they are to be accurate. The best situation to be in is one where we see all of the useful similarities and make no mistakes, but it seems that in order to make sufficient guesses quickly enough, we need to be far enough along the gradient to occasionally make inaccurate ones. For instance, to a jungle dweller it is vitally important to be able to spot a tiger sneaking up on them - to be able to go from a half-glimpse of a orange and black stripe to the full flight response as quickly as possible. Making a mistake occasionally is well worthwhile, if the consequences of failing to spot the tiger is to end up as its lunch.
People that are especially creative may make numerous inaccurate guesses, but find that this is made up for by the fact that they produce great art. Some people create links between things so different that they imagine huge conspiracies, or see messages in all things, eventually ending up in a paranoid schizophrenic state, where the very world itself seems to be a conspiracy against them. They see things that definitely aren't there - their brains making connections between entirely unconnected events and sketching in huge gaps to create something that only they can see.
It's not at all surprising that 'artistic' people have a reputation for being flaky - whatever the reason for a person's position along the connection-making gradient, the more capable they are of making connections, the more likely they are to make spurious ones.
The only 'protection' against this is a link-discounter - a method of discarding of those connections that are harmful. Obviously, different links are harmful for different people, and in different contexts - a writer of fiction may make a small fortune by coming up with far-fetched ideas about conspiracies and aliens, but espousing these ideas in a non-fiction format might get them looked at oddly. A politician taking the same ideas seriously might find themselves suddenly without a job.
Over time most people seem to develop their connection-discarding apparatus, discarding more and more outlandish ideas which seemed reasonable to them at a younger age. This is what seems to cause most scientists to do their best work when young, before they start to discount the more unlikely ideas that occur to them. Obviously, the ideas that are discarded don't have to be the ones that are objectively wrong - instead they will tend to be the ones that are outside of the group that have worked well in the past - leaving a person stuck in a rut as they get older.
If Einstein had been born 30 years later, he would have worked on quantum theory, but approaching it after he'd already refined his ideas to focus in one area, he was unable to break the self-training that made him discard the new, strange ideas that quantum physics introduced.
We see things happen and compare them to things we've seen happen before, and if we find something that's close enough, then we assume that the pattern will occur in the same way it did the last time.
Building up the library of patterns is called 'learning' and the collection of patterns is called 'experience'.
After a while we get the hang not just of spotting patterns, but of spotting tehe variances in patterns - seeing how apparently similar similar patterns may act in quite different ways if the difference is significant. Or that the same pattern may act very differently under different circumstances. Or that two patterns that look very different may have certain things in common.
Some people are only good at spotting patterns that are very similar to each other - things look like themselves and nothing else. Other people can see similarities between vast arrays of things, links not just between things that look or act the same, but huge arrays of links between things that are in any way reminiscient. In fact, things can be considered 'reminiscient' or 'similar' insofar as people people find them to be.
The brain sees glimpses of things, or edges and fills in the gaps, filling them in, so that when our eyes see a few colours and shapes, our brains link them together into a picture of a person or a car or a tiger. It then backfills as more information is gained, so that it seems to us that we always saw whatever it was our brain eventually concluded was there. This is why you will sometimes fail to hear something clearly, say "What?" or "Pardon?" and then realise that you had heard what was said after all. Your memory will tell you that the person said "Pass the Salt", when your brain didn't actually understand this until 2 or 3 seconds later.
Artists, scientists, writers and other creative people are those who are good at spotting similarities between patterns that others may not. The use of metaphor, simile and parables is the art of finding similarities between a seemingly complex situation and a simple one that can be easily understood. Any description that tells you that something is 'like' something else is using the power of the brain to see two things and find similarities between them to allow you to understand something you have no experience of.
The further along the line a person is, the more likely they are to make connections and the less likely they are to be accurate. The best situation to be in is one where we see all of the useful similarities and make no mistakes, but it seems that in order to make sufficient guesses quickly enough, we need to be far enough along the gradient to occasionally make inaccurate ones. For instance, to a jungle dweller it is vitally important to be able to spot a tiger sneaking up on them - to be able to go from a half-glimpse of a orange and black stripe to the full flight response as quickly as possible. Making a mistake occasionally is well worthwhile, if the consequences of failing to spot the tiger is to end up as its lunch.
People that are especially creative may make numerous inaccurate guesses, but find that this is made up for by the fact that they produce great art. Some people create links between things so different that they imagine huge conspiracies, or see messages in all things, eventually ending up in a paranoid schizophrenic state, where the very world itself seems to be a conspiracy against them. They see things that definitely aren't there - their brains making connections between entirely unconnected events and sketching in huge gaps to create something that only they can see.
It's not at all surprising that 'artistic' people have a reputation for being flaky - whatever the reason for a person's position along the connection-making gradient, the more capable they are of making connections, the more likely they are to make spurious ones.
The only 'protection' against this is a link-discounter - a method of discarding of those connections that are harmful. Obviously, different links are harmful for different people, and in different contexts - a writer of fiction may make a small fortune by coming up with far-fetched ideas about conspiracies and aliens, but espousing these ideas in a non-fiction format might get them looked at oddly. A politician taking the same ideas seriously might find themselves suddenly without a job.
Over time most people seem to develop their connection-discarding apparatus, discarding more and more outlandish ideas which seemed reasonable to them at a younger age. This is what seems to cause most scientists to do their best work when young, before they start to discount the more unlikely ideas that occur to them. Obviously, the ideas that are discarded don't have to be the ones that are objectively wrong - instead they will tend to be the ones that are outside of the group that have worked well in the past - leaving a person stuck in a rut as they get older.
If Einstein had been born 30 years later, he would have worked on quantum theory, but approaching it after he'd already refined his ideas to focus in one area, he was unable to break the self-training that made him discard the new, strange ideas that quantum physics introduced.
no subject
That;s an intersting thought. I never quite correlated that to the creative thinking/over-connection idea..
So much of this is exactly what people write about in Case Based Reasoning as applied to law - I guess you've seen Ashley's stuff on HYPO and CBR? I should show you the Levi thing on analogy too (it's pure legal theory so i doubt you've seen it.)
I'd go further actually and say that patetrn recognition/metaphor use is the basic building block of intelligence , since it's what allows construction of original as opposed to derivative thought.
no subject
In fact, things can be considered 'reminiscient' or 'similar' insofar as people people find them to be.
Patterns there, but why? Because Andrew just screwed up in his editing? Because his proof-reading consisted of no more than a spell-check? (Okay - unlikely;) Because his mind's not trained enough to spot such errors? Because he was testing his readers to see if they'd spot such an error? (One such double-word error can just happen, but two might be deliberate, right?)
no subject
But true. I typed this out while waiting for compiles to run through at work, in 50-odd word chunks, taking most of the day. The whole office was in christmas mode, and I was running a vast series of repetitive tasks, each of which left me with a minute or two to wait while it processed.
I gave it a quick read through afterwards, but that was it.
Having another quick glance over it now, I feel the need to write something about feedback loops and inductive/deductive reasoning. But I have to pack to go to Kent, so I shan't...
no subject
The rest looks pretty good, spelling-wise, I must admit. Pure chance I hit on that sentence, as I didn't notice it when I first read it. Which I think says something about my pattern-recognition abilities - though what I don't know.
no subject
deleuze spent a lot trying to understand/convey this "power of connecting". as rajchman writes in this essay on deleuze (titled "the deleuze connections" !)
"connections require a style of thought that might be called 'empiricist' or 'pragmatist'. it puts experimentation before ontology, 'And' before 'Is'."
"we must always make connections, since they are not already given... to connect is to then work with other possibilities, not already given; but utopian is not the best word for them, so much is it still part of the dream of organization, development, or else of some sort of mystical messianism of a 'non-identity' called upon to interrupt continuities."
i think, that this 'connecting mechanics of mind' works on different levels, and can also be mediated differently on each of them.
for example, we have to be flexible when learning (=making more connections, and more "unusual" ones; but with age we are getting more "fossilized".
same with cultural contexts, i guess; there are ages which need "innovative links", and therefore support the "linkers"; while some other massively inhibit them, since they are obsessed with retaining the status quo.
An You Have The Cheek To Tell ME To Re-Read "Illuminatus!"!
Taken further consider the Zen desire for none-ego experience, The Tinkerbell Theory, Operation Mindfuck and the fact that I do not believe in Faeries as I already am all to aware that they, in their many forms, exist.
See? I do check on you while I'm here, Andy.
Ta.
Re: An You Have The Cheek To Tell ME To Re-Read "Illuminatus!"!
That's what prompted me to write the post int he first place...
Re: An You Have The Cheek To Tell ME To Re-Read "Illuminatus!"!
Re: An You Have The Cheek To Tell ME To Re-Read "Illuminatus!"!
Re: An You Have The Cheek To Tell ME To Re-Read "Illuminatus!"!
Re: An You Have The Cheek To Tell ME To Re-Read "Illuminatus!"!
How would I put it better? Hmm can't manage not to sound like a nihilst goth - "nothing exists. It doesn't matter"
(Disconnectedly, I also failed to see why folks freak over vernor vinge)
Re: An You Have The Cheek To Tell ME To Re-Read "Illuminatus!"!
I also happen to love his writing style, but I realise that the majority of people don't like to have 15 stories going on through at a time, frequently ,ixed together in an obfuscatory manner.
Re: An You Have The Cheek To Tell ME To Re-Read "Illuminatus!"!
*shrugs* I never do well with overhyped stuff.
I Don't Spellcheck, It Gets In The Way Of Creativity
no subject
Nearly all old people, and most intelligent people appera eccentric to one degree or another to most other people.
The more you 'know' the less you say (because it doesn't need said) On the other hand, you never assume anyone understands what you are saying.
Maybe it's just that I am full aware that no one thinks like me.
I am a bad model for most human minds.
I have demonstrated all my points in this post ( i think).
Yeah, I'm feeling arty.
Reality?
Re: Reality?
Re: Reality?