Well I just remembered why people have been so distracted by the analysis of superficial data. Because it is easy. Because it is easy for an automated program to analyze the superficial features of the input media and how the data environment of the medium is affected by the program's output but it is hard to figure out how the program would analyze hidden meaning. But, most of the people in this group talk as if their ideas would be powerful enough to discover underlying meaning or underlying relations in the data environment. So then what started as a first response to a problem description simply became the dogma. (Yes that is really what happened. Does anyone disagree? (No?!.))
So while the rehashing of the first step may have seemed like it was an important primitive to explain to the inexperts, as it became the reigning focus of all such conventions of presentation it became the dogma of the genre. Because people somehow found a rationalization to avoid taking the next step (to explain how deeper relations between ideas, concepts or operations in the IO data environment could be integrated and discerned) it became a blocking dogma. In order to join the club, so to speak, you had to start by avoiding the next question. You often feel that you have already thought about an idea because you have examined a high-level concept which might be a categorizing principle of the idea. For instance I was interested in 'associations' so when I encountered the word 'correlation' I simply felt that I had already considered the concept as a kind of association. A correlation can be considered as a type of association so it seemed like I had already had handled that relation. However, it just is not the same thing. A correlation may be a kind of association but it is bound with another association as well, the concepts that defines the nature of the correlation. So a correlation is not -just- an association. You have to take it to the next level and it has to start in your mind. Jim Bromer On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that misunderstandings can occur when one person presents an idea > which possesses some features which resemble features of another idea that > a listener has already considered. If the resemblance is somewhat > superficial, especially if the superficial resemblances lie *at a > shallow underlying level, *a person who is listening to the idea may > feel certain that he was totally familiar with the idea even though he > might not really get what the speaker was saying. The listener may casually > miscategorize the presented idea by thinking that it was the same as the > similar idea he had already considered. Good ideas are often unoriginal or > unsurprising and this vague familiarity can strangely have a > non-intuitive effect to further a misunderstanding. The reason that this > can occur is that ideas sometimes need to be emphasized or 'formalized' in > some way in order for them to be fully appreciated. > > I for one would like to be able to understand why people who should be > interested in something I have said aren't. The answer to this question has > always been somewhat elusive. A primary characteristic that can produce > this kind of misunderstanding is superficiality in the listener. (Of > course the new idea may be poorly presented and we all make a variety of > mistakes, but I am often confronted with the experience where I have > repeatedly presented a commonsense idea and I can't find anyone who acts > like they understand what I am talking about). > > But is there anyway you can verify (at least for yourself) that someone > who should be reacting intelligently to what you are saying is actually > reacting at a too-superficial level? I have found that there is a way in > this group because we are constantly talking about artificial means of > creating "personality" traits. If someone repeatedly emphasizes > superficiality of association as a presumption for the basis of > intelligence then there is a chance that he might unitentionally be > describing a method that commonly underlies his own thought processes. > > For example, I have described a process of synthesis where a new idea is > formed from the association of two pre-existing ideas based on a reason. > The reasons can be superficial, like a superficial co-occurrence (of time > or position) or a superficial similarity, but then I also emphasized that > ideas may be related by complimentary conceptual roles. Furthermore, I > have emphasized the importance of conceptual structure which is a term I > use to stress that there may be a greater complexity to putting ideas > together than just relying on one superficial feature. > > So now, if after expressing this and pointing out that the purpose of > combining ideas is to create some semantic or operational structure, I see > someone restating the insight that co-occurrence and similarity are the > basis of correlation and association I will have some substantial evidence > that my ideas were not appreciated by that person because he tends to > be over reliant on superficial methods of thought. Co-occurrence, > similarity, simple association and analogy are all examples of relations > between ideas that are typically shallow. The superficiality may not be at > the surface level, but it is usually not going to be that deep. The > declaration of these relations are all ok but I feel that if the presenter > is going to explain how intelligence works then he needs to take it to a > deeper level. > > Of course, misunderstanding can also occur when a phrase is taken to refer > to a superficial aspect of thought even though the speaker intended it to > refer to deeper relations as well. But I think the declaration that the > basis of correlation is co occurrence, similarity and associativity has > just been too over-used to still be considered sufficient as a presentation > of the basis of thinking. Thinking gets a little deeper than that. > > Jim Bromer > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
