----- Original Message ----- From: "Reggie Bautista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:41 PM Subject: Re: memorization vs. idea space position
> Dan wrote: > >As Doug has pointed out, language is a system. I > >like to think of the metaphor of idea space where the words both defines > >the space and is embedded in the space. If one includes math as a > >language, there is a strong arguement that there are no ideas apart from > >language. Indeed most people who state "I have a great idea, I just can't > >put it into words" actually have a vague idea they think is great, that may > >even have the potential to be great, but isn't fleshed out. > > I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, but I disagree about this > point. > Yes, sometimes have ideas with potential but that are not fleshed out, but > there > are other circumstances where someone can actually have a great idea but > honestly have trouble translating it into written or spoken words (or other > equivalent symbols). One of the interesting parts of this is that this question is not well suited to empirical verification. We are discussing ideas that are worthwhile, but never get communicated to the outside world. I think it is safe to say that there exists at least some BS artists who insist that they had great ideas for a number of different things but they just can't put them into words. They also cannot put them into code, they cannot sketch them out, they cannot build them, etc. An extreme examples of this were the numerous crackpots that wandered by the UW physics department with their great grand unified theories that exist in their minds. They just didn't have the math to get it out on paper, and assumed that an inferior thinker who did bother to study the maths could help them flesh out their great idea. When they were pushed to explain it, the muttered something like "all is gravity." I think we can agree that these crackpots really didn't have a real theory/a real idea of how to unify physics. Rather they had a vague hunch that they convinced themselves was an idea. Instead it was simply nonsense. Now, having said this, I'll agree that there are times that a given audience doesn't understand what you've tried to put down. For example, I find that I cannot convey everything in what I do to my customers; I have to give them a general idea. But, I find that, when I cannot put something down on paper that looks logical to me, there is still a real chance that there is a big hole in my thought process. I may think that I had an idea for something, but it turned out that I had an intuition that did not pay off. Further, in the process of explaining my work to others I often find a hole in my reasoning, or (to my embarrassment) they find a hole. The review of colleagues is always been a critical part of development of new ideas in science. So, I'm rather skeptical of people who say they have a great idea that they just cannot communicate to anyone. But, lets just suppose that there is someone who has come up with a conceptualization of a grand unified theory that they cannot communicate to anyone else; or a wondrous piece of music that they cannot put in any concrete form; or a design for a solar cell that would cost a dollar per square meter to produce and would be 60% efficient, etc., all of which is actually in full form in their head, but they are unable to communicate the idea. Is there any empirical verification of this possible? In some cases, such as someone who has had an injury or illness that interferes with the ability to communicate; I'd accept the testimony of folks that have recovered from strokes who said they could think but not talk. But, I believe this is different from someone who claims that they have come up with a new idea that they can't explain but is really wonderful. So, in retrospect, my generalization might very well have been too general. > For example, as a composer, I sometimes think in sound. Most of the time if > I hear a certain melody or harmony or tone color in my head, I can >translate that to written music or synthesizer settings or code in c-sound, but >sometimes I hear one of the above (especially tone colors) that I can't translate immediately >into any written, verbal, or "setting" form. Why not? If it is fully formed, what keeps you from it? I'm not trying to criticize you, I just don't understand how you cannot know exactly what you want but not be able to map it onto any nominal means of recording musical thought. Also, I've also thought of melodies, harmonies, and tonal colors in my head, and I wouldn't think to call myself a composer. I would guess that, if these ever saw the light of day, they would be much much worse than I think they are when I run them through my head. My experience is that I don't know if I've actually come up with a full fledged idea until I'm done either doing it or writing it down. The process of putting it in concrete form has always been part of the creative process. > Sometimes I think in images. For example, I might be able to see in my >head the way I want to rearrange furniture in a room. But sometimes I have >trouble translating that to a drawn map, or verbalizing it well enough for my >wife to understand what I'm saying. It may be a great idea for how to organize >that space, but I can't find a way to put it into words that my wife will >understand. I'm not arguing that there can't be difficulties in communications apart from having the ideas. But, can you at least sketch something out that you understand? You've brought up a couple of examples: organization in space and music, who's natural mapping is not words. In the post you replied to, I threw math in as a language, but your examples showed that math is not the only one. So, let me take a step back and restate my generality in a form that tries to include these type of examples. An idea that cannot be expressed in terms of either concrete forms or abstract symbols is not really an idea. Ideas that are hard to communicate do exist; but ideas do not exist free floating without respect to anything else. In another post, a programmer who could not explain how his code worked was given as an example of someone who had a great idea that they could not express in language. I'd argue that, by definition, if it can be coded, it can be expressed in a language. >Maybe that's a flaw in my linguistic ability, or maybe I'm describing it > adequately but my wife doesn't understand, or maybe it's a combination of those and > other factors. But it does happen sometimes. I'll agree that, with arrangement of rooms, and music, you have come up with two examples who's natural symbolic language is not words. Translating into words can be difficult there; even after the idea is fully fleshed out using more natural symbols. But, I'd also argue that folks who claim that they have great ideas that they can not express in any way shape or form should have their claim seen with extreme skepticism. Thinking some more about it, it seems that new forms of math are as likely a candidate as any for ideas that cannot be expressed symbolically. But, I've never heard of a mathematical system who's rules exist, but cannot be described in terms of things already know to other mathematicians. Obviously symbols can be invented on the fly, so that's not a problem...its more that one could imagine a set of rules so far removed from present systems that there is no mapping. But, I know of no instances of someone with a real track record coming up with systems he/she cannot describe at all to any other mathematician. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
