> On 1 Jan 2015, at 1:13 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/31/2014 5:52 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1 Jan 2015, at 11:30 am, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 12/31/2014 4:00 PM, Kim Jones wrote:
>>>> Thinking, however, is a highly evolved skill of many parts involving
>>>> values and beliefs and motivations and agendas and theories and
>>>> risk-taking. Lifting a cup to your lips to swallow a liquid requires no
>>>> thinking. The skill is embedded since infancy, so it is with savants.
>>>
>>> But there's not a sharp distinction.
>>
>>
>> Does there have to be? Must Nature make sharp distinctions to please Man?
>> Perception is data-gathering, thinking is data-processing. There. Howzat?
>> Seems pretty razor-sharp to me....
>
> Seems like identifying black and white and ignoring grey.
The recognition of anything is what I am talking about. Grey needs to be
recognised to exist and is recognised. Unless something about your brain makes
you blind to grey - you will recognise it. There was a first time this
happened, in fact. That moment created the pattern your mind now 'sees'
whenever you now confront the appropriate signalling wavelength
> Is riding a bicycle data-gathering/perception or is it
> data-processing/intelligence? I'd say it's both.
It is both but at different stages. Once you can ride your bike you do it more
or less with the ease of someone walking. That is surely the goal of
bike-riding; to downshift the mental energy required to do it but that is the
goal of all skill learning. Acquiring the skill is what we are talking about,
laying down the tram tracks that we will use later on when we come back to it.
The mind is a memory surface that we sculpt like a needle scouring out a groove
in a vinyl record. Initial experiences determine subsequent ones. Experience is
not thinking. Thinking is the exploration of experience for a purpose. It
involves, but should by no means limited to, or by, perception. Sadly this is
rarely the case as decisions have to be made and the outcome of all decisions
is always determined by what we don't know. A big part of excellent thinking is
about making this distinction sharp between recognition as one thing and
thinking as another, if only to see how far we can go with simple recognition,
before we have to join up a few dots to create (ie design) instructions for
action as opposed to merely having our presets triggered and reacting with
standard thinking.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Many skills must be developed thoughtfully and then they can become
>>> automatic.
>>
>>
>> Yes. A skill is learnt consciously over time to create the algorithm which
>> is like feeling your way into it. But the skill is then increasingly applied
>> automatically, routinely, instinctively, reflexively - it's downshifted in
>> terms of the neuronal loading required to activate the pattern. There is -
>> if you prefer 'first stage' thinking and 'second stage' thinking. The
>> difference between recognising something and deciding what to do about it if
>> we want to boil it down.
>
>
> That boils it down too far. What to do about something can be automatic too,
> and in many cases it needs to be. Sports are a good example. Most of what
> you do has to be automatic.
>
But you aren't born with this skill, are you? You have to learn it so, as
usual, where you are (sleek and easy) skill-deficient, you employ your
(try-hard) intelligence to 'test yourself' and evaluate your performance over
time.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Riding a bicycle is the paradigmatic case, but it probably applies to
>>> drinking from cup too.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> No one ever learnt to ride a bike with an instruction manual in one hand.
>>
>> You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you fall off
>> the bike. You get on the bike you fall off the bike. You get on the bike you
>> fall off the bike. You get on the bike you stay on the bike, you etc...
>>
>> I think we are here right up against (once again, sigh) intelligence and
>> competency. The better you are at a skill, the more competent you are (at
>> that skill, possibly in other ways if there is transferability of that
>> skill). You no longer need to think about it. Intelligence (speed of pattern
>> recognition) not necessary or less necessary.
>
> ?? Now you identify intelligence with recognition - while above you seemed to
> contrast perception with thinking. What's that last sentence supposed to be?
Intelligence is "speed of pattern recognition" meaning the person is more
likely to arrive at the end of their thinking based only on available
information only unless they use their thinking or willpower (another word to
characterise it) to imagine scenarios and consider a range of choices and
outcomes and universes in which they might subsequently find themselves based
on what they do from here. That's like "recognising the future" if you will, or
projecting the mind using the imagination into possible alternative
continuations. The goal of thinking is to uncover the full range of choices
that can be made or to get as close to it as possible. Perception allows us to
populate that with the available range of input. So, if you work on broadening
your perception, as Grandma used to say, you may well make better, more
informed decisions.
I used to have a girlfriend who wanted to buy a car. I gave her a lot of
information about cars and we considered things like purpose, fuel economy,
safety features and maintenance costs etc. etc.
In the end I said to her "so which car will you buy"
She said "Oh, I dunno. But it has to be blue."
K
>
> Brent
>
>>
>>
>> K
>>
>>>
>>> Brent
>>> The nipple is the only truly intuitive interface.
>>
>> Also the very first. All other subsequent interfaces in life are therefore
>> required to exhibit "nipple-like" intuitiveness in their design. Basically
>> the goal of life is to be on the tit in some sense.
>>
>>
>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>>> email to [email protected].
>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
