Understanding Made Simple

[BigApplePi]

AI Application

This is an inquiry into the AI application of UMS started here:

Ask Architect <--> Jeopardy Q: "A politician's rant and a froth desert."
Answer: What is a "meringue harangue"?

I didn't get the answer but can surmise how it was done by a little "reverse engineering."

1. Have a list of desserts.
2. Have synonyms for rant.
3. Match up rhymes. If there is a match you have a good guess.

This was a simple match of hierarchies: things under a simple list. Not complex. A human could have gotten it. The computer got there first. This is not understanding at least because the problem wasn't complex. If the question had been to create a syllogistic rhyme, I'd bet on the human.
++++++++++++

I may not be able to do the UMS (Understanding Made Simple) test, but here's a try:

Hierarchy - yes yes
Fuzziness - yes and no ... the rhyme is certain
Distance - table of synonyms; brain storage
Perspective - I don't know
Motion - I don't see that
Translation - none

++++++++++++

Let me try again as the above seems too wild.
The problem is to find two things which rhyme. Understanding = if the two things succeed in rhyming and fit the conditions.
A human or machine judges success. Let's not confuse technique with observation. If something is observed, what kind of understanding is that?

Perspective - only one as three tables are mechanically manipulated and the outcome seems certain and undisputed
Translation - nothing to translate as humans and machine agree
Motion - the success is instant
Distance - immediate
Fuzziness - the rhyme is certain against a table of sounds
Hierarchy - there are three tables: synonyms, deserts, sounds.

That's the understanding we have in this case.

+++++++++++++

Later: Let's go a little deeper. So far Hierarchy is the big factor here in understanding. It illustrates three tables meaning three variables or three dimensions. Suppose the original problem had been, find something funny about "A politician's rant and a froth desert." In addition suppose there was no rhyme solution. Now there would be a 4th dimension or variable: humor. A human being can bring a lot to bear on this. A computer would have to have a list of kinds of humor. The computer would have lots of trouble.

 

[BigApplePi]

An UMS Critique

Here is a nice commentary on the OP by Zero989 where I comment on what he said.

The Math

6. HIERARCHY Deconstructing never ends. Know that even isolated systems have their associations and can be affected by their surrounding systems. Acknowledge that there are always emerging systems within the hierarchy. Knowledge is fickle.

6. Number 6 is quite unclear. I'm not really sure what you're even trying to say. For one, it's impossible to deconstruct carefully in real-time events. Where and when is this tool applied?

The simplest way I can explain this is whenever we examine something, it always has two approaches. One is to tear it down into its parts to see what makes it tick. The other is to recognize it always exists in an environment that can't be ignored. There are ironies involved. When one tears something down, the original gets destroyed so we can lose sight of what it once was. That's why the environment approach is a requirement. We use the environment aspect to what is torn down to return to our original something.

Oppositely, nothing can be recognized to exist without having an environment. This is commonly overlooked because when we observe something, we take it for granted we are doing the observing. We are the environment. We must choose some approach among a variety of approaches (perspectives) and each of those varieties is different and so matters. As with the tear down approach, looking at the environment causes us to lose sight of the original something. This is disconcerting causing us to wish to avoid this approach. Yet it is necessary.

Think of Consilience to show how environment matters. Think of Tree_of_Knowledge_System for a hierarchy of fields of knowledge.

Most of your tools already have names such as introspection, deconstruction, systems are subject to Godel's incompleteness, learning never ends, the medium is the message and other idiomatic expressions.

One may choose other names as tools. Understanding is never complete. Godel is about the limitations of closed systems. Understanding is open-ended.

Another issue is when writing obse guides or "tools", it leads to the "everyone understands in their own way, or differently".

One may use any tools one likes, consciously or unconsciously. It has been suggested to use "what? when? why? how?, etc." I chose the six tools for a special reason: they are necessary and sufficient and have a measure of separateness or distinctiveness. This distinctiveness is non-fuzzy. We can tell them apart when using them.

For example, to even further discuss this we'd automatically use your "translation" tool, and as you can see some of these "tools" exist automatically in the real world. Also the names of your tools are really abstract, even for me as an INTP who is flexible with titles and semantics.

Translation from other tools is fine. Often this is not conscious. When talking to someone we aren't aware we are translating. By recognizing this tool, we are recognizing this translation will never be perfect ... that is, it will always be fuzzy and we can be on the lookout for errors.

I mean these six tools to be formal, well defined and useable. Granted they are abstract, but so are descriptions of any techniques. Concreteness is achieved via usage. A drawback of these tools is I've presented limited applications. I haven't shown much on how they work.

Lately I've been thinking about what the MBTI (Myer-Briggs Temperament) issues are all about. I've been thinking it is inherently fuzzy but it can be made clear what this fuzziness is all about. Clarity of fuzziness is a hierarchical perspective of fuzziness. There is some distance away from seeing this perspective because there is a resistance to motion ... moving in the direction of recognition. A failure or success in getting this across is a translation.

Anyway, as far as I know most people aren't interesting in being taught "how to think". It conflicts with their belief systems etc... I gave it up years ago. It was seemingly a waste of time. Not to discourage you. (There are few who are actually interested in these fields of thought).

People are free to think how they wish. I'm presenting this as an alternative perspective. I'm guessing the name of this field is Ontology = the study of being. As far as "waste of time" I'd say, leave out any one of these tools (in some form or other) if you're trying to understand something and you don't understand.

 

[Coolydudey]

Copyright © 2010 by BigApplePi . All rights reserved.

Love it!!

On a more serious note, I completely fail to see how any of the six things you mentioned are tools, rather than just simply descriptions of different fundamental processes that take place during understanding?

 

[BigApplePi]

UMS: tools or not?

I completely fail to see how any of the six things you mentioned are tools, rather than just simply descriptions of different fundamental processes that take place during understanding?

I know I was thinking the same thing yesterday but forget the context or exactly what I was thinking Coolydudey. Those tools, as you say, are processes. They can be thought of as naturally imbedded in the process. In that case they are not tools.

Spoiler

Here is a definition:

A tool can be a physical object such as mechanical tools including saws and hammers or a technical object such as a web authoring tool or software program. Furthermore, a concept can also be considered a tool. “Creativity is the tool which allows a child’s mind to grow.”
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/tool.html

They become tools when they are picked up as objects outside the current procedure. We can happily go through an understanding process and find intuitively something is missing. That's when we might go through our toolbox and try out a tool to see if it helps.

One of my favorite examples is that of morality. We can argue and argue over whether it's a good idea to help the poor or not: I'll bet there are not too few threads on this Forum that cover the topic in one way or another. Now pick up the distance tool. Do we care about diseases in Africa or poor in the lower castes in India or the crime in suburbs of Rio de Janeiro pollution of our waste products or driving over 65 mph? I'll bet a common answer in practice is, no we don't. Why not? The answer is distance: "Out of sight; out of mind."

That tool presents a solution: bring the specifics in closer. That is what advertisers, good speakers and writers do: they do something to grab your attention like a Trojan horse. Then they spring their desires on you before you know what hit you.

I haven't thought about it, but I wonder what tools haven't been applied to the Palestine/Israel problem. Has been addressed for decades and still is not solved.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: DISTANCE - UMS

Good example of Distance tool: awareness of cheating/dishonesty.
The Truth about Dishonesty

 

[BigApplePi]

DISTANCE - Religion/The Matrix

We see best what we are closest to. Milo tells us more:
What is Religion for?

 

[h0bby1]

in term of cognitive science, there is also different degree of congitive understanding, some of it happen more or less automatically, like there is first layer that is mostly directly sensorial, like mostly repitlian part of the mind, than the part linked with memory, and memory analysis, that allow to recognize object, and their behavior based on memory analysis made by various neuron group, that is also more or less automatic, and then there is the even higher part of consciousness, that is linked with semantic, and able to analyze the lower layer of automatic analysis to form advanced languages and analyzing logic , that allow for less stereotypical automatic reaction, but most animal are also able to identity some particular object and individual, and adopt some form of social organisation and hierarchy that wouldn't be possible without some form of memory and analysis, but human have more capaicty with semantics and analysis of this inner functionning of the cognitive process, and more control on it with consciousness, which make human sapiens sapiens, who know that they know, and more able to question themselve and practice self questionning and cirtical analysis

 

[h0bby1]

in the monadology, liebniz develop this argument linked with the distance, what he put in the form of event scale more than the one of distance, which make in sort that we can only percieve limited amount of the whole universe, and limited number of events, but in the same time it doesn't matter that much, because the logic that link each event to the other is the same everywhere, you don't need to see every apple falling to deduce gravity law that apply to all of them, as there is an unique logic inherent to all the chain of event, even if can only percieve a limited amount of them it can be enought to discover the logic of it all

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: TRANSLATION - UMS

Here is an example of translation: Typing Tips: Introvert or Extrovert?


An additional comment about translation. As mentioned earlier in this thread, translation is a special perspective of a perspective. Here is an analogy with mathematics:

An object is to the essence of something as speed is to the perspective of that something as acceleration is to the translation of perspectives. IOW,

perspective is like the 1st derivative and translation is like the 2nd derivative.

 

[BigApplePi]

HIERARCHY details examples

I just wish to point out some examples of "hierarchy" as a tool as it occurs in everyday life and is not recognized as such. Anything that is based on something else forms a hierarchy. (One could even generalize further and say a linear time sequence of events forms a hierarchy of ramifications, though the term is not usually used that way.) It's that simple.

1. The present day Egyptian situation. Small grievances among different factions have no overall effect. Make them large enough and a threshold is reached resulting in anger causing damage. Then anger reaches a new level beyond the original small grievances. Anger is now about the damage. Notice that rationalizations continue blaming the subject matter of the original grievances. Not true. The anger is expanded to include the pain of damage.

2. The nature of the elements of any organization is generally different from the nature of the organization itself. This can be deceiving if there are likenesses. Example is people and groups of people interacting. Groups of people are spoken for by people giving the illusion that the group should behave like people.

Another way of saying this is properties of levels up or down in a hierarchy emerge as well as disappear. Emergence is new, mystical, unpredictable and slow to be recognized. Disappearance has other properties one of which is the tendency to caste the illusion properties are still there. There is an inertia in our understanding.

3. Quantum physics. If properties exhibited are so dependent on the levels of a hierarchy, it may be an illusion that particles themselves at lower levels are a reality. It may also be the case that properties at a more cosmological level are deceiving to us at a lower level. This is discussed at greater length in the August 2013 issue of Scientific American which I have yet to absorb.

 

[BigApplePi]

HIERARCHY - Form/Content

Form or Content? is a thread devoted to form versus content. The possibility of a hierarchical explanation has not surfaced as of this posting though it is broached here.

 

[BigApplePi]

Understanding Tools Origin

Understanding Made Simple Derivation. Some find this theory quite complex belying its name. Let's see how it might naturally arise.

We start with an object to be understood and someone to do the understanding. There is no such thing as understanding without a party attempting to understand. If the object to be understood* is complex, it's a matter of degree as to how far we wish to go to understand. This theory itself requires understanding and one can use said understanding as an example. Thus it will pull itself up by its own bootstraps, so-to-speak.

The theory begins with the acknowledgment that there are tools which can be used to understand. That acknowledgment itself stands at the top of a top-down HIERARCHY of understanding of this theory. (Tools named for this theory will be in bold-faced caps.) Does the theory presume there is only one such set of tools? No it does not. There are many:

One can ask an expert, read a manual, or dive right in and experience sensually. One can ask, "how, what, when, why and where." Those are possible tools. Each theory or method has its own advantages and disadvantages. This theory presents its own set of tools. It is claimed to be directly practical and complete.

Anyone may choose among these approaches. No one approach is presumed correct. Each will have its own viewpoint or PERSPECTIVE. When several people use different tools to understand, we can assume all are after the same objective. Recognizing different PERSPECTIVES exist implies a communication between or among them is desirable implying a TRANSLATION of one to the other.

Three tools have been mentioned. There are six altogether. Recognizing that six exist is one step further down a top-down HIERARCHY.

Three more tools have their analogs in physics. They are MOTION, DISTANCE, and FUZZINESS. It is difficult to understand anything far away from us. DISTANCE matters. Understanding changes when either we ourselves change, or our behavior toward the object changes, or the object itself changes. Thus MOTION affects understanding. Everything varies in its degree of clarity and precision. This gives rise to the tool FUZZINESS which is required to be acknowledged for understanding.

All these tools can be illustrated and detailed. Elaborations send us further down the HIERARCHY chain. We often forget where our objects for understand come from. Understanding an object's context sends us up the HIERARCHY chain.


This viewpoint for understanding using only six tools is a viewpoint reduced to a simple form. It cannot be reduced further unless a way of combining any of the six tools can be found. Of all the tools, HIERARCHY is the most comprehensive. It is the tool for which understanding is elaborated or refined. However the other tools must be kept in mind to avoid misunderstanding and keeping on track.

* Merriam-Webster

Spoiler

1un·der·stand·ing

noun \ˌən-dər-ˈstan-diŋ\ : the knowledge and ability to judge a particular situation or subject
: an informal agreement
: a willingness to understand people's behavior and forgive them

Full Definition of UNDERSTANDING

1
: a mental grasp : comprehension

2
a : the power of comprehending; especially : the capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars
b : the power to make experience intelligible by applying concepts and categories

3
a : friendly or harmonious relationship
b : an agreement of opinion or feeling : adjustment of differences
c : a mutual agreement not formally entered into but in some degree binding on each side

4
: explanation, interpretation

5
: sympathy 3a

 

[BigApplePi]

TRANSLATION reference e.g.

An example where translation is useful in understanding another temperament:

"judging from my INTJ friend we tend to share a lot of larger-scale dreams and attitudes, but we have very different temperaments. sometimes they complement each other and sometimes not. sometimes i almost pity him for his reluctance to revisit childhood and "let go" while he thinks my brainstorming ways can be taxing and excessive (though very funny in moderate doses). his Te gives me new material and a sense of importance that i lack and my Ne gives him comic value, which translates to new associations and connections. more infrequently, his Ni has me argumentatively dead-locked and my Si pwns him at factual knowledge and terminology."
What do you think of INTJ?

 

[BigApplePi]

HIERARCHY MBTI Application

Applied to Myers-Briggs Cognitive Functions/attitudes Anchors

 

[QuickTwist]

This is a superb thread. I don't understand what you are saying yet it makes perfect sense. Job well done so far.

[Edit] Started on page three. I will have to read this starting from the begging from time to time.

 

[QuickTwist]

Perhaps there should be a 7th titled reflection?

 

[BigApplePi]

UMS-reflection as a tool

Perhaps there should be a 7th titled reflection?

First, thank you if you believe this thread has value. I try.

Your "reflection" proposal is an interesting one. Interesting because how to deal with it? I had in mind that the six tools I choose would be "basic" or simple to understand in themselves. If "reflection" is an outlook of a human being on viewing an entity, that sounds complex. The entity doing the "viewing" need not be a human being or even alive. I chose PERSPECTIVE as a more general kind of viewing. Perspective as general includes any relationship to the object from any angle. Reflection, on the other hand, is what goes on inside the viewer and is part of an observing viewer. A viewer need not reflect and could have close to zero impact from or to the object.

Added: reflection would be a good tool for understanding but is not one of the six basic tools.

 

[QuickTwist]

Ah, yes that does make sense but I was thinking more along the lines of (and correct me if this is the same thing) matching up all the other steps(?) to see how it all fits together. Sort of like tying up what observations were made and seeing if the whole makes sense sort of thing. Like a conclusion or something. This may still be too complex, IDK. Also it may fall loosely under perspective. Perhaps I am thinking too much how I understand things and cannot get outside myself to see how this would work. It really is a big idea.

[Edit] basically I am saying you have all the pieces and now you have to put it together. So I suggest some sort of checklist to verify validity. I don't really know the grand scheme of what you are saying altogether so I don't know if my suggestion has validity.

[Edit 2] I reread what you said about the entity not having to be alive and that made me thing of a question. If the entity is not alive how can they have understanding?

 

[BigApplePi]

[Edit 2] I reread what you said about the entity not having to be alive and that made me thing of a question. If the entity is not alive how can they have understanding?

Good question. What I am after is ALL relationships. While understanding is a human endeavor, I forgot I wanted to generalize it.

Think of the Earth moving around the Sun. We want to understand that, but moving a step lower in the hierarchy and anthropomorphizing a little says, "The Earth wants to 'understand' the Sun." Applying the tools:

1. PERSPECTIVE- the Earth has a special relationship to the Sun.
2. TRANSLATION - so does Mars, but how does that compare?
3. DISTANCE - it varies summer to winter, an ellipse.
4. MOTION - see Newton's laws.
5. FUZZINESS - we use instruments with imperfect accuracy; the SUN changes its definition because it changes. Where are the centers of each?
6. HIERARCHY - the Sun is not just the Sun. The Earth relates to sunspots and other Sun offshoots individually; the Earth itself carries a satellite. When a close-by galaxy moves in, this will mess with the Earth's cozy relationship.

That is the Earth's perspective. Moving back to the human observer, we try to understand the Earth's POV.

 

[gilliatt]

"The truth or falsehood of all of man's conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions." A simple question, who decides what is right or wrong? Nobody decides. Nature does not decides-it merely is; man does not decide in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. Applying to knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, by what he has learned, remembering basic principles of his rational action. Nature is to be obeyed, must be obeyed. That means that man does not create reality, can only gain values through the facts of reality. This is understanding made simple, thinking is not personal, it is impersonal, ideas must not hold any personal meaning or importance to the thinker. Personal interest is a form of distortion. Not saying it is non-objective. Thinking can be derided two ways, 1-through your emotions 2-that you understand that reality is not your enemy, that truth & knowledge is important to your life where you search for clarity, truth.

 

[BigApplePi]

"The truth or falsehood of all of man's conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions." A simple question, who decides what is right or wrong? Nobody decides. Nature does not decides-it merely is; man does not decide in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. Applying to knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, by what he has learned, remembering basic principles of his rational action. Nature is to be obeyed, must be obeyed. That means that man does not create reality, can only gain values through the facts of reality. This is understanding made simple, thinking is not personal, it is impersonal, ideas must not hold any personal meaning or importance to the thinker. Personal interest is a form of distortion. Not saying it is non-objective. Thinking can be derided two ways, 1-through your emotions 2-that you understand that reality is not your enemy, that truth & knowledge is important to your life where you search for clarity, truth.

Sounds like man is separate from what is outside him, what he sees being framed by his own definitions. Where would his understanding go if he stepped through the frame right onto nature?

 

[QuickTwist]

@BAP

I believe if man could separate himself from his own introspective thought process and instead use that energy to observe what naturally occurs in relationships his understanding would be very good given his brain power.

Thanks to both of you for clarification. It was a bit fuzzy and unclear; I have more research to do in understanding because of this. Thanks again.

 

[BigApplePi]

I believe if man could separate himself from his own introspective thought process and instead use that energy to observe what naturally occurs in relationships his understanding would be very good given his brain power.

Here is the way I would put it:

There is no such thing as two separate entities without a relationship between them if we are going to contemplate their existence. (Note this is not something an INTJ would say or so I'm told.) That is to say, if man does concentrated introspective thought, the process is always related to some observation. At the same time if one wishes to introspect and concentrate on the observation over internal processes, I'm all in favor if it comes to that. Any introspection which attempts to exclude all observation is doomed to fail because one is not working with real objects.

I am a person who is fond of theory, but when I introspect I get hung up if I'm not working sufficiently with real objects.

I forgot to tell you I like that "flag" signature below your post. It shows promise of being a good symbol but can't tell if it's there yet. Does it have meaning?

 

[QuickTwist]

Thanks you put that better than I could. However this does pose a problem in your theory when you say "real objects" because surly if we cannot isolate understanding to beings with a mind then what evidence is there that there are not irrational objects. Such a thing may still be able to be understood with your theory although classifications of what is a real object and what is an irrational object remains to be seen.

([Edit] for that matter there may be an irrational environment(s) as well as other irrationals that I am overlooking.)

About the "flag," (I never really thought of it as a flag purse more like a creative outlook on pattern and pattern recognition. the yellow question mark is what needs to be filled in with a different symbol. I guess I put it there for others amusement and/or entertainment. As to what it means, I believe even I, the one who created it, can't tell you yet. I have not studied it thoroughly and reflected on its meaning to a close degree. I was trying to sleep one night and this image popped into my head. So I got up and made this. Basically if you read my heading that might explain something about why its existence is made I suppose.

 

[BigApplePi]

Thanks you put that better than I could. However this does pose a problem in your theory when you say "real objects" because surly if we cannot isolate understanding to beings with a mind then what evidence is there that there are not irrational objects.[?] Such a thing may still be able to be understood with your theory although classifications of what is a real object and what is an irrational object remains to be seen.

([Edit] for that matter there may be an irrational environment(s) as well as other irrationals that I am overlooking.)

I was going to ask you what you meant by "irrational" when I realized I made a mistake here:

Any introspection which attempts to exclude all observation is doomed to fail because one is not working with real objects.

Change the word "real" to "external" so it reads:

Any introspection which attempts to exclude all observation is doomed to fail because one is not working with external objects.

Even that may not be what I want to say, but I will leave it for now.

 

[BigApplePi]

About the "flag," (I never really thought of it as a flag purse more like a creative outlook on pattern and pattern recognition. the yellow question mark is what needs to be filled in with a different symbol. I guess I put it there for others amusement and/or entertainment. As to what it means, I believe even I, the one who created it, can't tell you yet. I have not studied it thoroughly and reflected on its meaning to a close degree. I was trying to sleep one night and this image popped into my head. So I got up and made this.

I like it just the way it is.

I'll bet if you try to improve it you will make it worse. It has something of everything, rectangles, curves and symbols. Leave the question mark. <-- that speaking as an art critic, hah. Its only drawback it it may be a little too large for a signature. I say take it and put it in a museum. I will come to see it.

Basically if you read my heading that might explain something about why its existence is made I suppose.

Heading?

 

[QuickTwist]

I like it just the way it is.

I'll bet if you try to improve it you will make it worse. It has something of everything, rectangles, curves and symbols. Leave the question mark. <-- that speaking as an art critic, hah. Its only drawback it it may be a little too large for a signature. I say take it and put it in a museum. I will come to see it.
Heading?

I suppose you like your understanding theory just the way it is as well. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am simply being a sort of soundboard as to how I can better understand your theory of understanding. I've said this before but surely another time or so wont hurt: your idea of understanding is truly a marvelous one; regardless of if it may or may not have holes in its design.

Truly I am flattered. It didn't take much thought to be honest. Occasionally I have a creative idea and if I don't do something with it soon it eventually becomes forgotten. I have this problem with theories all the time. Speaking of which, I almost forgot that I had a very similar theory in part of your explanation of your theory before I read yours which consisted of the idea that people have a general bent towards either being a discovery oriented person vs. a results oriented person. Although it is not all that original with people comparing the journey to the destination to this which I believe is or should be a question on the MBTI. but yes I love to contemplate things quite a bit and look I'm rambling on again.

I suppose I should attempt to get my thoughts aligned with this thread again. To be honest I have not really read too much of it. I was so interested in there being a possibility to contribute to its meaning that I forgot to take a closer look at its make up. I would ask what level of grasp I have on the idea just for an indication of how much time I should spend on this idea. I believe it interesting but alas I have so many things pulling at me: interests and work to be done with the occasional laid back conversation.

Anyways I know that is quite a bit I just said there and given the nature I don't know how you will reply. Generally any reply to the type of things that were said are good ones but you never know.

Carry on.

 

[Anktark]

I might be incompetent on this topic, but at the start I thought you will try to design some sort of system/framework to make understanding concepts/systems easier.

Now it seems the idea is to deconstruct and reduce understanding to it's basics in order to better define it.

Is it both?

 

[BigApplePi]

I might be incompetent on this topic, but at the start I thought you will try to design some sort of system/framework to make understanding concepts/systems easier.

Now it seems the idea is to deconstruct and reduce understanding to it's basics in order to better define it.

Is it both?

Not both. Its purpose is primarily to make understanding easier. Although people think of understanding as existing within a human, I want these tools to apply in an expanded way to all animals and to inanimate objects as well. These tools can be applied to AI in the construction of an artificial brain. I've never mentioned that before in this thread, but it has always been in the back of my mind*. I wonder if Google, Inc. has employees working on this already or could they learn from this thread? Don't know and I'm not going to bother to find out.

I wouldn't say my purpose is to deconstruct. That was already done over the years when I came up with this construction.

*Cognisant?

 

[QuickTwist]

@BAP, Do you consider your theory of understanding to be true in all circumstances or are there exceptions? Please explain.

[Edit] Better yet, can you try to disprove your theory?

 

[BigApplePi]

@BAP, Do you consider your theory of understanding to be true in all circumstances or are there exceptions? Please explain.

[Edit] Better yet, can you try to disprove your theory?

Good Q. I don't know how to answer that without going into all sorts of definitions. One could ask, how far do those tools go in succeeding in understanding? I can see limitations. Another approach is to ask, How What When Why and Where? Some people could find that better. Another limitation is too much rests on an undifferentiated "HIERARCHY." For example if one wants to understand scientific activities one has to go through the dynamics of the scientific method and all sorts of convoluted observations. Those six tools are really cover the surface. Their value is that all of them are to be noted and used, especially when the going gets rough. After that, it's detail.

If you are looking for criticism, it might be good to ask others the same question. It's like asking an artist to criticize hir's own work. That's the job of critics.

 

[BigApplePi]

Translation & Religion

An interesting example of translation and its uncertainties by Animekitty.

God Problem: What's so special about belief?

 

[QuickTwist]

Good Q. I don't know how to answer that without going into all sorts of definitions. One could ask, how far do those tools go in succeeding in understanding? I can see limitations. Another approach is to ask, How What When Why and Where? Some people could find that better. Another limitation is too much rests on an undifferentiated "HIERARCHY." For example if one wants to understand scientific activities one has to go through the dynamics of the scientific method and all sorts of convoluted observations. Those six tools are really cover the surface. Their value is that all of them are to be noted and used, especially when the going gets rough. After that, it's detail.

If you are looking for criticism, it might be good to ask others the same question. It's like asking an artist to criticize hir's own work. That's the job of critics.

That was a satisfying response to say the least. I'm glad you didn't get defensive over me testing the validity of your findings.

I think you should keep bringing this topic up from time to time if you find more examples.

Carry on.

 

[BigApplePi]

Hierarchy-Rhizome Structure

Hierarchy-Rhizome Structure

This structure was brought to me by Puffy who referenced the philosopher Deleuze and this link: http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/med...words/rhizome/
He meant to distinguish between the rhizome structure and the tree hierarchical structure but I present them as cases of the same overall structure of general hierarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhizome

My commentary:
The rhizome structural concept is an interesting one, one I hadn't thought of never having studied biology. Here is the way I would reconcile it with the tree:

The tree arises when random seeds are scattered. The tree doesn't oppose the rhizome, but is a generalization of the rhizome, or vice versa depending on which one starts with. Trees do not function in isolation but can bump into other trees. The tree can select one of its branches which spreads out horizontally and generates components at a given level each of which produces seeds. These seeds while initially under branch control can break off and do their own thing. This is rhizome behavior.

Conversely if we start with separate seeds, they can grow into trees, each of which are separate.
_________________

Rephrasing,

I see that tree/rhizome duality as being the same in one way and different in another. The difference being the tree arises from externally scattered seeds while the rhizome arises from internal seeds. The tree has a vertical structure; the rhizome a horizontal one. One can think of the rhizome as a growth of one special branch of a tree while other branches are stunted. One can think of the tree as a growth arising from a rhizome where horizontal forces are inhibited.

An example is a body of water spreading out over a horizontal area, the seed being water's obedience to the laws of gravity at every point. This presents an opportunity for rhizome growth. When the body of water encounters a sink hole, it stops spreading and can capture life within it generating an enclosed hierarchical tree structured lake of life. The lake in turn can harbor a special form of life, say algae which proliferates and destroys other forms of life like a rhizome.

 

[BigApplePi]

UMS for AI

Are these tools a model for artificial intelligence?

Perspective - the ability to see the same thing in different ways
Translation - the ability to recognize different ways are of the same thing
Distance - the awareness of varying degrees of access
Motion - the awareness the same thing changes
Fuzziness - the awareness uncertainty can be addressed by probability
Hierarchy - the awareness of the structure of all entities

There may be various stages and capacities for AI but the most advanced would need to incorporate all of the above.

 

[BigApplePi]

DISTANCE Radiation

UMS consists of more than just six tools. These tools are our manipulations for understanding how entities work. What are these entitities upon which working is done? What is their nature? Entities themselves have a certain nature or structure. One may choose and examine them at any of the points which they possess. Motivation can be random, according to desire, or according to need.

Once one has identified a point in reality, its nature radiates* outward. As one moves outward and away from such a point, its definition and influence becomes weaker as the distance becomes greater. This occurs for two reasons. (1) As it radiates outward there is less of it to share. This means it becomes weaker. (2) Other points are encountered along the way. As one moves outward from a chosen point other entities alter the viewpoints or nature of the original source. These alterations may be thought of as boundaries. Graphically or pictorially this may be taken as a point of origin radiating outward limited by a surrounding potential spherical boundary. The radiation either proceeds outward, weakening as it goes, or is terminated by a boundary.

Possible visuals examples are suggested by Animekitty's Combinations. Notice the first illustration appears to be more like a lattice denying radiation. In this case we may consider the illustration as a whole and our interest in it diminishes or increases as we depart from or approach it. Or we may pick a point in the lattice and interpret adjacent points as having greater import than distant ones.

*Radiation implies motion but the intention here is we are observing a static point in time.

 

[TimeAsylums]

If you formally structured all of this, it would make an excellent book

 

[BigApplePi]

If you formally structured all of this, it would make an excellent book

Or essay or treatise or pamphlet or thesis. Thank you but maybe a ghost writer or something. What is missing is fluid prose, a pleasant read and a promoter. The theme is along the line of, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts is a great intellectual finding ... dare one say along with the finding of the wheel and fire in the physical world ... maybe not that high.

 

[BigApplePi]

HIERARCHY - Consciousness

Reference to the construction or emergence of consciousness:
Consciousness Defined

 

[thoughtfully]

Skimming this thread doesn't say much if anything about our feelings. Frustrating and looks overthinked. If it claims a method for understanding it is missing something. How could this be used to apply to feelings?