![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trocheeIn a conversation that included ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
chr0me_kitten earlier today, she brought up apophenia*. [Edit: Also, earlier this week, imtboo and blackwingedboy have both been talking about Mercury in retrograde, which, initially, frustrated the heck out of me. But imtboo and I talked about it. Now bear with me, here, 'cause I'm coming back to that thought.]
An old professor of mine [at least, I think it was him! it was about the same time I was reading Daniel Dennett for the first time, and it mighta been him] used to rant about how the apparent inner voice of consciousness, and indeed the useful mental processing that goes on as a cognitive tool, is "merely" a short-circuit to the mouth-ear loop. He didn't go into much detail, but I've adopted the idea fairly firmly as I continue to study language, computation and communication.
The argument is like this: once you're forced to turn your thoughts into language, you make heuristic** approximations to serialize what is a complex brain configuration and turn it into a series of carefully-timed oropharyngeal articulations. Then the listener makes heuristic approximations of zir own, and (one usually expects) constructs a comparable configuration within zir mind. Of course, the listener has a wide array of safety catches, pattern detectors, and BS detectors in place to decide whether this new configuration is acceptable to zir mind.
But once you can do this from you to me, you can do this from you to you, and actually, this series of approximations can be useful to understanding: the ugly corners, the complex sides, the difficult structures can be examined again, from a new angle: "suppose these thoughts were available to me as language [i.e. someone else is saying them]: would they still be useful?" In other words, by constructing a simple short circuit and removing the actual oropharyngeal gestures, you can engage your own decoding apparatus' pattern detectors [and BS detectors] and review the packed-and-unpacked idea after the smoothing and distortion provided by serializing it into language.
My point, if it wasn't already clear [i'm getting to it, I promise!]
analysis of the world into any arbitrary system is itself a creative act. Sometimes, the truth is in the data, and sometimes the truth is in the learner. When we have mental "ruts", we often need to reorganize what we already know and look at it all from a new perspective. Have you ever packed a suitcase only to find that not everything fit, and then found that if you unpack it all and start over, it all fits without trouble? That sort of "serialize, then restore" seems to be useful.
Tarot, for example, is a system that seems to work (at least, seems to me) because it's a random jumble of powerful symbols; the insight comes from our own tendency to assume the intentional stance towards this signal and proceed (in a sort of Gricean way) to assume communicative intent and then "discover" our own pre-existing knowledge in the cards. It's a way to "apopheniacally"*** kick in your own pattern detectors -- the ones that usually point only out at the world -- and point them at your own thought patterns. It's tremendously powerful.
Likewise, one could make lists, read tea leaves, take drugs, or anything else that would provoke apophenia, the discovery of new ideas, given no useful signal. [Edit: For example, having your horoscope read, or looking out for things because Mercury's zodiacal progression seems to change direction.] I wonder if I should try cartomancy for my next program design session....
* when I Google for "apophenia", the top link is to Danah Boyd, whose work is fascinating to me, not to mention she's nerd-cute in a big way and went to my undergrad institution, just a few years after I did. Her recent blog-entry on "why people need to pay for insight" has a similar insight about how spending money can provoke apophenia instead. I dunno whether that's why she titles her blog that way.
** [a grammatical note, for those who can't live without them, i.e. me]: I've just discovered that the word heuristic literally means "technique for directing one's attention towards discovery", or at least it did before its use in computer science, which was more how I intended it (although the philosophical meaning matches my rambles above quite nicely). For those with a historical bent: heuristic is also cognate with eureka. aha!
*** yes, apopheniacally. I make up words sometimes.
chr0me_kitten earlier today, she brought up apophenia*. [Edit: Also, earlier this week, imtboo and blackwingedboy have both been talking about Mercury in retrograde, which, initially, frustrated the heck out of me. But imtboo and I talked about it. Now bear with me, here, 'cause I'm coming back to that thought.] An old professor of mine [at least, I think it was him! it was about the same time I was reading Daniel Dennett for the first time, and it mighta been him] used to rant about how the apparent inner voice of consciousness, and indeed the useful mental processing that goes on as a cognitive tool, is "merely" a short-circuit to the mouth-ear loop. He didn't go into much detail, but I've adopted the idea fairly firmly as I continue to study language, computation and communication.
The argument is like this: once you're forced to turn your thoughts into language, you make heuristic** approximations to serialize what is a complex brain configuration and turn it into a series of carefully-timed oropharyngeal articulations. Then the listener makes heuristic approximations of zir own, and (one usually expects) constructs a comparable configuration within zir mind. Of course, the listener has a wide array of safety catches, pattern detectors, and BS detectors in place to decide whether this new configuration is acceptable to zir mind.
But once you can do this from you to me, you can do this from you to you, and actually, this series of approximations can be useful to understanding: the ugly corners, the complex sides, the difficult structures can be examined again, from a new angle: "suppose these thoughts were available to me as language [i.e. someone else is saying them]: would they still be useful?" In other words, by constructing a simple short circuit and removing the actual oropharyngeal gestures, you can engage your own decoding apparatus' pattern detectors [and BS detectors] and review the packed-and-unpacked idea after the smoothing and distortion provided by serializing it into language.
My point, if it wasn't already clear [i'm getting to it, I promise!]
analysis of the world into any arbitrary system is itself a creative act. Sometimes, the truth is in the data, and sometimes the truth is in the learner. When we have mental "ruts", we often need to reorganize what we already know and look at it all from a new perspective. Have you ever packed a suitcase only to find that not everything fit, and then found that if you unpack it all and start over, it all fits without trouble? That sort of "serialize, then restore" seems to be useful.
Tarot, for example, is a system that seems to work (at least, seems to me) because it's a random jumble of powerful symbols; the insight comes from our own tendency to assume the intentional stance towards this signal and proceed (in a sort of Gricean way) to assume communicative intent and then "discover" our own pre-existing knowledge in the cards. It's a way to "apopheniacally"*** kick in your own pattern detectors -- the ones that usually point only out at the world -- and point them at your own thought patterns. It's tremendously powerful.
Likewise, one could make lists, read tea leaves, take drugs, or anything else that would provoke apophenia, the discovery of new ideas, given no useful signal. [Edit: For example, having your horoscope read, or looking out for things because Mercury's zodiacal progression seems to change direction.] I wonder if I should try cartomancy for my next program design session....
* when I Google for "apophenia", the top link is to Danah Boyd, whose work is fascinating to me, not to mention she's nerd-cute in a big way and went to my undergrad institution, just a few years after I did. Her recent blog-entry on "why people need to pay for insight" has a similar insight about how spending money can provoke apophenia instead. I dunno whether that's why she titles her blog that way.
** [a grammatical note, for those who can't live without them, i.e. me]: I've just discovered that the word heuristic literally means "technique for directing one's attention towards discovery", or at least it did before its use in computer science, which was more how I intended it (although the philosophical meaning matches my rambles above quite nicely). For those with a historical bent: heuristic is also cognate with eureka. aha!
*** yes, apopheniacally. I make up words sometimes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-30 09:45 am (UTC)All good words, troch. Thanks for em. You surprise me quite regularly.
For so many people who do divination, and I know many more of them than people I know who don't, it often does come down to just that - reaching knowledge you have within you through whatever means you pick, and usually those means are globally accepted methods. But they don't have to be. The number of tarot and card sets out in the world number in the hundreds probably. The number of other techniques dwarf that number. But I believe it all comes down to exactly the same thing, whether focusing on a jumble of powerful symbols or symbols that are powerful to the invidivual. The people I know who work professionally as psychics only use tarot and other methods as a nice coating to what they are receiving and saying, and I know one (a very close friend) who says that nobody takes her seriously unless she has a card spread, which she does for show and ignores in reading.
Secondly, I am certain that there are many, many things I believe and follow every day that I now choose not to discuss with many people if any people, simply because not many people can approach the space like you do here. The sad part of that is that for people who do have uncommon beliefs, sometimes the people closest to them never hear about them due to a very long culture of silence. I have very few friends who know the biggest part of my life for instance.
The normal reaction is much more along the lines of persecution, and can come many, many times, sometimes in very severe and physical ways, hate and violence, disrespect for beliefs and the honor of the individual faith/religion, mocking, condescending, cruel, and very much un-compassionate and closed in nature. I've had all of them. My friends have too. Thankfully, I've grown both a steel hide and an open heart, but I still remain largely secretive and unfortunately here in the city away from my circle, can be very lonely. The point of that is that it is nice to see you approach some of those things here from your inclusive perspective - one of a desire to understand and to grow and discover. Thanks for that because it means more than you might think. I think I'll be sharing this with some other people if that's okay with you.
Lastly, one of those never talked about things is Mercury Retrograde, which I usually either keep close to my vest, discuss with members of my spiritual community and circle, or post in a journal because that's where I write my life. For me, it's a gnostic type question in a way, ala, I have no idea what's going on, but something is. I don't care to know actually exactly what (and I honestly don't believe it is caused by a planet, but some do), only that it's pretty common and widespread and easily characterized even through people who have no idea what it is or that it is happening. I've chalked it up to collective conscious, shared belief rippling the fabric... but again that's me. The point of that point :) is that I try hard not to bring it up directly around cringe-potential people just as I try not to bring up any numbe of other topics. So, my apologies if that frustrated you at all or added to frustration. (you'll tell me it didn't, but I want to apologize anyway :))
Ramble over. Now I don't nee to post tonight!
no subject
Date: 2005-03-31 02:06 am (UTC)what a great response, mr. black wings.
I'd love to respond in more detail but I'm s'posed to be working today and it's 6 and I haven't done anything.
wanna go bowling some time?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-31 07:16 am (UTC)Bowling. You are on. I'm not the best bowler, or maybe I'm rusty, and I am in no way competitive, but I sure enjoy the heck out of it. An Ohio boy in many ways. :)