![[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}
aieeeee!
Date: 2005-03-31 07:00 pm (UTC)um, one thing about getting to your deeper Truth through tools, which is basically what i pulled from this, is that whatever tool(s) work for you, work.
some people pray, some consult tarot, psychics, the stars, runes, tea leaves, God, gods n' goddess, therapists, ministers, trees, some journal for hours *g* -- and it is all about sloughing off the overthinking and process and the layers and years of crap to get what is in our heart of hearts. oftentimes, the big ol' forebrain is the last one to know the Truth, because the brain is operating on such a *logical* superego level, which is most rewarded in our society.
i am all for the logical and pragmatic, indeedy, and also for the vacation from such, so one can be in the body and know on a gut level, what is right for you in your life. it's getting back to who we are as prime humans in this body, before we had all the layers added. nice, eh?
i loved this post and all the facets of it.
and on a tangent about planets affecting us humans -- we don't question the fact that tides and menstruation and our seasons being affected by two other, close planets -- sun and moon. that is scientific and, well, accepted as Real.
yet, it is inconceivable to some that the rest of the planets would affect us -- that's Crazy Talk. i think that's purty funny, really, because they are all planets/moving bodies in space, just as earth is. what is the difference?
ponder ponder.... :D
Re: aieeeee!
Date: 2005-03-31 07:04 pm (UTC)bleh.
Re: aieeeee!
Date: 2005-04-01 07:42 am (UTC)*bows* thank you very much.
regarding the planets, I remain skeptical that they have an effect in other than the apopheniagenical [I made up that one too] sense: the Sun is distant but enormous; the Moon is the size of the Pacific and relatively close; these I can buy. Mercury is less than 5% of the size of the Earth (only slightly larger than the moon) and much farther away.
So I suppose there might be an effect for these bodies, but what bothers me is the suggestion that their apparent position against the astronomical background is what might be the difference. It's just so geocentric, darn it.
But I have no argument if astrology is useful in the same way that runes/Tarot/tea leaves are: providing a jumbled signal in which to discover the truths that we already know but can't sort out.
I guess I'm much happier placing the complex effects in the human minds and communities that perceive these patterns in arbitrary data. Of course, I don't know what the answer is, but to maim the old quote: "Never attribute to interplanetary forces what can be adequately explained by apophenia."
More Atoms, More adams.
Date: 2005-04-02 02:27 am (UTC)Bowling is indeed as good a choice as any...
But I am now going Dada on everyone because any excuse i can get , I'll take. Anywho, it's all a big social construct. Even science...
I , also am a firm believer of the brain and the rational things balanced with the heart, soul and mystical.
Re: aieeeee!
Date: 2005-04-02 02:22 am (UTC)Re: aieeeee!
Date: 2005-04-02 02:35 am (UTC)But I remain skeptical about Mercury. It's very small, and it's very far away compared to the Moon (which is a similar size but much farther away: ~384 000 km for the moon, but roughly 57 000 000 km for Mercury, if I did the math right). 150 times farther away.
Then again, if someone came up with a mechanism, I'm willing to consider it. But "never attribute to astrology what can be accounted for by apophenia". [I'll refine that down to a quip sooner or later...]
Re: aieeeee!
Date: 2005-04-02 10:48 pm (UTC)"never attribute to astrology what can be accounted for by apophenia"
waxing philosophical
Date: 2005-04-02 11:08 pm (UTC)Okay, I think I am missing out on something... it is scientific & well-accepted as real that menstruation is affected by 2 close astronomical bodies (sun & moon)? I wasn't aware of that. I mean the average woman's cycle is supposedly similar in length as a moon cycle, but I'm not convinced that this is not coincidental (especially as a woman with incredibly irregular cycles). I'm curious to hear/read more about theories that accept this as "scientific" fact.
Re: waxing philosophical
Date: 2005-04-03 04:00 am (UTC)Re: waxing philosophical
Date: 2005-04-03 05:41 am (UTC)