Post by TronHi,
I think I'm beyond my usefulness on this topic. Still, some expiratory
Just consider my posts templates for when you are bored and can't
find anything better to do! I always learn important things from
talking to you, so your replies are quite useful. I think you're
an excellent reasoner, so how you got there is interesting. I
lurk many of your posts, btw, as you are highlighted in my
unthreaded reader. Again, it takes me a long time to think some
things through, and that's the only reason for not being very
responsive sometimes. One reason I work on 100 things at a time
(working outlines, etc.).
Post by TronThe japanese have a word for it, called "haragei", literally "the art of the
belly". The curious name is due the fact that they believed the belly to be
the seat of emotions (evolution is catching up to them in the western
world). Diligent application to work and exercise will increase one's
haragei, and those with great haragei are able to instantly make correct
decisions.
Great. I love that kind of thing, especially Japanese.
<excuse snippage. Interesting to read, agree, etc.>
Post by TronA leader's task is to aim, making the goal or target visible to the
"gunners". The leader's knowledge of "gunnery" needs only to encompass the
results (the window/it works), not the details of any subordinate process;
like in bookkeeping, the major column is a sum of sums, not the cost of
every every stamp and matchstick.
You arrived at the source of my starting point: leadership. But I
avoided the word because I have a definition too lengthy to type
here and which seems ever more contrary to the common definitions
which (academically) these days seem to have more to do with
psychology and psychology thinly veiled as organization.
- I don't mean that at all. One big difference from your
definition is the "works window." I do understand that and the
economy, studied that in college and high school as far back as
linear programming (geometry) in about the 9th grade (snip
dogma about remembering "useful" info, and I was already
well-practiced at that due to some prior learn-while-doing), but
I include in leadership the drill down into all detail made
possible by the skill heirarchy and other requirements of
leadership like intelligence.
Btw, I am the world's worst leader. Horrible. Lack the
intelligence, lack the discipline, lack much else. But I love to
study reasoning and "leadership" is where I find the best
examples, assuming my definition of drill-down ability. But
my examples come almost exclusively from business and military
which is the mother lode but still somewhat limiting. Well, I'm
embarking on Clinton's book to be read most analytically (i.e.
slowly) as I consider him a phenomenal reasoner.
Post by TronHere approximate knowledge is unspecified
knowledge; it will "contain" the exact knowledge like a sum will contain its
addenda, but again the problem with exactitude is one of economy, of
resources, this time in "mental processing costs" for one's own sake, and in
signal economy if this is to be communicated.
That's where the skill heirarchy comes in. If the CEO has not
only studied but *been* a bookkeeper (even for only a month
assuming he has a CEO learning curve) he has the deep
understanding to make decisions just on the balance sheet and a
crafty question or three. But if he hasn't, the subordinate will
outfox him/her. Better example would be bartending. I ran
a club one time and, unless you've been a bartender yourself
(for the month or whatever), you'll never figure out how they
are stuffing $60 a night, but they often do. My apologies to
honest bartenders everywhere. Here I think to see
a flaw in the "works window" philosophy including in the
military. Subordinates have their own agendas. Remember
Captain Binghamton? (McHale's Navy). One seasoned
officer told me, "Don't laugh - that's how it usually is!" In my
experience in business, subordinates are usually more clever than
they appear, perhaps purposely sometimes. But since the military
"works" I wonder how that problem is solved within the "works
window" methodology. I'm going to attempt to find something
out about this on my own too.
Post by Tron.......an intellectual bridge to gap.
Post by Acme DiagnosticsThat may be the main purpose of my original post - that gap. Or
Going from rule to case, isn't that casuistry?
Yes, thanks for that. And the legal analogy is right on target
for the distinction between "objective methodology" and "best
judgment" with a skill set.
Post by TronI know that that is a
derogatory term today, but in its time, it was an honoured method of
inference. I think it is still taught as a method in some law schools;
besides logic (which it resembles), it is almost the only method law can
use.
Wrt litigation here in the U.S. a flip of the coin would be more
fair than what we have now due to complexity. I really think the
code needs to be entirely re-written to be more general and more
reliance placed on judgment (casuistry), but accompanied by much
better selection and review of judges and proceedings (TV maybe).
</end rant>
Post by Tron.......using exact cases to inductively predict the next case
Post by Acme Diagnosticsjust bypassing the intermediate theory step, so that seems
to revert back to Approximate.
You are very close to "intuiton" here. To avoid newagery, let's define
intuition as chains of reasoning performed so quickly that none of the steps
involved are performed consciously.
That's my definition of subconscious reasoning! I add that,
with a properly constructed skill heirarchy (some military
training for example), it becomes a "difference in kind" from
intuition. But perhaps that's what you mean by intuition anyway.
I think of intuition as emotion, feelings, as in the misnomer (?)
"women's intuition" and it looks like you sort of agree...
Post by TronMetaphorically, thinking without
self-reflection, the mental equivalent to riding a bike, or driving a car. A
lot of women are good at inferring like this (talking about the same things
from 13 to 23 results in an enormously fast cycle, while not applying any
theory undercuts the need for any conscious cognitive processes. The value
of training.).
I highly respect that 13-23 intuition as you call it. I've seen
it to be superior in lots of cases.
I think there is a "change in kind" when things get very complex
so that the bike riding and driving examples no longer apply
(incl. metaphorically). I think those examples are plainly like
"intuition." But they don't require any skill hierarchy. More
like a few minutes or hours to get the knack. I would say that
racing in the Daytona 500 or flying a small plane on instruments
in bad weather a difference in kind. I hear the instructor
saying, "Forget what you think you ever learned about driving."
Post by TronHave you , btw, considered "heuristics" as a candidate? I was thinking of
fact finding missions in fields where there is no generally recognized
method for arriving at results, no gererally recognized layout of the field,
etc. Very advanced trial-and-error; equations with only unknowns.
Yes. It's big in the area of AI in which I am involved. Also one
of the cases of evidence I have for subconsious reasoning being
orders of magnitudes faster than conscious reasoning, e.g. the
"combinatorial explosion" that humans somehow miraculously
overcome. And how do I know it's reasoning? Well, I have direct
experience for it in playing organ music. But more generally,
because when there are errors they are always self-serving. If
the errors were random, they would be more or less divided
evenly between self-serving and not self-serving. This seems most
evident when reading political posts. I also have a list (link)
of "ways to promote objectivity" to overcome that a little
sometimes (two other posters contributing).
Post by TronPost by Acme DiagnosticsPost by TronThe benefit of the technique is that species "inherit" traits from the
genus. Exact knowledge results in a list of traits. Inexact knowledge
makes for a shorter, and perhaps erroneous, list.
Now the skill hierarchy analogy is even better. The top level
"inherits traits" from the lower level. If the lower level is
deficient, the higher level is made deficient.
A bit confused here. Like in programming, the lower hierarchies (the
species, the offspring) inherit from above (the genus, the parent). Living
things have movement, metabolism, reproduction ... Animals are living things
that have a central nervous system and a wide range of sensory organs ....
man is a living animal with reason ....
Ok, now with the programming example I understand. I had the
direction reversed. Need more haragei. <bows respectfully>
Post by TronA skill hierarchy is something like a process of increasing maturity and
experience?
No. More methodological than that.
Like how on the piano you first learn scales, then build on those
to play chords, then build on those to add bass and melodies.
Then when the entire skill set is complete and you are playing a
song, you can just "think" an emotion, and that is converted into
an instruction in the top heirarchy and it filters down
throughout the hierarchy to the lowest levels and every element
is changed ("salted" as the OP wonderfully called it) to affect
the emotion you intend. Another player can distinguish the
"message" easily.
I could go into more detail about the previously mentioned
learn-while-doing programs to lay down a skill heirarchy. Think
of learning chess in a unique way to lay down about a dozen core
reasoning skills - not what most learn from playing chess. Chess
has overwhelming advantages I won't go into, but one is that it
is a good starter program for kids, no real prerequisites. Also
good for kids, independently add written humor for obvious
context switching.
Then think of those two forming a basis for laying down debating
skills which is quite similar to chess in a number of respects.
Next, researched analytical book. Inductive reasoning
(statistics). All expertly designed, implemented, and supervised.
Like with military training. And so forth. Not nearly that
simple, complete, or limited, but in a nutshell.
Post by TronHere is a key point. What is contextual reasoning, anyway?
Best examples are in humor and, within that, puns. I often read
alt.humor.puns (and rec.humor) for that very reason (and to laugh
sometimes). It's fascinating. They are continually taking both
words and the underlying concepts and, half-way through the
process you are purposely led to *expect*, they abruptly switch
to a new context but in which those words or concepts also fit.
Their posts are usually cascades and you can see context switches
with almost every line. Exactly the oppposite of here where we
try our best to remain in or at least find the same context,
often failing. This is such an obvious distinction.
Completely digressing, but so important: They understand each
other better than we do here! The reason: cooperation (like
we are almost uniquely doing now), which tells me volumes
about Usenet v. real-life. Some have suggested that it also had
to do with complexity and subject matter, but that really doesn't
hold up if you look at some examples. Maybe somewhat generally.
Then there are the more-or-less "real-world logic" distinctions
as per my article that you criticized: probability,
point-of-view, levels of description, language "reliability,"
inferencing language into logical propositions.
Then there's the detective or investigative reporter which we've
talked about before. Finding the context where "the story adds
up" (remove contradictions). Jack Anderson's "Peace, War,
and Politics" is interesting in this respect. Leaders,
i.e. administrators, are doing that a lot of the time, if not
most of the time. I do it constantly. I was heavily trained to do
it, more in line with cynical thinking as appropriate in business
or watching news/political broadcasts. Here, trying to figure out
kook.troll motivators, etc. One needs to stay in practice. <g>
Post by TronPost by Acme DiagnosticsI think real-world decision makers spend a lot more time on
defining problems and a lot less time looking for solutions, or
should.
Nah ... to me these two functions surprisingly often coincide in the same
activity.
It is true, as you say, that ...." defining the problem relates to seeing
the big picture." But this is a different picture. It is also the big
picture, but
Post by Acme Diagnosticsit includes the "present position - goal definition - route mapping"
detail, where "defining the problem" is to sketch the start, the end and
the distance between, while "finding the solution" is to trace the steps
from start to goal. Obviously, all this happens in the same territory.
Ok. I obviously need to give this some more thought. Thanks.
Post by TronPossible example: people who come for advice, but solve the problem during -
and by - telling what is the matter.
I describe it as "Defining the problem until the solution jumps
out and bites you on the leg." My favorite example here is the
Arab-Isreali conflict. I hear nothing but solutions. I have
never seen a popular documentary such that most voters would see
that really defines that problem, starting at the beginning of
history (I guess) and including such things as the Holocaust and
bad things Christians did to Arabs. (which just about exhausts
what I know about it <g>). Maybe too politically incorrect to do.
Post by Tron....
Post by Acme DiagnosticsBoyd was a top fighter pilot. People seem surprised that he
should come up with OODA. I'm not the least surprised. Those
I shouldn't have implied that I know OODA, just know about it.
Readers Digest, probably. <g> It came after my time academically.
But I googled this:
The key is to obscure your intentions and make them
unpredictable to your opponent while you simultaneously clarify
his intentions. That is, operate at a faster tempo to generate
rapidly changing conditions that inhibit your opponent from
adapting or reacting to those changes and that suppress or
destroy his awareness. Thus, a "hodge-podge" of confusion and
disorder occur to cause him to over- or under-react to
conditions or activities that appear to be uncertain,
ambiguous, or incomprehensible. Put more succinctly, deny your
opponent the use of his maneuvering advantages against you
while you convert your strengths into an advantage over him and
cause him to make a wrong move, one that can be easily defeated.
That sounds a lot like some chess strategy. Even more, nasty
debating.
Post by TronWell, it is basically "anamnesis - diagnosis - therapy" (reading symptoms -
classifying disorder - applying remedy), which was formulated by
Hippocrates. Seems no one can beat the ancient Greeks. Aristotle's
"position - goal - route" formula for acting isn't far removed either. (And
people say philosophy needs to catch up to science, when science is still
struggling 2500 years behind ...).
They amaze the hell out of me, not that I know (or remember) much.
Aristotlian logic was the starting point for my debating program.
Had some philosophy in college. Read I.F. Stone's book on
Socrates as research for an AI book chapter on how news product
labels will solve his paradox of democracy. <g>
Post by Tron....
Post by Acme DiagnosticsI thought that was Samuel Johnson (??) Well, probably a thousand
people. Now 1,001.
"I have made this //letter// longer, because I did not have the time to make
it shorter."
Pascal, Lettres provinciales, letter 16, 157.
Looks like Sam stole it. I shall revise my cite forthwith!
Post by TronPost by Acme DiagnosticsI am supposedly coauthoring a book containing several
"learn-while-doing" projects designed to promote contextual
reasoning (et al).
Interesting. I did my master's thesis in philosophy on Frege,
I sat out the Vietnam war in college and I distinctly remember
them mailing a degree now and then but it was so long ago I can't
remember such specific detail. But I do remember some
pretty damn flowery fonts for those days. <g>
Post by Tronthe originator
of the context principle. But I guess you do not mean context in a
philosophy (of language), logic or programming setting, where it has rather
narrow (albeit slightly differing) definitions.
Thanks for mentioning that! If this is a fair ridiculously short
approximation:
"Never to ask for the meaning of a word in isolation, but only
in the context of a proposition"
then I should bring this to the attention of a few critics who
now seem to have been arguing in bad faith. I had forgotten that
after googling it in writing the article you so worthily
criticized (I'm pretty sure it was listed as a google). After
all, given the givens about the approximation, it does seem
rather obvious to any 12-year-old class cutup like myself.
Anyway, it is extremely interesting and fundamental. Something
different from what I call "inferencing language into
propositions," based on a course that was pretty mechanical as in
rules for proposition re-arranging. As above described, the
Context Principle was most proximate in my thinking when starting
this thread, though the book I'm supposedly coauthoring is the
more general context with some work preceding said article.
But "contextual reasoning" is much more general than that.
It's most of what you'd need to do to win a moderated, timed,
judged debate. But not like a college or presidential debate
(i.e. speeches), but back-and-forth no-holes-barred sometimes
combative debate (designed to teach winning and decision-making
too). For example, there and quite noticeable here in the more
combative debates, you are trying to stay one loop outside of
your opponent, but not two.
Most generally, I mean what a leader needs to do ("people who run
things, final decision-maker"), but qualified in all jobs led,
and capable across the theory -> engineering -> building (or mfg
or operating) -> maintaining chain (at least).
Post by TronThe programmer's definition
is, AFAIK, a subset of all that one knows as prerequisite for reasoning,
instead of employing every fact that one knows; or, IOW, localization.
Well I don't think that could be known before the fact, so we
would be employing every fact known and every inference that
could be made, and, in the case of the most capable, an artistic
talent component of creative reasoning (i.e. can't be taught),
which I describe as popping out of nowhere. Like intuition but
not to make the decision; instead to supply context for a
conscious, reasoned decision where those associations must
then pass a logic, science or "things that work" test. All
bearing upon a specific goal or decision. Not far from insanity,
I guess. But as Red Skelton said, as long as you're making money
they won't lock you up.
Post by TronIt
also apporaches something akin to approximation, but only if one assumes
that all information is mutually connected, and that limits to investigation
are artificial. If there is truly independent and irrelevant
information,then a specific (and extremely well chosen) subset might contain
the exact amount of knowledge necessary.
What objective methodology could possibly decide that subset
before the fact? In some AI models there are naive relationships
among propositions and words to supply some context, but
hopelessly limited compared to human reasoning. I have my own
scheme, which doesn't differentiate me at all from any other AI
kook.
Post by TronIf I can supply you with any background material from the Frege bench, even
if only to eliminate blind alleys, let me know.
I would love a paragraph or ten at your leisure, maybe including
a more mature understanding of the Context Principle than my
naive googling, or whatever you guess is pertinent in context of
my general meandering.
Use large garden snippers. No offense ever for non-response.
Did I ever tell you about the chess game with my uncle with
a 10-year delay in one of the moves? (But what a move it was!)
Thanks much,
Larry