Models and Analogies
May 5th 2007 17:59
Rules and Comparisons.
Whenever choosing what to do, anyone will try to get from his past similar facts and its conclusions to decide whatever he has to do to optimize his outcome. From experiences, he gets information that he'll use to compare to other cases in the future.
After a couple of times trying to solve problems with comparations to old cases, the person will try to built a rule that this problem follows. Having a good rule (that apply to a good number of cases), the guy will stop doing his comparisons and will use his rule, which a priori simplifies his work.
The problem is: everytime he is comparing, he's trying to find analogies, and since no fact happens twice, he will have a fortiori to leave some parts of the fact unconsidered to make a decision, thus taking away a part of the fact "deepness".
The worst is when he will try to create a rule for the case. Rules are the worst level of simplification (of loose of deepness) he can do, but they simplify life quite a lot...
The more rules you apply to facts, the more simplified your life will get, the less deepness you be able to touch. Like pop music (which is all about simplification and rules), ruled things wont take you more then the deepness of 3 minutes and a half.
anyway, analogies are also a simlpification, even though in a lower level...from your inifinite dimensional fact, you already have lost plenty of information when placing it in your mind. Then, you have to let go still more components of your vector to compare it to the other vectors in your mind (your experiences), trying to find something that resembles the fact you're facing.
Best would be to absorb all facts and respond to them with simple creativity...like a work of pure uncontiousness art. But this won't garantee you the best result, neither grand style..this will make your results unexpected, which is quite a terrorist word these so controlled days....
see ya. Uula
Whenever choosing what to do, anyone will try to get from his past similar facts and its conclusions to decide whatever he has to do to optimize his outcome. From experiences, he gets information that he'll use to compare to other cases in the future.
After a couple of times trying to solve problems with comparations to old cases, the person will try to built a rule that this problem follows. Having a good rule (that apply to a good number of cases), the guy will stop doing his comparisons and will use his rule, which a priori simplifies his work.
The problem is: everytime he is comparing, he's trying to find analogies, and since no fact happens twice, he will have a fortiori to leave some parts of the fact unconsidered to make a decision, thus taking away a part of the fact "deepness".
The worst is when he will try to create a rule for the case. Rules are the worst level of simplification (of loose of deepness) he can do, but they simplify life quite a lot...
The more rules you apply to facts, the more simplified your life will get, the less deepness you be able to touch. Like pop music (which is all about simplification and rules), ruled things wont take you more then the deepness of 3 minutes and a half.
anyway, analogies are also a simlpification, even though in a lower level...from your inifinite dimensional fact, you already have lost plenty of information when placing it in your mind. Then, you have to let go still more components of your vector to compare it to the other vectors in your mind (your experiences), trying to find something that resembles the fact you're facing.
Best would be to absorb all facts and respond to them with simple creativity...like a work of pure uncontiousness art. But this won't garantee you the best result, neither grand style..this will make your results unexpected, which is quite a terrorist word these so controlled days....
see ya. Uula
| 38 |
| Vote |
