The problem of indentification

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

Perception is everything in life. The task of collecting data from the surrounding world, processing it and reacting upon it (as appropriately as possible).
From this epistemology (what can we know about that which exists) and ontology (what is the nature of that which exists) arise, but for now let's put the various philosophical stances (rationalism, empiricism etc.) aside in order to focus on a particular aspect, which I for now will just call identification.

If we make the, I think, reasonable assumptions that the world is real, matter is real and that interrelationsships between different entities exist, what is it then that enables us to separate one thing from another? This may sound simple, but it isn't. Take a pile of sand. When is it a pile and not a beach or a collection of grain of sands. You have to consider both quantity and distribution of the smaller units that make up the larger structure.
And isn't that true about everything? The names we have for something is just that - the name, NOT the object itself. Language being only an approximation of what we want to describe.
Does this incite us to look upon the world reductionistically? Breaking it down into smaller, more easily conceivable components in order to facilitate our understanding of the phenomenon we stand (or think we stand) in front of?
I tend to think yes, both because of relative efficiency of the methods, but also due the biological constraints upon our thinking. Thus the tendency for humans to separate reality into dichotomies is common, because opposites are naturally easy to deal with. Black and white. Our way or their way. Good or bad.
I think the negative aspect of dichotomies is that they lead to bias, a preference of one side of the coin. This makes the problem seemingly easier to deal with - e.g. punishment vs. rehabilitation, pro-choice vs. pro-life, but it doesn't necessarily describe the phenomenon accurately at all.

Bottom line: Upon finding an apparent solution to problem the brain discontinues the search for the truth.

Thoughts?

[kualle]

Well. It looks like, this is not new for you, thus you do skip lots of in between lines, which again makes it harder for the reader to follow you. Expecially if he is just a kiddo like myself .

Well:
It has been known for quite some time, that the biggest barrier (dont know how to spell it, but an obstackle (??) on the route) to learn and especieally to understand is the language.
And the language seems to be the issue in this case. How can we ever know, we are receiving, what another one is sending out?! - I dont think we ever can, but we can try, and we can understand a part of it.
The great talkers, and the great writers, they can send out messages in forms, so everybody gets some, depending on where the person is in his life. - a side line, sorry.

What im i actually saying?! Something about the language being the toughest task when you are a teacher. And that the language is so fluid (can one say that in english??), so there is never a significant way of expressing oneself. Therefor all the poets choose to be using images in there language for expressing them self.

But your issue is only philosophi. It has nothing to do with real world. One can allways feel, by him self, how big the pole of sand is. And if two persons know the other ones way of expressing the size, he can make the picture, how big the pole is.

So IMHO isnt the topic very fascinating. I like better subjects which is closer to things that matter.
But you got my point of view. .

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

On the contrary, since this topic is about one of the fundamental mechanics by which we relate to our surroundings, it quintessentially concerns everyone on the planet. I think it is of major importance, since I believe it affects some of the important choices we make.
The brain works continuesly to understand what it experiences, but I think, that often, once a problem has been described (i.e. the brain thinks it understand it), the focus moves from the fundamental level and on to working on the solutions, never or rarely returning to reconsider the premises (unless specifically trained to do so).
If this is right, then the brain is predisposed towards prejudices against new ideas when it already has "made up its mind" about something.
The implications go beyond piles of sand, where it is relatively easy to reach a consensus because the consequences are insignificant. Indeed, it can sometimes be very difficult to convince another, even when the two parties observe the very same object about which they disagree about something. If the other person's point of view has been excluded simply because of the order by which ideas were presented to each party, it would seem to me as very unfortunate.
The question is then: Is this "exclusive identification" an inherent mode of thinking and can it be countered? If it should be at all.

I like better subjects which is closer to things that matter.

This does matter.
But of course it all depends on what you think makes things "matter" (more). Some things are definetely more important than others, but as I have argued this issue is actually quite important, but still if you want something that really matters, then consider the brain of tomorrow thread, which literally deals with the destiny of humankind. Alternatively, consider starting a thread about something that matters.

[kualle]

Yeah, you techically got a point. If you are looking strictly on it, it definatly does matter!
But in real life, down to reactions upon it, it has no meaning what so ever. - still it is an interesting case, but the outcome may, as allways, be, "one can never know anything." - and is that so exiting? - not in my humble opinion.

Sorry for disturbing the topic. I'll keep looking for something that can really turn me on! .

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

But in real life, down to reactions upon it, it has no meaning what so ever.

Please elaborate.
If "exclusive identification" affects our thinking then it effects our actions. Thus it matters. I'm unsure how much, but if you claim it's essentially irrelevant, then you shall have to explain why you think so.
I believe that awareness of exclusive identification allows us to lessen the extent by which it affects us.

Essentially I'm saying that basically the brain wants to divide the world into black and white categories, which is often unfortunate. Understanding that it is unfortunate allows us to learn fend off prejudices.


For ideas about other subjects, consider consulting this thread on OG (see last post).

[kualle]

'cause:
It really doesnt matter, how big the pile of sand is.
All that matter is that the brain can put it in to a category of likely sizes upon which, the brain has a experience on how to deal with this problem.
Nothing is ever going to be known exact, it has really no point. Even if you knew anything exact, you couldnt use it for anything, coz ones brain would still match it with likely things. (I do realize, we are not talking about sand!).
Therefor is the point of knowing exactly how we know anything irrelevant, and therefor it does not have my attention .

I do not think, the brain can only think in two colors, emotions, and it is the sum of those emotions, that makes our understanding. But of course it could easily be explained in that way, but then again, it doesnt have my focus. It used to, but im growing old and borring!...

I hope you got my point, and understand, why this is in my humble opinion a silly topic .

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

We're not talking about the size of the pile of sand, but the shape or rather the perception and conceptualization of it.
This is not equivalent to the epistemological problem of not being able to discern the true nature of any particular entity - or "das Ding an sich" as Kant would have put it. While it's true that we can't know anything 100% people nevertheless find motivation to act and manage to accomplish things.

Of course, the idea itself that something can be known 100% is naïve, but the point is that people make up their minds irrespective of the actual causality underlying a particular phenomenon, preferring a causality of their own - empirical or otherwise. The mechanism I propose for this process is as follows: The human brain is driven compulsively to analyse its surroundings and is hardwired to identify causalities and patterns. When one such causality or pattern is identified it is also accepted and the brain moves on to consider other things. Readdressing the original idea requires a conscious choice and the original idea is not easy to discard, which also means that alternative interpretations are met with natural prejudice against them.
I can imagine that sometimes the brain's own prejudices against new ideas cause disagreements, sometimes irrational and counterproductive. I think that awareness of this phenomenon that I call exclusive identification is the best way to counter its negative effects.

Observe the image below:

Actually two images in one, right?

That one was easy enough but my point is clearer with the next:


Again two images. The first is easily identified, but the next then? Does it strike you immediately? No, you'll have to first divert yourself from the image you saw first in order to see the other. Then you can oscillate between the two images. - Identification of the first excludes the other: "Exclusive identification". Now transfer that basic mechanism to a higher level. Do you see?

Do you dispute that such a mechanism of exclusive identification has a not insignificant effect of human cognition?
Do you disagree with me that this mechanism is likely to produce prejudices against new ideas?

[Chroelle]

Actually we have a formerly very disgused picture here on CWF too.

This one is supposed to be a big smile from the author to the recipient, but someone noticed the fact that the eyes of the smilie actually seems to be cruel-intending.

As such the recipient could get two messages from the same smilie. One where they presume that the author/poster of the smilie is actually smiling of some reason, the other that he/she is being sarcastic or cruel.

[Eric]

I've come into this a little late so I'll just focus on your last two lines....

Do you dispute that such a mechanism of exclusive identification has a not insignificant effect of human cognition?

We have a ball of mush inside our head with soduim ions jumping from one point to another, little more than chemical reactions - the basic mechinics of thought. Our very existance, our senses, everything about us is a limiting factor, including "exclusive identification". But you ask does this make a difference....?

My answer to that is 'maybe'. Our brain purposely filters information - it can not deal with an unrestrained infomation inflow. I cannot, in myself, detect alpha, beta or gamma radiation... this restricts the available infomation I have... but sitting here typing this, does it matter?

Maybe

An example: I live in the polar regions. I have never seen a pile of sand. Nor have I seen a beach and so, assuming they had never been described to me, I would be none the wiser. If you presented me with a picture of both and asked me to name them, I would have a 50% chance of guessing correctly. The point is, does it matter? I live in the polar regions - my life might be a little less richer for not having experienced sand or beaches but would it really make a difference? No, it wouldn't.

Do you disagree with me that this mechanism is likely to produce prejudices against new ideas?

I think I have noted above that yes, this can produce prejudices - but this doesn't prevent new ideas. If we held the brain under a tight leash and purposefully directed our thoughts (ie, actually think - I suspect you'll understand what I mean and the distintion I draw) then the chances are we would be limited by our perception - we are a product of our enviroment.

However, we are capable of dreaming, of irrational thought, of 'what if' trains of thought and fantasy. Are these the actions of people with limited perception?


Cheers,

Eric

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

Perhaps not so much a consequence of our biological limits, but more precisely an adaptation designed to make the most of the brain's computational activities. The eyes do not register a broader range of the EM spectrum because it would do us no good, and the brain doesn't wait until it has analysed every bit of information, because that does not serve to optimize its efficiency.

"Does awareness of the mechanism of exclusive identification make a difference?"

I think it does. As with the images I posted above, knowing what you're faced with and experienced with your "response" to it, you are advantaged compared to one who isn't "aware". This is very much an unremarkable statement and there are multible routes to the same insight - that approaching a problem from another angle is potentially a valueable perspective, and that (depending on the situation) the different point of views are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but rather complementary in respect to furthering the level of understanding of the investigated phenomenon.

The second aspect is more interesting. The formation of prejudices does not prevent new ideas from other sources, but (perhaps) irrationally block them out. - Such a situation is analogous to this fictional dispute about the second image I posted before. Say I claim that it's a picture of a young girl, but you insist that it's an old woman. The prejudices (bias towards image first discovered) coupled with dispute, prevent each party from seeing the other point of view.
In such a situation awareness of exclusive identification would be particularly beneficial.

[Eric]

the brain doesn't wait until it has analysed every bit of information, because that does not serve to optimize its efficiency.

Indeed. Our brain is automatically editing bits out which it doesn't consider important. Our perception is already 'dumbed' down - but only to the point which our enviroment requires.

"Does awareness of the mechanism of exclusive identification make a difference?"

I personally see this as a third question posed (the first and second I have already quoted in my first response). I would agree absolutely that 'awareness' of exclusive identification makes a difference. Another example of this could be 'Parallax Error' where things are not what they seem.

The second aspect is more interesting. The formation of prejudices does not prevent new ideas from other sources, but (perhaps) irrationally block them out.

I would not agree this this either... if you search for 'the truth' then all posibilties have to be considered.


Cheers,

Eric

[kualle]

Ahh... Now I get the picture of what this is really about, and then is it in the matter of fact quite interesting for me, at least.
Im a chess player. Im playing in the local club, and im making quite good progress in the understanding of the game, and therefor my strenght. But the main issue about playing chess, when you have learned the basic ideas and themes is, that ones mind is locked up on the plan, you made 5-6 moves ago. and it is very hard, to see new ideas, when you have reached the position, which you calculated a few moves ago. The plan might be, that one could make a minority attack, and therefor undermining the opponents pawn structure. - but this was the plan, you thought of, and the reason why you wanted to reach this position. But there might have comed a even better plan up. For an example an attack on the enemy king.

The topic is, as allways, much easier to discuss, if one has something concrete to talk about.

If the clock allows it, it is therefor very important that one allways is looking at the position as a brand new oppotunity, but with the old calculations in the back of his head.

There has been writed a book on this subject in chess, its called "Chess for Zebras", I havent read it myself, but it should be very great.

But how do we get these new ideas!? - thats the topic. Its quite easy if one has all the time, he wants. But if he doesnt... Well, its about looking on connections, and the hat may as well be a face, or a basket. Be open and look upon the issues one by one...
I don't belive in, that my thoughts are just chemistry, I don't wanna believe in it! - its a unique gift from the Lord. And therefor we gotta use it the best we can .

[Chroelle]

I am sorry that I have to abrupt this thread, but could someone please point me so that I can see the old lady in the latter of the two pics. I have read this topic very close whenever a new post has been made, and every single time, that picture laughs in my face, since I cannot get past my image of a young lady. I know the pic from ealier and have seen the old lady before, but cannot see her now.

[Zyx]

I think it's easier to spot in this version...

[Dizi]

Those not wishing to know the where abouts of the old lady (if they havn't found her yet don't read the rest of my post, I'd also like to add that my post adds nothing but an answer to the following post

I am sorry that I have to abrupt this thread, but could someone please point me so that I can see the old lady in the latter of the two pics. I have read this topic very close whenever a new post has been made, and every single time, that picture laughs in my face, since I cannot get past my image of a young lady. I know the pic from ealier and have seen the old lady before, but cannot see her now.

I know there is another picture of it been posted but I just want to say...chroelle, if you look at the choker around the girls neck and think of it as a mouth and the girls chin as a nose, and her ear as an eye... look at that area and you should then see the old woman

[Chroelle]

Thanks. Funny enough I figured it out just after posting the other post, and simply forgot to write it in here...
I found a site with lots of those kinds of illusions. But will stop this now.
BACK ON TOPIC!

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

I don't belive in, that my thoughts are just chemistry, I don't wanna believe in it! - its a unique gift from the Lord. And therefor we gotta use it the best we can .

I'm afraid that's a very irrational thing to say; one should believe what is empirically most likely to be true, not what one would prefer to be true.

You don't want to believe it? Why? Because the thought is somewhat disheartening so you prefer to invent a comforting fantasy about magical gifts from magical entities?

And besides, if thoughts are not part chemistry, how come that chemicals, say antipsychotic drugs, affect them?


Neurobiologically I think it makes sense to say that experiences manifest themselves as synaptic pathways, gradually forming an expansive neural net. Understanding requires coherence, so a new idea must be consistent with existing ideas to be accepted. This is mirrored in the brain's neuronal connectivity, where the integration of a conflicting idea (or indeed entire paradigm) requires the remodeling of the existing neuronal pathways - a process that requires time and a conscious effort, proportional to the extent of the remodeling. So, once a consistent worldview has been formed, it is not easy to change it, unless, perhaps, the brain has specifically tasked itself to always, and in every possible condition, reevaluate its beliefs.

[Eric]

I don't belive in, that my thoughts are just chemistry, I don't wanna believe in it! - its a unique gift from the Lord. And therefor we gotta use it the best we can .

I'm afraid that's a very irrational thing to say

I wouldn't consider Kualles statement to be irrational. It's simply based on a different set of concepts, (faith being one of them) different to those which you may adhere to.


Cheers,

Eric

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

I don't belive in, that my thoughts are just chemistry, I don't wanna believe in it! - its a unique gift from the Lord. And therefor we gotta use it the best we can .

I'm afraid that's a very irrational thing to say

I wouldn't consider Kualles statement to be irrational. It's simply based on a different set of concepts, (faith being one of them) different to those which you may adhere to.

Most comprehensible statements are logical within their own conceptual framework. However, a certain standard must be set if individuals are to meaningfully discuss the particulars of their surrounding environment.
A working standard, I think, would be that any hypothesis by default is false until substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, postulating that thoughts are powered by the divine demands more convincing explainations than what the rivalling hypothesis (that thoughts are the unmiraculous consequences of neuroelectrical activity) is able to offer.

Faith and superstition has no place in a rational discourse.
- But that's a different subject.

[Chroelle]

If I am to be honest here, I think Kualle is kidding... I am not sure though. I am simply saying this due to the fact that Kualle never struck me as a religious type...
But again, such a statement would be rational if your picture of the world is based around something specific as religion. Many people base their lifes around numerous unspecific moments, experiences, and thoughts.
Is that more rational?

As such indentation is also a subject of what you base your life around.

To some a snail is an animal, part of the foodchain.
To some a delicate meal.
To some one of Gods creatures.
To some a disgusting slimething.
To some a collectable item.