Monday 30 April 2012

An Inner Model Out There

     Well hello there and welcome back. Thank you for joining me, as always. I know my last two posts may have been a change of pace. Maybe some have yet to see their relevance. The truth is both of them were intended as a sort of introduction to bring us to the series of posts that I get to start today. A couple times now, I've sat down with a topic in mind, and found there was no logical place to start. For example, when I began writing this blog, "Two infinity and Beyond" and "There's a Method to the Madness" were not relevant points in my awareness. However, I found it impossible to get to "Noticing Noticing" without giving some context. These last few entries were no different. So now I will begin exploring the significance of applying the learning lens (see "Clumsiness and Climbing Castles") to the various layers of "the system" that has been the topic of the previous two posts ("A look at systems through the learning lens" and "Looking at Layers: The Power of Perception").

     The most important pieces of the last two posts are that 1) each person has a unique perspective which is 2) both relative and limited.  The word relative is important and points to the idea of relationships between the observer and that with which she or he interacts. Each person's awareness and perspective is limited by the specific set of relationships (s)he has experienced throughout his/her life. In this sense, relationships refers not only to those between people, but also to those between objects, places, groups, etc. This is significant because each relationship is an opportunity to apply "the learning lens", fostering more precise interactions between the two.

     So maybe this is getting complicated, but let's start to bring it into context. Specifically, we are only aware of what our experience has shown us. If something has yet to be experienced or introduced to us, it's as if that thing does not exist. That is to say, something that lies outside of a person's awareness simply does not exist for that person. Example: if all of a sudden a person materialized in the room where you are, then explained perfectly how it worked and taught you how to do it yourself, it would drastically alter your understanding of the universe and the laws of physics. If someone simply tells you this is possible, it probably won't do much to change your reality. However, the second you experience it, and are completely convinced that it exists, it is permanently something that will affect your perception of the universe and whats possible.

     Another way to look at it may be such. The universe exists out there, all around us. Inside of our brains is another, active running model of that universe. The one in our head is completely based off of what we have seen. It is a sort of mirror image of the real one out there. One problem is that the model in our head is only a partial model, based on our experiences and specifically the parts of the universe we've seen and experienced. Based on the concept of infinity (see "Two Infinity and Beyond") it is necessarily the case the the model is only partial and lacking information.


     Also, this model has been partially constructed by others such as scientists, religious figures and or any other person who has ever shared details about how the universe might be. For example, the model of most people reading this probably has the Earth moving around the Sun in an elliptical manner, and the Moon around the Earth. However, an extremely small percentage (probably no one) have ever taken the measurements and crunched the numbers themselves to demonstrate that this is certainly the case. We're just taking someone else's word on that one, and rightfully so. We have to trust others because there's no way we could possibly test every little "fact" discovered previously.

     Now here's the crux of the post. Each person has a working model of the universe running in their head. It very closely resembles the real one "out there" that's all around us because it is based on it. However, and this is the key, what we perceive is not the real one out there, but the model we have running in our brains. This is why "paranoid" people actually perceive people coming after them every time they catch a funny glance from a stranger. Also, why "crazy" people have such a hard time understanding what others see as obvious. Whatever is going on in their minds is completely real for them. There are a few movies in recent years that do a great job of demonstrating how powerful perception really is. If anyone is having difficulty really grasping this point, I would highly recommend a few movies such as "Eternal Happiness of a Spotless Mind", "Shutter Island" or even "The Truman Show" (sorry to put two Jim Carry flicks in there). This is also the reason Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny seemed so real until the illusion was broken. Its why magicians actually seem to be doing something super natural until the "trick" is learned. Have you ever seen an illusion performed after you knew how it worked? Once you know, all you can see is what's going on behind the scenes that pulls it all together.

     Now, I don't want to drag on much longer, and it already seems that I won't be completely entering the topic how I originally planned. However, I hope the following idea is a little more grounded now. Our perspective is subjective. We often, even usually, project aspects of our inner state onto what we observe around us. So the most significant relationship to which we can apply the learning lens and develop an increasingly precise relationship is to our "selves". Developing an increasingly precise relationship between our conscious mind and our more instinctual nature, which some have come to call "ego", can lead to powerful shifts in perspective and help us to see the world more objectively.

     Thank you for joining me here. If you ever have any questions or something seems unclear, please feel free to send me a message or email. I'll leave you with this, an entertaining video that probably demonstrates what I'm talking about more clearly than I ever could in words. Hope its not too offensive to anyone. Thanks again.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCHRkoMD3EM

Thursday 19 April 2012

Looking at Layers: The Power of Perception

     We left the conversation introducing the idea of systems and their different layers. For this conversation a "layer" of the system will refer to a particular level of organization. The posts in reference to chaos and order more thoroughly explore what is meant by the different layers (see "There's a Method to the Madness") however, considering the following may also help to clarify. Different bodies of knowledge and science in general are dedicated to gathering as much information as possible about specific layers of the system. For example, chemists focus on the layer of atoms and molecules, biologists look at the layers where life exists, environmentalists may analyze the layer of ecosystems and oceans, meteorologists focus on the atmospheric level, astronomers tend to look at the planetary, solar system and even galactic layers. There are obviously many more than those I just mentioned. These layers follow the same infinity principle mentioned previously (see "Two Infinity and Beyond"). On the largest scale, everything is part of one large interrelated system. Without at least one perspective or a point of view, there is no real distinction between the layers. The system as a whole simply exists as a large moving body of mass, and no differentiation of "layers" or "levels" is even possible.

     Now, that may seem like a rather obvious statement. I think the classic line "If a tree falls and there's no one to hear it, does it still make a sound?" attempts to bring our awareness to the same point. A common response or sentiment to that statement is, "who cares?" In that particular scenario, no one actually cares, and the event has no "meaning" in the human sense of the word. However, a defining feature of the human experience (also a defining feature for all other animals, plants, and any other living organism) is that it is restricted to a specific location and therefore has a relative perspective (that is, a singular perspective in relationship to the whole system).

   Any singular point of view does not simply exist. For that point of view to occur some tools are necessary. For anyone reading this those tools likely consist of eyes, ears, nose, skin, mouth and additionally, the most important tool of all, our brain which allows us to synthesize the raw data obtained by the previously mentioned items and turn it into something meaningful. For this reason some branches of philosophy actually suggest a total of six senses in humans that result from those six tools. The last sense being that which occurs as a result from our brain tool, some may call this "intuition", "synthesizing" or simply "thinking".

     Physically speaking, these tools are of a certain size. Each one also has a limited range of input that it can detect. For example, our eyes only see what we know as the color spectrum. Each of the other sense organs have their own relative limits (what might this mean in terms of the mind then?) Because we exist at a certain size and can only detect a specific range of input, we can begin to identify the origin of our relative perspective. Consequently, the layers of the system begin to emerge because of their significance and relationship to us.



     In other words, we identify different layers of the system because of our limited, relative, perspective. The first layers only emerge when we look at the their relationship to us. The most apparent layer is that which we perceive without the help of additional tools (if you want to see it, just look around). Other layers are based on how we observe them in relation to each other. Many layers were never identified prior to tools of modern science such as the telescope, microscope and electromagnetic sensors. For example, our solar system has a relationship to The Milky Way, which also has a relationship to the other galaxies. Comparatively, we are extremely small, therefore those layers are largely understood in relation to each other.

     Here is where I will leave the conversation for today. Thank you so much for joining me here. I know that time can often be an extremely scarce resource, and I do not take your time here for granted. Hopefully this post helps to more clearly explain what I mean by the terms "layer" or "level" of the system. In the future I will attempt to explore their significance in relation to "the learning lens" (see "Clumsiness and Climbing Castles"). Thank you again.



   

   

Thursday 5 April 2012

A Look at Systems through the Learning Lens

     Welcome back to all my fellow wonderers out there. Thank you for wandering back into my neck of the forest. At this point in the conversation, we have constructed a tool of sorts (See Clumsiness and Climbing Castles). This tool could be thought of as a lens, through which we can analyze anything we do. For this conversation I will refer to it as "the learning lens". Admittedly so, it is not a very precise tool, but it does give us a way to identify where we can make improvements. Regardless of what we do, precision within the parameters of the activity is usually the goal (See Precisely: What I was Thinking). Oddly enough, when things go precisely, we tend to hardly notice. When something goes wrong however, it is often blatantly obvious. In the learning process, the most vital step is 'Noticing' (see Noticing Noticing: Learning to Learn).  Clumsiness then is the opposite of precision and also the key to recognizing where we can make improvements.

     While doing something very specific such as throwing a ball or speaking a new language, it is fairly easy to see how this tool can be applied. Example: If I throw a ball to someone, but it goes sailing over their head or into the dirt, obviously my throw lacked precision (one could also say it was a clumsy throw). I could then start examining where the throw went wrong. If it was high, I probably released it too early. If it landed in the dirt, I perhaps released it too late or didn't throw it hard enough. While trying out a foreign language, if my partner cannot understand me, it likely has something to do with the clumsy way I pronounced my words or perhaps my lack of precise vocabulary. That can even be true in a person's native language. 

     Both of these settings are perfectly appropriate for applying the learning lens. Using it properly can help us notice what went wrong, thus showing where we can make improvements. Recently however, I have come to believe that this tool is equally, if not more, useful when considering other aspects of my life that have less to do with acquiring specific skills and more to do with the general way I interact with everything and everyone around me. To more thoroughly explain what I mean by this, I would like to open up the conversation to the topic of systems. Later, I will explore how the learning lens can be applied to the various levels of the system.

     Merriam Webster online gives us the following as an entry point into the topic "System - : a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole." 

     In less academic terms, a system is a big thing that is made up of smaller things. Systems exist all around us, and they don't stop there. Each person is an individual system, made up of many smaller systems working in unison. A few of them are the skeletal, cardiovascular, nervous, digestive, muscular and endocrine systems. Also, each one of us makes up a whole part of any number of larger systems such as families, social circles, schools, communities, neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, continental populations, the world, biological life, animals, primates and humans. (see Two infinity and Beyond) Objectively speaking, everything and everyone is interrelated (atomically, chemically, biologically, socially, gravitationally, electromagnetically, etc) and forms one super system that is simultaneously too small and too large for any individual to completely comprehend or even observe. Subjectively speaking, it is possible to divide the whole into any number of smaller subsystems for analysis. It is important to note that any division one makes is essentially arbitrary and only exists because we think about it so.



     This is where I will leave the conversation for today. As you have perhaps already noticed, the previous paragraph begins to transition us from the general idea of learning to the various contexts in which we may apply it. Thank you again for joining my thoughts here. To anyone who has been following along since the beginning, it could be interesting to return to the opening poem "Mosaic of Mind". It may, or may not, take on a different meaning as this idea continues to more fully branch out. Again, thank you, thank you, thank you for reading along. I really cannot explain how grateful I am for your company!