4 ms·
The issue isn't the mere existence of two thinking modes (algebraic vs. geometric), but that we’ve culturally prioritized and trained mostly algebraic modes (li
by neom 2y ago
The issue isn't the mere existence of two thinking modes (algebraic vs. geometric), but that we’ve culturally prioritized and trained mostly algebraic modes (linear language, math, symbolic logic). This has obscured our natural geometric capacity, especially the neurological pathways specialized in visually processing and intuitively understanding phenomena, particularly light itself (photons, vision, direct visual intuition of physics). Historically, algebraic thinking was elevated culturally around the Gnostic period (200 BCE forward), pushing aside the brain's default "geometric mode". Heck, during that period of history, people actively and forcefully campaigned against overly developing the analytical use of the mind. We should be actively mapping neurological pathways specialized for direct intuitive visual-physical cognition (understanding light intuitively at a neurological level, not symbolically or algebraically) for that to happen. Also: Understanding or explainability is not directly linked to consistency in the logical sense. A system can be consistent yet difficult to fully understand, or even inconsistent yet still partially understandable. We are talking right now here because we were put here through a series of historical events. Go back to 200 BCE and play out the Gnostic or Valentinus path to 2025.
- d4rkn0d3z 2y agoThanks for the reply. When I think about understanding, in principle I require consistency not completeness. In fact, understandability is predicated on consistency in my view. If I liken the quest for AGI to the quest for human flight, wherein we learned that the shape of the wing provides nearly effortless lift, while wing flapping only provides a small portion of the lift for comparatively massive energy input, then I suspect we are only doing the AGI equivalent of wing flapping at this point.
- neom 2y agothe human mind itself isn't fully consistent...or at least, consistency isn't necessarily how we operate internally (lots of contradictions, ambiguities, simultaneous beliefs that don't neatly align). Yet we still manage to "understand" things deeply. Complete logical consistency isn't strictly required for understanding in a practical, real world sense. We are totally "flapping" right now with AI, brute forcing algebraic intelligence and missing that elegant "geometric" insight. My point is simply that our brains already have that built in "wing shape" neurologically, we just haven't mapped it out or leveraged it fully yet. The real leap isn't discovering a new wing design, it's understanding we already have one, we just have to leverage it. :) :)
- d4rkn0d3z 2y agoNow I think you come to thw crux of it.