![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
memory interference principle: the more you know the harder it is to put new items into or retrieve them from your memory.
a remarkable dilemma follows from this principle: one one hand you want to know about a certain subject as much as possible in order to not miss any relevant information ( e.g. something that might lead to a solution); on the other hand you want to know very little about the subject in order to acquire new knowledge or effectively retrieve knowledge acquired previously.
no wonder socrates thought about all knowledge as recovered from one's immortal soul, not acquired. ( quote from Plato's Meno )
his method of questioning implied systematic destruction of irrelevant information, which allowed him and his subjects recover facts and considerations connected directly to the problem at hand. very similar to michelangelo's notion of removing extra marble to discover the beauty inside the rock.
also, relates to the four waves of problem solving approach.
(no subject)
Apr. 3rd, 2006 11:11 amSocrates: And what sort of difference creates enmity and anger? Suppose for example that you and I, my good friend, differ about a number; do differences of this sort make us enemies and set us at variance with one another? Do we not go at once to arithmetic, and put an end to them by a sum?
Euthyphro: True.
Socrats: Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly end the differences by measuring?
Euthyphro: Very true.
Socrates: And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a weighing machine?
Euthyphro: To be sure.
Socrates: But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel, when we do quarrel?
Euthyphro: True.
Socrats: Or suppose that we differ about magnitudes, do we not quickly end the differences by measuring?
Euthyphro: Very true.
Socrates: And we end a controversy about heavy and light by resorting to a weighing machine?
Euthyphro: To be sure.
Socrates: But what differences are there which cannot be thus decided, and which therefore make us angry and set us at enmity with one another? I dare say the answer does not occur to you at the moment, and therefore I will suggest that these enmities arise when the matters of difference are the just and unjust, good and evil, honourable and dishonourable. Are not these the points about which men differ, and about which when we are unable satisfactorily to decide our differences, you and I and all of us quarrel, when we do quarrel?
(no subject)
Apr. 2nd, 2006 04:01 pmAnd thought is best when the mind is gathered into herself and none of these things trouble her - neither sounds nor sights nor pain nor any pleasure, - when she has as little as possible to do with the body, and has no bodily sense or feeling, but is aspiring after being?
That is true.
PHAEDO, by Plato.
Socrates - Plato - Aristotle.
Socrates, using the method of his invention, discovered the treachery of senses and that the self-evident truths people so dearly hold are just a little bit more than a hodgepodge of conventions. The more experience we acquire, the less trust we can put into our ability to judge the world's phenomena for what they are. Eclectic accumulation of facts and believes doesn't scale, i.e. there's no manageable structure to control the flow of information; experience is a huge swamp, where each new instance of perception may turn into a death trap.
Plato solved this problem, by discovering a whole new world of abstract immutable ideas that keep our mind's reality together. He, like the Creator, separated light from darkness, i.e. knowledge from opinion, thus giving us, utterly confused by perception, an opportunity to navigate the space of complex phenomena.
Then came Aristotle, who systematically explored this new world and gave it its laws. He developed a reasoning method, which connected the present of senses to the past of accumulated knowledge. With incredible results, he applied his method to all kinds of areas of human endeavour: from biology to poetics. From an Explorer of information Aristotle turned into its Master, a feat that very few scientists managed to achieve after him. And after two thousand years we still speak his beautiful language: logic, substance, essence, category, science.
Chaos - Navigation - Control
