Complexity levels

Scientific method copes with complexity using abstractions. You define symbols, and manipulate them instead of raw, immediate reality. When complexity rises again, you define symbols with symbols and build abstractions of abstractions. 
This approach has two problems. First, it requires you to have quite a mind capacity either to be able to manipulate lot of symbols on a low abstraction level, or it requires you to have a highly structured thinking to be able to work on a very high abstraction level. 
Second, there symbols we define are quite arbitrary, and there's no proof that the are especially well suited to our situation. On a highly abstract level we can lose our connection with reality, because we might be confusing a map with a territory. 
In those cirrumstances, taking a totally intuitive approach doesn't seem THAT insane. Some circuits in our brains are quite well suited for using a hollistic approach to reality. We don't need to manipulate symbols, it's sufficient to be able to percieve our environment, opportunities and possibilities of action and then choose actions though considerations of common sense, aesthetics and a "gut feeling". 
I think, that acting in this intuitive mode is an area that requires a lot of training, but i'm not quite sure what KIND of training is well suited for developing one's intuitive side. It all seems too much like a trickery compared to well estabilished scientific methods.
The best way, reserved for real gurus, would of course be a fine-tuned combination of both approaches. Maybe it could even become mainstream, as the science world gives up it's bitterness against the alternative approaches to decision making.

1 comment:

Petr said...

Well done. Now lets think about non-mathematical real-life symbols.. :]

Post a Comment