Seeing conections in things

[Azul]

Sometimes I suffer with seeing too much possible links in stuff. For example, sometimes in tests I can make links that surprise myself when I reread them some time later, because I didn't think I'd be able to write that, lol, this is the good part. But then I always suffer from making too ambitious plans. Like thinking in all that's possible and then setting expectations too high and overloading myself. Or then see too much involved in stuff that for others is simple and get scared at how much details and knowledge is necessary for it. Or then I get lost at possible explanations for things, because a few times I start seeing consistent signals for uncommon explanations everywhere, and lose sigh of a certain and clear explanation, this specifically isn't nor good or bad, really.

Either I bite too much and burnout or I get scared at how much something requires, or both. So sometimes I give up because of that, or can't organize my head at how much stuff there is to do. And end up doing less than I could or would like.

Does that seem like a trait? Pattern thinking perhaps?

(Temple Grandin seems to believe that verbal and pattern thinking don't walk together. I'd guess I lean to verbal, but then I was good at math too.)

If someone wants to share their experience, please do.

 

[Alexandria]

Are you referring to executive functioning skills here, @Azul ?

 

[Azul]

Are you referring to executive functioning skills here, @Azul ?

Not exactly, although it is related.

It is like thinking in all the possibilities.

For example, through the week I was thinking on what I could do on sculpture class with clay. Then I thought on 3 different applications of a technique, and 2 minor applications with one of the former. And I brainstormed designs and patterns beforehand on what I could do. I wouldn't be able do to it all in one class, though.

I do plans all the time but rarely follow all of it.

Or when thinking on one text I was planning to write for my assignment on whether digital games are an art language a multitude of previous problems arised, like what is an art language (that is, media), how to delineate it, or if art being a language itself would be a better question, and then how can we differentiate art from non art; if we're to prove that games are art, must we prove that all game objects are art? can we say that all examples of drawing for example are art? - carpentry isn't considered art, but it has objects that are. so the previous need for absolute is false? if it is, then what makes one object art and not the other? and why do we say the whole language of theater for example is art, but not carpentry? - And other small questions that far complicates the original one: if digital games are art.

I do that sometimes when I have to answer an interesting question. But it might be difficult and I get lost.

I like to plan and think in the details, but following it is where my executive functioning fails.

(Sry for the long post. I just wanted to give an idea of the thought process)

 

[Stuttermabolur]

From your first post, I would say no. I am actually terrible at seeing connections in things and don't have a particularly creative way of thinking, so I probably see fewer connections in things than other people.

Based on your second comment however, that seems like deep analysis (some would say "overanalysis"). This is how I consider must subjects (with an unhealthy dose of "technically correct"), and from spending time on this forum, I think analyzing subjects to a way further extent than others is quite common. Relatedly, when I tell a story about something I did or which happened to me, I tend to give a lot of background detail and try to close off any lose ends to further questions. I think most people think first of what emotion they are trying to arouse in the listener, and structure their storytelling based on impact, not accuracy.

Just from looking at my comments (and responses from some other frequent visitors on the site), they tend to be wayyy longer than most comments in chat based threads or forums I have come across.

 

[Azul]

@Stuttermabolur

I noticed long posts are more frequent in this forum, too. Attention to detail and focused interest probably contribute to deep analysis.

On Grandin's thesis that verbal and pattern thinking are at odds, one possible counter-example would be Wittgeinstein, who is supposed to have Asperger and were one of the "founders" of analytical philosophy. Philosophy at a whole is at an odd position. Its nature is to find logical relationships between concepts, and it needs to be exact and precise using informal language. That is accentuated on the analytical line of philosophy, which uses formal logic heavily on a field that is purely verbal. I can see how this field would seek both conceptual patterns and verbal mastery. Based on my memories from when I used to read about it, it were like trying to find loopholes in a theory, poking, testing, generalizing and seeking similarities to find problems and then refine an idea. That requires informal logic, which itself is later formalized as symbolic logic, a part of math.

 

[Stuttermabolur]

@Stuttermabolur

I noticed long posts are more frequent in this forum, too. Attention to detail and focused interest probably contribute to deep analysis.

On Grandin's thesis that verbal and pattern thinking are at odds, one possible counter-example would be Wittgeinstein, who is supposed to have Asperger and were one of the "founders" of analytical philosophy. Philosophy at a whole is at an odd position. Its nature is to find logical relationships between concepts, and it needs to be exact and precise using informal language. That is accentuated on the analytical line of philosophy, which uses formal logic heavily on a field that is purely verbal. I can see how this field would seek both conceptual patterns and verbal mastery. Based on my memories from when I used to read about it, it were like trying to find loopholes in a theory, poking, testing, generalizing and seeking similarities to find problems and then refine an idea. That requires informal logic, which itself is later formalized as symbolic logic, a part of math.

I really like this comment, because it perfectly encapsulates my frustrations with philosophy, and why I couldn't justify delving deeply into it when I was at my most interested phase (Wittgenstein sounds like one of the few I would really enjoy reading from what I have heard others say about him). I really enjoy the analytical approach used in philosophy, and I can see why it was the basis of modern scientific thoughts. Nowadays however, it seems like an exercise in frustration, as without a clear base grounded in empirical measurements, all that your opinions, thoughts and logic tend to do is inflate your own ego at the cost of truth. The way you gain prestige in philosophy seems to be to make a really outlandish claim, and then use lots of words to confuse your opponent into giving up. I really enjoy debates and analysis, but getting into a debate with a philosopher is pointless, as most of the time they are more interested in being correct than actually learning. You can prove anything with words, if the statement being debated isn't grounded in facts to begin with. Metaphors and flowery language is also very common in some (though definitely not all) schools of philosophy which is doubly frustrating for me.

Honestly, I could go on for way longer about just how frustrated I am with philosophy (based off attending a few philosophy courses and reading works by philosophers) but it would probably be better suited in a separate thread.

 

[Knower of nothing]

Analysis paralysis with a mix of getting lost? There are some ground rules to use before tackling an issue that can limit the scope of your thought. Prefacing by writing down your objective is essential. These are commonly used:

Ultimately to keep track your only choice is taking notes and making diagrams for clear oversight. Thoughts come and go and each time they return they take on a slightly different character, they can't be trusted to preserve all of your conclusions and leads.
Now personally I have never felt the need to use one of these, I'm impulsive enough to go over my options once and pick what I discern is best in the moment. But I have also never tackled large scale problems or goals.

 

[Azul]

@Stuttermabolur

Could you please clarify why the comment encapsulates your frustrations with philosophy? Is that because you think it suffers from the problems you pointed out? Or because what I said about were what you found interesting?

I don't enjoy the diffuse and metaphorical writing style of some authors either. I think it gets in the way of clear communication.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

I learn by seeking patterns, but the process is hidden from me. My brain, all on it's own, collects and sorts information. When that last critical piece is known, it all falls together and the light bulb goes off and I see the pattern and the answer. Even if I didn't even know the question. Maybe especially when I don't know the question.

But what Azul is talking about in terms of planning more things than can be done in the allotted time, etc., that sounds like an EF impairment. One I am quite familiar with.

 

[Azul]

I should use mental maps more. I don't really feel the need, but sometimes they do help. It's a way of scheming complex topics, although I usually just synthesize texts.

 

[Stuttermabolur]

@Stuttermabolur

Could you please clarify why the comment encapsulates your frustrations with philosophy? Is that because you think it suffers from the problems you pointed out? Or because what I said about were what you found interesting?

Sure. I felt like you did a good job of explaining how philosophy is both based on thorough analysis of concepts (which is why it is heavily intertwined with mathematics) while at the same time being based on concepts which are informal simply because our language is creative and comes about to serve our needs as social creatures instead of being rigid and clearly defined. This gets me frustrated as a lot of subjects in philosophy are ultimately based on interpretations, and those interpretations give different answers, yet philosophy still retains the veneer of legitimacy simply because of the logical toolset used by philosophers. A lot of philosophical questions can never be answered, simply because they are wholly dependent on interpretations of words, and I don't see a reason to continue debating them which are not egotistical (or because you find it fun, but then it should be treated as a hobby). An example of this is "what is life/alive?". I tend to ignore questions like that as there will never be a satisfactory answer since it does not exist.

To keep things simple, definitely the second. It was a really good comment, and you can feel proud of it. I really have a love/hate relationship with philosophy...

 

[Alaric593]

Sometimes I suffer with seeing too much possible links in stuff. For example, sometimes in tests I can make links that surprise myself when I reread them some time later, because I didn't think I'd be able to write that, lol, this is the good part. But then I always suffer from making too ambitious plans. Like thinking in all that's possible and then setting expectations too high and overloading myself. Or then see too much involved in stuff that for others is simple and get scared at how much details and knowledge is necessary for it. Or then I get lost at possible explanations for things, because a few times I start seeing consistent signals for uncommon explanations everywhere, and lose sigh of a certain and clear explanation, this specifically isn't nor good or bad, really.

Either I bite too much and burnout or I get scared at how much something requires, or both. So sometimes I give up because of that, or can't organize my head at how much stuff there is to do. And end up doing less than I could or would like.

Does that seem like a trait? Pattern thinking perhaps?

(Temple Grandin seems to believe that verbal and pattern thinking don't walk together. I'd guess I lean to verbal, but then I was good at math too.)

If someone wants to share their experience, please do.

I do the same thing but I don't burnout generally because of my actions being rooted in duty to do what I'm doing so I just finish because I must.

The one time I really did burn myself out I attended school full time, worked full time and was a Special Project Intern for my State Representative on top of trying to help my wife raise our infant daughter.

I was tasked with working with an urban farm in his district to find ways to increase production.

We decided on using geothermal methods to increase heat in their greenhouses in the winter. We also decided on a commercial size aquaponics system.

The owner and I raised $55,000 through private grants and crowdfunding which paid for those as well as allowed him to purchase a dilapidated building which was renovated by a local contractor at cost to serve as point of sale.

I swear I thought I was going to die. But I finished it all.

I'm the overly dressed one

 

[Darkkin]

I have a living tessellation in my head. The number of thing I do because they are on the way is immense, which is why I cannot do things like lists or outlines. My mental list is more exact, faster, and fluid. Book patterns. Archetype patterns. Geometric patterns. Poetry patterns. Story patterns. Behaviour patterns. It is a living infrastructure in my brain. It is a little weird.

 

[Azul]

@Stuttermabolur

On its usefulness, concepts update over time. The soul-body division of a few centuries ago does not reflect the awereness-matter division of today so exactly, for example, but the question of whether awareness is property of matter is still a relevant one. Even if we're not able to get to a final and definitive answer, I personally think is worth trying to find an answer that better reflect our understanding. I saw it somewhere compared to a map. It isn't ever as exact as truth, but attempts to get a close representation of it with our current tools, or concepts (forgive me the metaphor, lol).

 

[Azul]

I have a living tessellation in my head. The number of thing I do because they are on the way is immense, which is why I cannot do things like lists or outlines. My mental list is more exact, faster, and fluid. Book patterns. Archetype patterns. Geometric patterns. Poetry patterns. Story patterns. Behaviour patterns. It is a living infrastructure in my brain. It is a little weird.

Honestly, this sounds very interesting.

@Alaric593

I'm glad you survived. I wish I could keep your diligence too.

 

[Stuttermabolur]

@Stuttermabolur

On its usefulness, concepts update over time. The soul-body division of a few centuries ago does not reflect the awereness-matter division of today so exactly, for example, but the question of whether awareness is property of matter is still a relevant one. Even if we're not able to get to a final and definitive answer, I personally think is worth trying to find an answer that better reflect our understanding. I saw it somewhere compared to a map. It isn't ever as exact as truth, but attempts to get a close representation of it with our current tools, or concepts (forgive me the metaphor, lol).

I think philosophy was very useful back in the day when we didn't have hard sciences, or they were in its infancy. Back then, people were making up answers for what they couldn't explain without really questioning their beliefs. As philosophy is all about questioning, and not taking things for granted, it meant that people could accept more unknowns and working towards understanding them. Now however, philosophical questions of old could be placed in two categories: Questions that can never be answered as they depend on language quirks or situations which break the laws of the universe (paradoxes), or questions we are now perfectly capable of answering with science, so philosophy has now turned into more of a hindrance or annoyance to understanding (actually, I would put ethics into its own category, and I think that is the most useful philosophical discipline nowadays as it is both relevant to our day to day lives and cannot be "solved" or answered through other disciplines).

The example you gave "is awareness a property of matter?" is better answered by a biologist or a neurobiologist rather then a philosopher as the philosopher can only really debate the meaning of consciousness or embrace pseudoscience. This article discussing your question (end of paragraph) is a great example of why I find philosophy nowadays so frustrating. One egotistical philosopher became really rich and got sent on cruise trips by the antarctic because he challenged the status quo, while not really having anything of substance behind his exclamations. Because the question isn't very concrete however, he can keep debates to a stalemate and is actively encouraged to do so as his lifestyle is dependent on having a unique view on consciousness. The link also directs to a comment thread which shows how discussions between philosophers quickly turn into absolute nonsense. Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness? | Oliver Burkeman

 

[Alaric593]

Jewish thought says that there are no such things as coincidences, that everything happens for a reason, and that everything has meaning.

Everything is an effect of a cause back to the first mover. It's a matter of how far down the line of the Order of consequences it is as to whether we're able to reasonably discern it and whether it's even a direct effect from a cause of our own or an indirect cause putting us in that space and time to discern it.

This fundamentally is what can be considered being lucky or unlucky. Our minds are not able to process but a handful of Orders of consequences at any given time with reasonable certainty giving rise to the superstition of fortune, being lucky or unlucky.

 

[Alaric593]

Analysis paralysis with a mix of getting lost? There are some ground rules to use before tackling an issue that can limit the scope of your thought. Prefacing by writing down your objective is essential. These are commonly used:

Ultimately to keep track your only choice is taking notes and making diagrams for clear oversight. Thoughts come and go and each time they return they take on a slightly different character, they can't be trusted to preserve all of your conclusions and leads.
Now personally I have never felt the need to use one of these, I'm impulsive enough to go over my options once and pick what I discern is best in the moment. But I have also never tackled large scale problems or goals.

To add to this, I use this a great deal for projects.

MindMeister: Online Mind Mapping and Brainstorming

 

[Alaric593]

I think philosophy was very useful back in the day when we didn't have hard sciences, or they were in its infancy. Back then, people were making up answers for what they couldn't explain without really questioning their beliefs. As philosophy is all about questioning, and not taking things for granted, it meant that people could accept more unknowns and working towards understanding them. Now however, philosophical questions of old could be placed in two categories: Questions that can never be answered as they depend on language quirks or situations which break the laws of the universe (paradoxes), or questions we are now perfectly capable of answering with science, so philosophy has now turned into more of a hindrance or annoyance to understanding (actually, I would put ethics into its own category, and I think that is the most useful philosophical discipline nowadays as it is both relevant to our day to day lives and cannot be "solved" or answered through other disciplines).

The example you gave "is awareness a property of matter?" is better answered by a biologist or a neurobiologist rather then a philosopher as the philosopher can only really debate the meaning of consciousness or embrace pseudoscience. This article discussing your question (end of paragraph) is a great example of why I find philosophy nowadays so frustrating. One egotistical philosopher became really rich and got sent on cruise trips by the antarctic because he challenged the status quo, while not really having anything of substance behind his exclamations. Because the question isn't very concrete however, he can keep debates to a stalemate and is actively encouraged to do so as his lifestyle is dependent on having a unique view on consciousness. The link also directs to a comment thread which shows how discussions between philosophers quickly turn into absolute nonsense. Why can’t the world’s greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness? | Oliver Burkeman

I've lost much of my respect for a lot philosophy as well largely because of the "philosophers" themselves being out of their minds because their lives didn't remotely match what they espoused.

Philosophy is as useful as it is able to manifest reliable outcomes in the world. The best philosophy instructor I had was so not because he was great at answering complex questions essential to the human condition.

But rather because he discussed the known lives of the philosophers themselves which was interesting at the time, and now that I'm older was genius.

Who could possibly listen to many of these philosophers when their personal lives were dumpster fires? Who knows how many other than myself he prevented from being Rousseauean and Marxian nutters.

But I would say that the hard sciences being what they are do deal with different questions. They're concerned with whether something can be done rather than whether it ought to be done.

Personally, my favorite modern philosophers are Eric Hoffer and Will Durant. I enjoy Thomas Aquinas as well who disproved much of Marxian theory in the 13th century but is of course not taught in any detail at most universities.

I enjoy Hoffer amd Durant, not because they're the most brilliant but rather their concern with philosophy is to the extent that it's practical for action. They're tethered to the ground, not lost in a cerebral fog of reasoning that simply doesn't and in fact can't manifest what is claimed it will manifest. The Stoics appeal to me for this reason as well. Thought for practical action. Not thought for the sake of itself.

"You take a conventional man of action, and he's satisfied if you obey, eh? But not the intellectual. He doesn't want you just to obey. He wants you to get down on your knees and praise the one who makes you love what you hate and hate what you love. In other words, whenever the intellectuals are in power, there's soul-raping going on." Eric Hoffer

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Philosophy, and hard science are getting hard to separate, see string theory in physics. the line is getting very blurred .