I asked this before in another topic, but there was no response.

Some have said that connections generated by software (such as wiki) have resulted in the user developing new inspirations. [Dump the info in, let the software make connections, look at those connections, and eureka! an inspiration.]

Have any of you actually had this happen. Can you give a real-world example?

Certainly we all have had the experience of reading something or hearing something which, along with our previous thoughts, resulted in an inspiration. But has anyone really had an inspiration as a result of a software-generated connection?

-c

Cassius wrote:

But has anyone really had an inspiration as a result of a software-generated connection?

Inspiration, when it comes to me at all, usually arises while I'm writing. This is why I like clean, easy editors... because there are no distractions. It is also why I prefer single-pane outliners: I can see the full context of my work, instead of having it chopped up and stored in little boxes.

However, my interpretation of the comments about inspiration coming from the connections made through software is more along the lines of having ideas stimulated based on connections that were not immediately obvious. This could only happen if you have built a large enough database of ideas already. I think in one of the examples I read, the user had said that he had a database of several thousand notes. It is easy to imagine that one would need an application's help to comb that much data, because surely you wouldn't remember it all.

That being said, it does seem that you can get the same effect from searching the web.

Steve Z.

(i) on software-generated "connections" - ALL the connections in my ConnectedText file have been created by me - it's part of thinking about the material - and the first step in organizing the material

(ii) on "inspiration" I subscribe to the motto that creative work is ninety-nine percent perspiration and one percent inspiration;

(a) whatever inspiration there is, it is based on previous actions of mine (see (i)); it's a gradual process for me, though I have had "aha" moments ;

(b) there is surprise sometimes (the longer you work with such a system, the more often). You create a link and find that there is a topic with that name already and it has connections to other interesting topics, which show that you have thought about the matter before--often in an entirely different context. And I find this extremely useful, even if it does not happen every day or even every week. But you do get surprised and thus stimulated to reflect some more on matters you thought about before.

I see wiki-like systems as extensions of natural memory, as "amplifying" my intelligence, not as replacing it. To say it again, it's part a long-term approach; nothing that you would encounter in using a program for two or three weeks ...

Manfred

I didn't see Steve's reply; must have been posted as I was writing; I fully agree with him, however.
Manfred

I think maybe the question of whether connections generate inspiration can be subsumed under Manfred's claim that certain contemporary software can amplify intelligence. I'm not sure 'inspiration' is clear enough in meaning, although I will answer Cassius's question directly that I have never had a eureka experience arising directly from software connections, not where this experience has actually deepened by understand of the material. I have had such experiences in terms of how best to organize material in a given document. I won't give an example, unless someone wants one, because I think everyone has experienced this, and it is fairly trivial.

Maybe to ask whether software amplifies intelligence it could help first to locate what technology or invention during our species' existence undoubtedly have accomplished such amplification. In my mind without question the key development was the development of writing as such. (I leave out the advent of language generally, because it is so shrouded in mystery.) Writing is thinking on paper (there's a book by that title), and thinking on paper has amplified our ability to think by allowing the thinker to follow a train of thought further and more consistently than he could without it.

I think--there's certainly a lot of room for disagreement here, as well as consideration of the effect of different cognitive styles--that thinking occurs when one is writing and reading writings, not when organizing diagrams. The centrality of writing for thinking has some counter-intuitive implications that I embrace. My keyboard is more important for my thinking than any software. I perform typing exercises several times a week, and if my typing speed falls below 80 words per minute, I worry about it. If writing is thinking on paper, you would want your typing to keep up with your internal operations. Fast typing amplfies my intelligence.

Making software connections--in my opinion and experience--amplfies memory, not thinking. Is that a distinction worth making? I think obviously so, although exactly what the implications are may not be immediately obvious.If like me you are fond of analogies, the difference between the effect of enhancing thinking (intelligence) vs. memory is sort of like the difference between a faster computer processor on the one hand and more RAM and a larger hard disk on the other (assuming of course the hard disk space is actually used).

While the implications are not necessarily transparent, my value judgments are straightforward. I am more concerned with maximizing my processor speed than my RAM and more concerned with my RAM than my hard disk size. To me this means that any method that distracts or diverts from the process of writing as such is to be avoided. A corollary is that textual rather than graphical outliners are the instrument of choice during the brainstorming phase.

I don't think I have ever had real inspiration as a result of following links -- and here I mean on the www, because I don't use wikis, in large part b/c I get my back up at having to use code to do stuff that should be done with a mouse click -- wikipad, I think it is, has eliminated some of the code though.

As well, I do not find enough need for links to get into wiki mode. I tend to use links in a program that may not allow cloning.

I do find inspiration from the links that get triggered in my own mind when I hear, read, or write something that sparks an association with something else, or when a whole bunch of ideas suddenly come together.

In the final analysis the most important data base is the sum of our own learnings and experiences as maintained and retained in our brain. I fear the ease with which some of the younger folk today are becoming too reliant on software databases, and taking the attitude of I don't need to know this because I can just search for it when I need it.

Knowing something is sometimes a pre-requisite for being able to think about and know something else.

Daly

Stephen R. Diamond wrote:

I think maybe the question of whether connections generate inspiration can be
subsumed under Manfred's claim that certain contemporary software can amplify
intelligence. I'm not sure 'inspiration' is clear enough in meaning, although I will
answer Cassius's question directly that I have never had a eureka experience arising
directly from software connections, not where this experience has actually
deepened by understand of the material. I have had such experiences in terms of how
best to organize material in a given document. I won't give an example, unless someone
wants one, because I think everyone has experienced this, and it is fairly
trivial.

Maybe to ask whether software amplifies intelligence it could help first
to locate what technology or invention during our species' existence undoubtedly
have accomplished such amplification. In my mind without question the key
development was the development of writing as such. (I leave out the advent of
language generally, because it is so shrouded in mystery.) Writing is thinking on
paper (there's a book by that title), and thinking on paper has amplified our ability
to think by allowing the thinker to follow a train of thought further and more
consistently than he could without it.

I think--there's certainly a lot of room for
disagreement here, as well as consideration of the effect of different cognitive
styles--that thinking occurs when one is writing and reading writings, not when
organizing diagrams. The centrality of writing for thinking has some
counter-intuitive implications that I embrace. My keyboard is more important for my
thinking than any software. I perform typing exercises several times a week, and if my
typing speed falls below 80 words per minute, I worry about it. If writing is thinking
on paper, you would want your typing to keep up with your internal operations. Fast
typing amplfies my intelligence.

Making software connections--in my opinion and
experience--amplfies memory, not thinking. Is that a distinction worth making? I
think obviously so, although exactly what the implications are may not be
immediately obvious.If like me you are fond of analogies, the difference between the
effect of enhancing thinking (intelligence) vs. memory is sort of like the
difference between a faster computer processor on the one hand and more RAM and a
larger hard disk on the other (assuming of course the hard disk space is actually
used).

While the implications are not necessarily transparent, my value
judgments are straightforward. I am more concerned with maximizing my processor
speed than my RAM and more concerned with my RAM than my hard disk size. To me this means
that any method that distracts or diverts from the process of writing as such is to be
avoided. A corollary is that textual rather than graphical outliners are the
instrument of choice during the brainstorming phase.

Steve Diamond's comments about thought processes are provoking. He is certainly correct about writing.

Did the invention of writing and reading increase the effective intelligence of people who practiced it? It appears to have diminished the ability to retain information in memory. Would we think better without the written word, if it meant that our brains would store more information?

It certainly appears that the written word has enhanced the development of civilization in some ways, if for no other reason that it has enabled the communication of ideas and information over distance and among many people.

From personal experience, I believe that there are several "avenues" involved in thought processing and memory.

While teaching, I had a student who could verbally answer an advanced calculus question, but could not do so on paper.

My son, when younger, could not memorize even addition tables. Yet, he could look at a movie poster, come home, and reproduce it almost perfectly.

I suspect that all of the senses contribute to the thought process, with some being more "active/dominant" in some people than in others.

-c

Steve wrote: "Making software connections—in my opinion and experience—amplfies memory, not thinking. Is that a distinction worth making? I think obviously so, although exactly what the implications are may not be immediately obvious.If like me you are fond of analogies, the difference between the effect of enhancing thinking (intelligence) vs. memory is sort of like the difference between a faster computer processor on the one hand and more RAM and a larger hard disk on the other (assuming of course the hard disk space is actually used)."

We are obviously getting into some deep and controversial issues here. Philosophers and cognitive scientists hold various views on these matters. But without getting deeply into any of these, I would say the following.

Yes, the distinction between memory and thinking is worth making. However, and this is important, this does not mean that memory and thinking are independent of one another in the same way that one piece of hardware is independent of one another. They depend on another. One might also say that there are interconnections between the two at various levels. To vary a theme of one of my favorite philosophers: "thinking without memory is empty, while memory without thinking is blind."

I would go further and say that with regard to any given problem, even the most brilliant thinker needs to know (or remember) the relevant facts. Indeed, to determine what are the relevant facts is often a first step to a solution of the problem. Though there are also instances where a solution shows that certain facts that one already knew are relevant, etc. etc.

Secondly, there are some philosophers and many cognitive scientists (called "connectionists") who would argue that thinking is nothing but connecting. This goes back to philosophers like Hume, who thought that thinking is just a process of of association, and thinking about thinking meant identifying the principles of association. Some thinkers in this tradition have gone so far as to say that the human brain should be modeled as a neural net, and that you could program a computer to mirror a human brain by establishing associations between different bits of information. There is an interesting novel by Richard Powers, called Galatea 2.2 that explores this issue.

I have some sympathy for this kind of view--and that's why ConnectedText appeals to me---while I also think that connectionism is very problematic. Still, I would hold that making connections is a kind of thinking, and therefore I respectfully disagree with Steve on this issue.
Manfred

My guess is that the physical process of thinking involves activity of brain cells, their connectors (dendrites), brain and other body chemicals, and the interactions of all of these.

-c

of course ...

But when when we speak of "thinking" in the context of "experience" -- remember your original question? ["Certainly we all have had the experience of reading something or hearing something which, along with our previous thoughts, resulted in an inspiration."] -- then talk about dendrites is irrelevant. We don't DIRECTLY experience "activity of brain cells, their connectors (dendrites), brain and other body chemicals, and the interactions of all of these"

If you wanted an answer in those terms, you should have asked a neuro-scientist. It seemed to me that you were asking a "phenomenological" question.

Manfred,

It was your mention of the modeling of thinking as a neural net that led me to comment about the physical process of thinking, and to think about modeling thinking.

By the way, here is a useful quote by the statistician George Box, son-in-law of the very famous statistician Fisher:

"All models are wrong, but some are useful."

-c

Cassius.

O.K. As I said I did not want to get too deeply into these issues. But what was behind my cliam was only that some people claim that you can model brain activities or connections between synapses etc. using connections between different bits and bytes, and thus also the corresponding "thoughts, concepts or words" in what we call "mind" with "statements, concepts and words" in the "software." If we call the first "level 1" and the other "level 2," I only really meant to talk about level 2.

I am just as skeptical as you seem to be about whether we can actually identify something that goes on at level 1 with what is going on at level 2. (Models are problematic.) But I also think that this question is irrelevant when we worry about how the ideas or words and connections we have stored in some software application may help us in further thinking about these ideas.

I am sorry if I sounded irritated,

Manfred

Manfred, no not irritated (indeed,I don't think you were); besides I tend not to notice such things, being more than irritating myself.

One thing I believe that we can all agree on: Storing information in a conveniently accessible and manipulable form is worthwhile, and some software helps us do this.

Indeed, isn't that why we participate in this forum, along with the possibility that we enjoy "conversing" with other introspective people?

-c

I think the matter of levels of analysis deserves a little bit of belaboring. At least three distinct levels deserve mention: physiological, psychological, and phenomenological.

We're all pretty clear on the distinction between physiological and the others. But psychological and phenomenological also needs distinguishing. An example. A psychological connectionist wants to learn a list of meaningful facts. As a psychological connectionist, the learner believes that he must strengthen the connections between the memory traces of these facts and the teacher's command to produce them on paper. Does it follow that he should repeat the facts over and over again, to strengthen the connection between fact and command. Or does it even follow that he should practice with flash cards, learning to produce a fact in response to anticipated stimuli?

I don't think so. The psychological doctrine of connectionism does not require that making connections _feel_ like making connections. It could well be that the richest and durable connections are formed by understanding the material as deeply as possible. One could give a psychological account of the process of connection even though the phenomenology of maximizing strength of connection doesn't resemble the strengening of connections.

Similarly, it is important not to confuse the hypothetical psychology of "making connections" with the physical act of making linkages. It may be--as I suppose I contend--that to find connections, the best strategy is to write about the relationships; to try to discover them by thinking about the subject on paper by writing paragraphs.

In my personal experience, I have at time wasted hours looking at a diagram in the hope of seeing how matters are connected, when I found I could solve the problem by forgetting the diagram and writing about the relationships. Connecting things is certainly thinking. But the manner of establishing connection does not necessarily wear its nature on its sleeve.

> Certainly we all have had the experience of reading something or hearing something which, along with our previous thoughts, resulted in an inspiration. But has anyone really had an inspiration as a result of a software-generated connection? > Storing information in a conveniently accessible and manipulable form is worthwhile, and some software helps us do this.

"The psychological doctrine of connectionism does not require that making connections _feel_ like making connections. It could well be that the richest and durable connections are formed by understanding the material as deeply as possible. One could give a psychological account of the process of connection even though the phenomenology of maximizing strength of connection doesn’t resemble the strengening of connections."

I would not want to dispute that the doctrine of connectionism does not require that making connections feels like making connection. But from the fact that making connections does not HAVE TO feel like thinking it does not follow that it CAN and often DOES go hand in hand with a conscious effort that characterizes thinking.

Nor would I disagree with the claim that some of the more durable connections are formed by understanding the material. In fact, that is one was one of the points I wanted to make. Making connections carefully and with consideration is or can be a form of trying to understand the material or a form of thinking.

Nor am I sure that making connections between two pieces of writing is simply "a physical act." It involves physical acts (like typing on a keyboard), but it is more than that. Indeed, it should have been clear from things I said in other contexts that whatever kind of act it is, it belongs to writing (or thinking) about the matter at hand. There are occasions when [y]ou create a link and find that there is a topic with that name already and it has connections to other interesting topics, which show that you have thought about the matter before—often in an entirely different context." That is very much like the "strategy is to write about the relationships; to try to discover them by thinking about the subject on paper by writing paragraphs" -- with the exception that it does not happen on paper but on the screen.

So where is the disagreement.

I am just as much interested in meaningful connections as the next person, even though I used flash cards to learn the vocabulary of some ancient languages (most of which I have forgotten).

Manfred

Sorry, I made two mistakes that need fixing:

“The psychological doctrine of connectionism does not require that making connections _feel_ like making connections. It could well be that the richest and durable connections are formed by understanding the material as deeply as possible. One could give a psychological account of the process of connection even though the phenomenology of maximizing strength of connection doesn’t resemble the strengening of connections.”

I would not want to dispute that the doctrine of connectionism does not require that making connections feels like making connection. But from the fact that making connections does not HAVE TO feel like thinking it does not follow that it is false to say that it CAN and often DOES go hand in hand with a conscious effort that characterizes thinking. And that's all I wanted to say.

Nor would I disagree with the claim that some of the more durable connections are formed by understanding the material. In fact, that is one was one of the points I wanted to make. Making connections (carefully and with consideration) is a form of trying to understand the material or a form of thinking.

Nor am I sure that making connections between two pieces of writing is simply “a physical act.” It involves physical acts (like typing on a keyboard), but it is more than that. Indeed, it should have been clear from things I said in other contexts that whatever kind of act it is, it belongs to writing (or thinking) about the matter at hand. There are occasions when [y]ou create a link and find that there is a topic with that name already and it has connections to other interesting topics, which show that you have thought about the matter before—often in an entirely different context.” That is very much like the “strategy is to write about the relationships; to try to discover them by thinking about the subject on paper by writing paragraphs“—with the exception that it does not happen on paper but on the screen.

So where is the disagreement.

I am just as much interested in meaningful connections as the next person, even though I used flash cards to learn the vocabulary of some ancient languages (most of which I have forgotten).

Manfred

One needs to be careful in distinguishing different types of "connections."

Addition and multiplication tables, when memorized, form a type of connection within the brain: 7 X 8 is connected to 56 and 7+8 is connected to 15. My son, when young and perhaps even now, could not internalize [memorize] these connections, yet he completely understood the processes, including long division and could do them on his fingers or by counting holes in a ceiling tile, etc.

Understanding may and often does enhance memory, but not always.

-c

I don't want to "whip a dead horse," so this is my last post on this.
First, it was probably a bad idea to post last night after a full day's of work. There are some more typos in my message. The most important one in this sentence: "But from the fact that making connections does not HAVE TO feel like thinking it does not follow that it is false to say that it CAN and often DOES go hand in hand with a conscious effort that characterizes thinking. And that’s all I wanted to say." The first "thinking" should be "linking."

Secondly, with regard to to some of the last comments. If you want a full account of "linking" or "thinking" you need to make a lot of distinctions, of course. But my aim was not to offer a full theory of linking or thinking. I made what I took (and take) to be an uncontroversial claim:

(i) conscious thinking is characterized (at least in part) by efforts to make connections between different bits of informations, ideas, or thoughts.

I concluded from this:

(ii) Therefore, consciously making wiki or hyperlinks between different topics or documents represents a form of thinking (and one that I find useful as one of the first steps in dealing with any kind of subject).

I neither claimed that it was the only kind of thinking nor that it represents a priviliged form of thinking.

That's all, folks ...

Oh ... E. M. Forster comes to mind as an afterthought: ""Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer. Only connect, and the beast and the monk, robbed of the isolation that is life to either, will die." But that is an entirely different matter!

I've never had a flash of insight prompted by "connections" made from off-the-shelf software. On the other hand, I've had some good insights from statistical analysis and machine learning algorithms used in a research context.

I think the main issue is that most off-the-shelf software automated connection algorithms are fairly simplistic. For the most part, they all run either classification algorithms or clustering algorithms. You don't, for example, find outliner-style programs that do decision tree induction or principal component analysis. Not in an easy way anyway. Even classification is underused.

-- Chris

The disagreement, Manfred, is that while you take pains to emphasize that linking is _not_ a privileged form of thinking, I assert that writing *is* privileged that way, and acts of writing down one's thoughts _in sentences_ have uniquely enhanced thinking itself.

I have not in fact supplied much by way of argument for this view, partly from lack, partly from appropriateness to the forum. But truly my main basis is experience, introspection, and the reported experience of others.

I gave a 'historical' argument, more rhetoric than real argument, to help clarify that when I say 'writing,' I mean to define it specifically. Peoples without a written language can draw diagrams.My hypothesis is murky because I cannot specify a mechanism by which writing accomplishes its amplification. Remember, I am trying to abstract away the memory function. Even though I cannot specify a mechanism, I can conjecture one, and it might clarify my meaning. I think spoken language lies close to our language of thought (see Jerry Fodor's book by that title). Written language encodes the same stimuli _using the same code_ in a different medium, giving the mind another dimension from which to triangulate on a thought.

Any way, I'm not trying to deride your position, which is entirely sensible. My view is the radical one, and all it really has going for it is the congruence of its recommendations with a particular sub-genre of how-to books concerning composition.

Connectionist doctrine doesn't require a connectionist phenemonology, as we agree, and I would further agree with what I think you imply: a connectionist phenomenology should be regarded as the default position of a connectionist psychology. Prima facie, they go together. And I think our difference here does reflect the divide in cognitive psychology between the advocates of connectionism and the advocates of the computational theory of mind.