Propose:Business, Economy, Policy:da Vinci Concept whitepaper - developing a methodology
From da Vinci Concept
|
-- Forum -- |
daVinci Concept whitepaper: Developing a Methodology
This is going to be difficult. I want to be able to express to everyone what I have conceptualized but not written down. Writing it all down myself however, would be a failure to utilize a methodology for collaborative problem solving.
Instead of working up a storm and then asking for comments. I'm asking for collaboration right from the start.
What we'll be doing is hacking out some ideas on how to proceed from a few basic concepts.
1. A problem is a set of concepts that requires and yet lacks a resolution.
2. A solution fulfills the requirement of resolving a problem.
3. A general solution is a template for the solution of similary problems in various conceptual spaces.
4. General knowledge from broad and various fields of knowledge enable the creation of solutions as templates.
We are not trying to standardized the methods used to solve problems, but to develop a method for the creation of solutions as templates.
[ Edited ]
--sunny Sun Dec 7 20:47:30 2003
charmed_quark Sat Dec 13 9:16:06 2003
| We are not trying to standardized the methods used to solve problems, but to develop a method for the creation of solutions as templates. |
| -- sunny |
Isn't a method for the creation of solutions the same thing as a method used to solve probems. Maybe you could clarify was you mean.
--charmed_quark Sat Dec 13 9:16:06 2003
sunny Sat Dec 13 13:24:13 2003
You are right. The method of solving problems is the method of creating solutions. I was trying to distinguish between a 'standardization' of method and a 'generalization' of the solution. A standardized method does not necessarily create general solutions. It is neither necessary nor sufficient. Therefore, our objective is not to 'standardizing the methods used to solve problems', but to develop methods, a toolbox of general methods, that can enable more general solutions that can be applied across disciplines because of a more general formulation.
I should clarify what I mean by 'solutions as templates.' If a solution to a problem were formulated as a template, and if its formulation is consistant with what we know about another body of knowledge with its own problem set, it is likely that the general forumalation can be applied to this secondary problem set. It is also likely that this general formulation is more valuable than that solution created without regard for a requirement of generalization. In programming this process is known as 'data abstraction'. The abstraction or generalization is "the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances"[dictionary.com] Concepts formed in the mind, are these types of abstractions, the generalization of specific instances. Within mathematics are likely examples of the abstraction of solutions to apply within disparate fields.
It is my thinking that this same generalization applies to solutions within many areas of human thought. Generalization of specialized theory is probably where we have seen the most progress in the sciences.
[ Edited Sat Dec 13 2003, 04:30PM ]
--sunny Sat Dec 13 13:24:13 2003
charmed_quark Sat Dec 13 16:35:29 2003
So, I understand correctly, we're looking for a method of generating solutions that ensures that the solutions can be generalized once they are found (?). --charmed_quark Sat Dec 13 16:35:29 2003
sunny Sat Dec 13 17:16:26 2003
That would be one case. It would be much better to be able to identify those aspects of a problem that desire greater abstraction and build the generalizations into the initial formulation of the solution. In this way, both the end result, the solution, and the means, the method of obtaining the solution, become products of our effort. The identification of the aspects of a problem that are generalizable also provides the necessary framework for determining where else the solution or method might be applied.
I do not yet have an adequate description or clear-cut and defined problem statement for the problem in hand. It may be too abstracted. I have an idea of how to proceed, but it needs questions like yours to flush it out and make it more tangible.
I do have the components of a business framework and many details worked out. For these I will create seperate threads, but in a more closed forum for which I am looking for individuals to collaborate with. This site has an open membership, whereas work on specifics will occur in a closed space to protect intellectual property. Most of the 'data abstractions' and general methods are worked on in the open, especially at first when they lack refined structure as they do now. Specific instances of the generalized method that contain intellectual property must be protected from an open audience.
As it currently stands my website has not yet been indexed by google and all of the current members and those I have contacted directly have an open invitation.
--sunny Sat Dec 13 17:16:26 2003
charmed_quark Sun Dec 14 11:28:11 2003
It depends on the nature of the problem then. Things like abstraction and generalization are enirely human concepts and often do not reflect the true nature of the universe.
Physical equations usually just approximations for certain boundary conditions. Overgeneralization outside those conditions can be unpredictable.
Social problems are even more difficult since we have little idea of what is being approximated, what the boundaryies are and even the success of the solution is subjective.
Is there any way that you could suggest the nature the problem, we can focus in on things a bit more?
--charmed_quark Sun Dec 14 11:28:11 2003
sunny Sun Dec 14 16:04:09 2003
All concepts are human concepts. All concepts that have a basis in reality reflect the nature of the universe. An understanding of Objectivist epistemology would provide further insight regarding the existential philosophy that will be used to provide a value basis for this endeavor.
Regarding the nature of the problem. Consider the question; what is a problem?
--sunny Sun Dec 14 16:04:09 2003
sunny Sun Dec 14 16:20:15 2003
I cannot state the idea within a single breath. It requires context. It also requires a framework for organizing problem solving done by a diverse group of individuals. So, in order to adequately formulate the concept and its associated problems, the framework must already exist. I will create another thread that identifies some of the possible qualities of this framework and tries to clarify its purpose. --sunny Sun Dec 14 16:20:15 2003
larry_jr Sun Dec 14 16:25:01 2003
A problem is a construct generated by humans to place a boundary on the understandings of the percieved world arround them. The problem is a statement of interest in which humans want to gain an understanding as to expand the boundry of perception. In doing this, humans must share this knowledge in order for society to percieve the new understanding.
This knowledge is clustered into understandable blocks of reality known as concepts. Concepts are the construct into managing the data and its objective value.
Social problems are searches to provide objective understanding of the function of interactions between groups and individuals. The incorrect interpretation of objective data to make it subjective is were the error lies. This is one place were more work could be done.
--larry_jr Sun Dec 14 16:25:01 2003
joryea Thu Dec 18 17:39:22 2003
Looking at this from the viewpoint of one who does not see the light of day as you perhaps look upon it.
So, it is my understanding that you simply want to come up with concepts of a template for understanding, or for solutionizing.
A solid piece of mind is the same thing as something factual.
I just felt this was for the benefit of the world. To come up with a mathmatical solution (a factual solution) to most problems. Is this not the reason for your concept?
[ Edited Sat Jan 31 2004, 04:47PM ]
--joryea Thu Dec 18 17:39:22 2003
sunny Fri Jan 30 23:26:46 2004
joryea: I don't quite understand what you are saying, or asking.
You are clearly trying to verify what is being said, but you keep inserting blatant equivocations that are quite improper.
You are stating: 'solid piece of mind' is equivalent to a template.
It is not. These are not equivalent. Please explain if I am mistaken.
You are stating: that our purpose in forming templates is to 'help us communicate with the whole of society in a more efficient and effective way'
Forming some types of problem solving templates might help us communicate more efficiently, but it is not our primary purpose. Our primary purpose (in the context of this thread) is the discussion of the creation of methods for solving problems.
You are stating: these things helping us communicate is equivalent to 'traversing our way of life and our way with eachother'.
Do you mean 'enabling' our way of life?
You are stating: that coming up with a mathematical solution (and I don't understand the remainder of this sentence: "that fits into most equations") makes life ITSELF fit into a hypothesis.
Using mathematical formalism does not force a fit to a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an attempt to explain causality in a testable way. Mathematics might be used to make our hypotheses more explicit. Hypotheses that are fundamentally more rigorous would tell us more about the causal relationship we are exploring.
Given these equivocations I cannot be sure that you have correctly understood our discussion.
It would help if you clarified what you mean. Ask yourself what you mean to say or ask. It will help to take a more careful look at the things that were said in this thread and to try to understand them within the context of the concepts that are talked about. This may very well mean doing some looking up of concepts that may not be perfectly clear to you. If you are not certain what is meant, then you need to look it up.
For quick and dirty research I suggest using <A href="http://www.google.com">Google</A>.
Doing your background research is the only way that you will be able to formulate coherent and meaninful questions. That is the only way that you will be able to contribute in a meaninful way to this type of discussion.
You must first understand what is being said. If all of your questions are too confusing to be understood we will spend our time moving backwards just because you didn't want to take the time to do the necessary background research.
--sunny Fri Jan 30 23:26:46 2004
joryea Sat Jan 31 2:44:20 2004
I feel if we actually began working on this project, that I would understand it much more clearly. Experiencing this project will allow the image of its essence (its true meaningfullness) to settle upon my thoughts.
As your thought are expressed, mine are as well, and even though the form of these thoughts is different, they still resemble solid pieces of mind. If you want to understand what it is I'm saying, try harder.
[ Edited Sat Jan 31 2004, 05:58PM ]
--joryea Sat Jan 31 2:44:20 2004
sunny Sat Jan 31 12:01:53 2004
I don't understand your response. Are you telling me to "Try harder"? Is this because you are offended by my response?
I certainly did not state or imply that you were not intelligent enough to understand the discussion. I stated that based upon your response it seems that you had a very vague understanding and had not taken the time to truly understand the underlying concepts. This is common and does not mean that you are unintelligent. It means that you are 'borrowing' concepts without the full knowledge of their meaning.
To use borrowed concepts leads to a faulty understanding. To understand a concept fully you need to know what it exactly refers to, whether these be other concepts or existents that we can see and touch. Simply trying harder only in [introspection introspection] is not sufficient. None of us are [link=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omniscient&r=67]omniscient]. If we were there would be no point in discussing anything as we would already know it.
In order for you to check that your understanding (what is inside your mind) is sufficient you must gain new knowledge. Learn new things by opening your eyes and senses to the world of knowledge available to you. It is only through the process of internalizing knowledge learned from outside of ourselves that we can expand and verify the basis upon which our knowledge stands. Don't guess what the meaning of something is.
"I kind of know what I/you mean" is just not enough. If it is not clear what a statement refers to it is your responsibility to ask and our responsibility to answer (and vice-versa, of course.)
--sunny Sat Jan 31 12:01:53 2004
joryea Sat Jan 31 12:32:29 2004
Trying harder, means: put some actual effort into understanding what it is I'm saying. If you did, then we could discuss what it is your talking about. It's your idea, you explain it to me. I would like to understand it. If you don't care, you shouldn't have posted it in the first place. If I don't understand it correctly, then correct me, don't pretend you want to have some meaningless debate or discussion on something quite meaningless.
[ Edited Sat Jan 31 2004, 03:37PM ]
--joryea Sat Jan 31 12:32:29 2004
sunny Sat Jan 31 15:48:28 2004
So if I understand what you are saying: I should try harder to understand you so that you can understand me? And: I should not debate you on whether or not you understand my purpose correctly?
That sounds backwards to me.
I have been trying to correct you. I have been correcting your questions because they make some assumptions about this project.
What we have been discussing is nothing more than: "Hey, that question doesn't make sense. This is why. Revise your question so that I can answer it."
Before we can make any progress we have to have a common basis. You have to understand some of the underlying assumptions made and concepts used and I have to be ABLE to understand your questions and responses.
This debate/discussion is not meaningless. Far from it. Being able to work through communication problems like this one is precisely the type of problem we are developing methods for. It is critically important to discuss, although it may have a better place in its own forum. THIS is how we determine what else needs to be worked out for this to be a successful venture.
--sunny Sat Jan 31 15:48:28 2004
joryea Sat Jan 31 18:25:08 2004
Obviously we need a translator. Or, we can choose to understand that much of the time we say the same thing, almost in a different language. Nevertheless itís still the same thing. If we can get past that, then we could probably get somewhere useful.
So this is a thread for methods forming into a template for solutions to problems?
--joryea Sat Jan 31 18:25:08 2004
charmed_quark Sat Mar 27 15:07:34 2004
<deleted>
[ Edited Sat Apr 03 2004, 08:38PM ]
--charmed_quark Sat Mar 27 15:07:34 2004
sunny Mon Mar 29 19:37:23 2004
I suggest that you exercise your slander elsewhere. I do not agree with everything that Rand has said or written or uphold her philosophy as the answer to all problems. I am speaking from my own mind and from my own understanding. Not Rand's. I also strongly suggest that you actually read the references posted elsewhere before criticizing the type of discussion occurring.
I would also very much appreciate it if you would try to add to the content within the thread instead of refracting farther from it.
You can find 'middle ground' discussions on someone's web-blog. That is not the purpose or intent of this site. A common basis does not mean 'middle ground'. The first means better communication. The other means the dismantling and destruction of knowledge in exchange for the assurance of future disastrous compromise.
--sunny Mon Mar 29 19:37:23 2004
charmed_quark Sat Apr 3 17:56:03 2004
Posting 'off the cuff', but didn't mean do be slanderous or critical, just making an observation.
About middle grounds and compromise, the dichotomy of ideas is usually artificial. If two people hold seemingly opposite positions, this usually comes from an other emphasis of one set of values over another. A good solution to such a dilemma is one that addresses both value sets. Example: absolute individual freedom and complete social security are both destructive goals. Societies have to strike balance to survive.
To step out farther, rational methodology is most useful for solve immediate and tangible problems where of all the variable are know and understood. Fantastical thinking is a way of abstraction that allows us the consider things without understanding them completely. A mentally healthy person should practice both.
To root this post in the topic, a methodology that is meant to address as many problems as possible should avoid any unnecessary absolutes.
--charmed_quark Sat Apr 3 17:56:03 2004
ladymurasaki Fri Apr 16 8:45:37 2004
At the risk of 'taking sides', I have to admit that I too am confused as to the ultimate, and concrete, objective(s) of this project.
Is this a simple abstract philosophical debate/discussion with potential practical application later on? Or is it supposed to have more of a present-tense practical application piece to it as well? Sunny, if the latter is closer to the reality of what you are hoping to achieve - then perhaps we can move along this discussion to more concrete examples of what you want to take away from this project. If the answer to my original question is more the former - then I humbly apologize and will go back to more of a reader than a contributor. I fear that my skills of joining an actively and primarily philosophical discourse are quite rusty - which is not to say that i don't wish to dust them off at some point...but I am also far too busy and beaten down with my current schooling that I don't really want to be taken to task for stating something off-the-wall. Which I am bound to do regardless. Having said that - I recognize the importance of this project - with my limited understanding of it's ultimate aim - and wish to learn more and contribute where I think I might be able to, if possible. Cheers!
--ladymurasaki Fri Apr 16 8:45:37 2004
sunny Tue Apr 20 20:15:57 2004
| Is this a simple abstract philosophical debate/discussion with potential practical application later on? Or is it supposed to have more of a present-tense practical application piece to it as well? |
| -- ladymurasaki |
Both. And necessarily so. Immediate applications are borne out of philosophical discussion, collaborative writing, community critique and review, and the intellectual development of contributors. Future applications are what we are working on. These consist of a wide range of various intellectual enterprises; essays, articles, fiction, business strategies, marketing strategies, patent documents, idea conception, philosophical debate, papers for peer review, and a slew of other potential developments. So each enterprise should accomplish two resoundingly objective goals: a far reaching or future goal (paper, invention, business), and an immediate achievement of personal and intellectual development. It is possible, and even likely, that many future goals might be fairly short term, i.e. 'term paper', articles on timely events).
There also exist on this site the ideas behind two interweaving themes; the development of written skill and content, and the development of ideas that are communicated using these skills.
The ultimate aim in a very condensed form:
Individual intellectual growth through:
-the development of ideas
-the development of the means for achieving and communicating these ideas
In other words; Use your best or most desireable tools. Identify a goal. Then identify a means for achieving it. Now make sure that these means are potentially palatable to other goals. All the while developing your toolset.
-----
As far as being 'fielded' for stating something off the wall. Let your audience know when you don't think you have a solid basis for your statements. Tell your audience when you have reason to think your assumption might be flawed or that you lack confidence in a given statement. (This is not license to abrogate objective truths at subjective discretion, but simply a statement that you should use discretion. :)
You might also consider that: to take sides is to take responsibility in justifying your viewpoint.
--sunny Tue Apr 20 20:15:57 2004
joryea Wed Jul 28 10:34:37 2004
hmm. Interesting indeed.
Lets call 'x, this so called 'template, which in an overarching solutionary provider, for the problems from which it covets within its ability to identify and solve, i.e. it transends the problem, allowing for it to been looked upon through 'x.
Lets call 'm, the method of discovering 'x. So 'm would be a higher ordering, so to speak, of a way in which we can seek out a methodology, to enable 'x to be discovered.
Now. In order to enable such methodologies to be brought to light, you must needs a method of insight, i.e. a way of perception that allows such a thing. This, we may call 'p: methods of observation, or insight, into the percievable universe.
For inspiration, or reason of need, for this kind of process into discerning a paradox, and creating a change in current evaltuation so one may solve for such things, such things must be presented to us. We will call these (problems), 'y.
Now, to allow for such a process, we must needs to be learned of such a thing, else we would indeed be as a cave man, and have a hindrence upon our cognitive ability in this area. We will call this education 'k.
As well, to form such an education which will allow for the most efficient, i.e. maximum potential within the human mind to enable this kind of process, you would need an understanding of humankind, which would be brought about through the study, i.e. universality, of human history, i.e. the science of history, to allow such insight into a predetermined educational system that would allow the youth, i.e. future potential within an educational system, to aspire towards such ends. We will call this method of insight towards the perfection of education enabling the maximum potential of this process, 'z.
Let us create another variable as well, namedly, 's. For we would needs a cultural structure that allowed such educational systems to be brought into existence.
Furthermore, to create a societal structure consisting of the means to bring about an upliftment, and encouragement into the kind of hisoric insight, so we as may enable the maximum potential of formation of these kind of educational facilities to progress this kind of creation we speak of, one needs a method of sculpting the people of a culture into beings of beauty and an outlook of the future, so they may invest in it properly and with orderly concepts of how one might do such a thing to its maximum ends. This, we will name, 'g.
Lastly, to form a more perfect union within ones self, towards the process of discovreing your human identity, as a universal being, working with insight always towards the future, with beauty, we must recognize within eachother, cognition, and how we come to discover things which we otherwize, did not know of. We will call this outlook of ones self and the world, 'a.
To come to this place of 'a, we still need one more thing, I would say. This, would be the method of bringing 'a, into conciousness. This process, we will call 'c.
Now I believe, we have come to an understanding. We have the variables x, m, p, y, k, z, s, g, a, c. We have p, allowing for the perception into m, enabling the discovery of x, in effect solving for y. Then, to create the ability of this process, we must needs c, to form a, allowing for g, to create s, enabling z, the process of k. In essence: what we are seeking, is all of these combined, or, the process by which they are combined to form what is needed. We will call this, ultimately, 'hi; 'human insight.
Thank you. Please feel free, to comment.
--joryea Wed Jul 28 10:34:37 2004
sunny Tue Sep 14 19:41:41 2004
Joryea:
Your last post is almost utter nonsense. This is not because you are not saying anything. I understand what you are saying, but you are obfuscating what you are stating by stringing together throngs of meaningless variables. Using variables for the sake of using them does not prove anything. It just confuses your reader. Mathematicians make this mistake as well, but in this instance you have no excuse.
Please, for clarity's sake, rewrite what you have written without referring to a single disconnected 'g, 'a, 'r, 'b, 'a, 'g or 'e. That is, unless you really do have a purpose for using them, in which case you should really spell it out for the rest of us.
--sunny Tue Sep 14 19:41:41 2004
