|
Parallelisms : Intangibles -
Neurophenomenology - Quantum mechanics
Intangibles
- "Informal issues"- Those words refer to issues which are not said and issues which are not known
at given time, no matter if further investigations may or not reveal
additional knowledge.
The focus is here - and all the way along - strongly
operational: at a given time, most of the cases handled by human being are
framed by a time and resources limitation. Hence a complete knowledge is
in the general case de facto not achievable irrespectively of any
philosophical question.
Frequently, incomplete information stands in intangibles
(i.e.: relationship, friendship, sympathy, social connectedness,
information sharing) but may also be encountered in hidden
interconnections between physical bodies (i.e. not measurable effects of
electromagnetic wave).
Neurophenomenology
- "Mapping loosing sense" - We recognized merits
to several graphs and mapping techniques - i.e. mind mapping, social
network analysis,
trends
maps - but endlessly they became cumbersome at reading with the
increase of data.
It has been our diagnostic - at that time - that those
maps enabled sometimes nice data recording but owned a limited
effectiveness at inferring instinctive usages and updates afterwards.
We diagnosed that the effectiveness limits may
originate
in the fact that lines and arrows often induce complexity - i.e. because
of crossings or because they limit a view to only a constrained set of the
possible scenarios.
We tried schemas with no lines and arrows and we
observed that some arrangements of free labeled clusters could make sense
better.
A typical example of a no-lines-no-arrows graph that
makes sense is an architect 2-D top view of a house: there
is not need of lines and arrows for the brain to understand at once all
the possible scenarios and possible sequences of actions that one may
perform in the house.
This brain capability to see "all at once" is among the
major factors that triggered all the developments which are exposed here.
We think that we can illustrate the difference between
our maps and the maps with arrows-lines as being similar to the difference
between a story given by a book and by a movie.
At reading a book, our imagination usually infers
companion mental images in a free way. They might be multiple and possibly
changing along the reading of the story. At watching the same story on a
movie, one may still imagine some but a large amount of the context is
fixed by the actor choice, their voices, looking and attitudes as well by
the rest of the scenery. A movie is like only a constrained subset of the
imaginable given by the book.
- "Boolean versus random"
- Very frequently we observed that organizational graphs -
particularly in the domain of software application programming -
tend to end up with a Boolean description while the brain's users
is naturally accessing a problem in a random access fashion.
According to our observations, graphs with
no-lines-no-arrows allowed to recover a compliance with this brain
random access capability.
We can also mention that old fashion programming has been for long highly
Boolean but recent languages and protocols all tend at recovering
random access capabilities - i.e. XML-XSLT-SOAP, agent programming and
Service Oriented Architecture (SOA).
A same Boolean-to-random evolution can frequently be found in businesses
where the company organizational charts are well structured in
departments silos but where it is recognized that the company mostly works because a random informal
communication system efficiently liaises the
workers. Such enterprise
reality is also a good illustration of the complexity of our concerns
because it highlights an hidden interconnected mechanism.
Neurophenomenology - Quantum
mechanics
- "Sport teams" -
The difference arrows/no-arrows may also be well understood by the
analogy with a sport team.
If you imagine tracking with arrows all
the relationships that may happen or happened between the players
of a team during a
soccer match, the arrowed-graph may become sense-less, while
simply the
names of the team members adequately disposed on a game board
often tell a good idea of the strategy and gives a view of the
most probable relationships.
This understanding is not explicitly exhibited on
the sketch. It is purely constructed by the human brain.
Such a drawing illustrates that probability
densities of interactions - which is what quantum mechanics expresses
for particles - can be apprehended by a human brain in some
circumstances. |
