GENIUS FORUMS

The topic refers to finding about the external behavior of something without knowing the internal construction. As an example if you are given a black box, which has an input and output you can try to develop an accurate model of the behavior by applying various inputs and observation of the outputs. The interesting part is to observe the thing objectively and not forcing preconceived ideas on the behavior, or in any case to correct the preconceptions pretty fast. Such a strategy is useful as while learning how to play a game, or a video game. The novice does not know the impact of various strokes or buttons but slowly develops such intuitions and becomes an expert at the game. One will get better as long as one is open to try out more and is not hemmed in by mistakes and preconceived notions. I also refer to this as a rule of thumb approach because one cannot gain very precise or rigorous information. One may not even get all possible outputs for inputs.

It seems to me that people who are interested about knowing (or effectively using) their "brain or mind" could well benefit from this black box testing approach to the problem. In each interaction and situation one tries to observe the input and the output, and slowly with patience develops a coherent view of the mind or brain. Note that this view is not a precise view in the sense of being able to express it mathematically or rigorously, it is more intuitive. In any case it seems to me that it is better to develop an intuitive model of the mind both emotional and rational in this fashion than to accept other ideas whether scientific or psychological(or mystical and philosophical for that matter). One immediate benefit is the control that this method gives you over the "mind", the difference is like reading how to swim and to go out and swim. Another great benefit is that the current scientific and psychological theories are still in their infancy and subject to great revisions, the rule of thumb approach will save one from a great wastage of time trying to harmonize a conflict between the theoretical and the real.

I welcome other people's opinions on this idea.
Ankit

Well, no learning can take place if you're cut off the effects of mistakes, so, mistakes have value. Maybe what you mean is you shouldn't be too concerned about success while in a learning phase.

This is just what I thought initially. Overall it's a cool little ditty about the learning process!

I think this black box approach is what we all do anyway, including science, quite naturally.

The more unnecessary assumptions you make, the less effective you will be. A poor scientist will make many unnecessary assumptions (eg, theoretical assumptions).

As Kevin noted this is the scientific/empirical approach.

Unfortunately people do not seem to apply such an approach to the mental world. For example while experiencing a negative mental state they do not attempt to arrive at a clear understanding of the whole process, but blame someone or something or try to escape. So I would not say this is very natural, though of course it is very logical/practical.

This is the difference between being reactive and reflective. The trouble is our ego's natural functioning is so tied to the external that we tend to automtically look there for causation. This is why at this site we concentrate on the importance of things like consciousness and rationality and also the constructs of the feminine and masculine dimensions of mind. When you live a visceral life embedded in the immediacy of one's engagement with the external world, one is bound to always look there for the explanation/causes of one's negative experiences. But in fact, it isn't just our negative experiences; it's our positive ones as well, which is why we tend to look to the external as a means to supply our wellbeing.

It's essentially the difference between being conscious and unconscious.


Dan Rowden