... when context is rich enough we can read another person's mind. A good example of this is the punchline.
A comedian takes time to set up the context ... with narration, with repetition, with tone of voice, with body language .... They will use every trick in the book to draw you along. Then, when they sense that you are ready, bam! they deliver the punchline.
See also Mind reading
Tuesday, October 11, 2016
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Pavlov's dogs
Pavlov trained his dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell.
He did this first by offering food to the dogs at the same time as he rang the bell.
After the dogs had gotten used to this he withdrew the food.
The dogs still salivated at the sound of the bell.
---
The dogs never asked, why no food this time with the bell?
Should they ask?
They should. It's a new clue!
He did this first by offering food to the dogs at the same time as he rang the bell.
After the dogs had gotten used to this he withdrew the food.
The dogs still salivated at the sound of the bell.
---
The dogs never asked, why no food this time with the bell?
Should they ask?
They should. It's a new clue!
A curious bunch
Codebreakers are a curious bunch. Where people see nonsense, they suspect hidden messages. So they wade in. Sometimes they find what they are looking for; sometimes not.
Babies are codebreakers; they are also curious. Why are these grown-ups waving their arms and nodding their heads and making all these noises? Are they trying to tell me something?
Curiosity kills the cat. Should we be curious? Should we play Sherlock Holmes?
During the Scientific Revolution one of the hurdle scientists had to face was the argument, if God had meant us to know all these things scientists were trying to find out, He would have told us. What the scientists were doing, they say, was blasphemous.
Babies are codebreakers; they are also curious. Why are these grown-ups waving their arms and nodding their heads and making all these noises? Are they trying to tell me something?
Curiosity kills the cat. Should we be curious? Should we play Sherlock Holmes?
'My name is Sherlock Holmes. It is my business to know what other people don't know.'
Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle
During the Scientific Revolution one of the hurdle scientists had to face was the argument, if God had meant us to know all these things scientists were trying to find out, He would have told us. What the scientists were doing, they say, was blasphemous.
Monday, October 3, 2016
Mistakes to be corrected ASAP
Hidden mistakes--whether single or multiple--are difficult to correct.
Normal mistakes are easier. But this assume we would take the trouble.
Unfortunately, human beings being what they are, sometimes they don't take the trouble. Normal mistakes are left to accumulate, untouched, until they become hidden mistakes.
Those interested in playing Sherlock Holmes would do well to pick up some of those customs and habits--and there are many of them--that would make it possible for mistakes to be corrected as soon as possible.
One suggestion from Sherlock Holmes himself:
Sherlock Holmes lives in a country where there is a long tradition of critical discussions. In such a society you only need to state a case and there are bound to be lots of critics to tell you where your mistakes are.
Normal mistakes are easier. But this assume we would take the trouble.
Unfortunately, human beings being what they are, sometimes they don't take the trouble. Normal mistakes are left to accumulate, untouched, until they become hidden mistakes.
Those interested in playing Sherlock Holmes would do well to pick up some of those customs and habits--and there are many of them--that would make it possible for mistakes to be corrected as soon as possible.
One suggestion from Sherlock Holmes himself:
'Nothing clears up a case so much as stating it to another person.'
Sherlock Holmes, Silver Blaze
Sherlock Holmes lives in a country where there is a long tradition of critical discussions. In such a society you only need to state a case and there are bound to be lots of critics to tell you where your mistakes are.
Correcting mistakes
In following clues it is easy to make mistakes. For this reason correcting mistakes is a major concern in an investigation.
But this is not necessarily an easy task. After all, we are working in the dark; we don't know yet what the truth is. Which has prompted some to ask, if we don't know what is true, how do we know what is false?
There are three kinds of mistakes when following clues:
Normal mistakes
I call those mistakes 'normal' which can be corrected in the normal course of an investigation. In an investigation it is normal to review often what we have done. One of the purposes of such review is to to correct mistakes. For example, we might have been too hasty in pinning our suspicion on the stable boy as the chief culprit in the commission of the crime. Now evidence has surfaced that he might be innocent. Under such circumstances we will have to re-appraise the investigation as we have carried it out so far. We will have to ask, what other suspects have we left out?
Hidden mistake, single
When we make serious mistakes, our investigation will come to a halt; progress will become impossible; clues will dry up and we don't know where to turn. We review what we have done but there is no obvious mistake. What mistakes there are, must be well hidden, we say to ourselves.
What do we do?
The common practice is to retrace our steps and re-do them one by one, starting with the most recent. If the investigation is able to resume after a step has been re-done, we have corrected the mistake.
Hidden mistakes, multiple
When we suspect hidden mistakes, we usually suspect there is only one. When there is only one, we can correct it by retracing our steps.
What if there is more than one?
We will have to re-do the whole investigation!
But this is not necessarily an easy task. After all, we are working in the dark; we don't know yet what the truth is. Which has prompted some to ask, if we don't know what is true, how do we know what is false?
There are three kinds of mistakes when following clues:
- Normal
- Hidden, single
- Hidden, multiple
Normal mistakes
I call those mistakes 'normal' which can be corrected in the normal course of an investigation. In an investigation it is normal to review often what we have done. One of the purposes of such review is to to correct mistakes. For example, we might have been too hasty in pinning our suspicion on the stable boy as the chief culprit in the commission of the crime. Now evidence has surfaced that he might be innocent. Under such circumstances we will have to re-appraise the investigation as we have carried it out so far. We will have to ask, what other suspects have we left out?
Hidden mistake, single
When we make serious mistakes, our investigation will come to a halt; progress will become impossible; clues will dry up and we don't know where to turn. We review what we have done but there is no obvious mistake. What mistakes there are, must be well hidden, we say to ourselves.
What do we do?
The common practice is to retrace our steps and re-do them one by one, starting with the most recent. If the investigation is able to resume after a step has been re-done, we have corrected the mistake.
Hidden mistakes, multiple
When we suspect hidden mistakes, we usually suspect there is only one. When there is only one, we can correct it by retracing our steps.
What if there is more than one?
We will have to re-do the whole investigation!
Easy to make mistakes
Following clues is a complex business. It is easy to make mistakes. After all, we are working in the dark.
Does Sherlock Holmes make mistakes? He would be the first person to tell you that he does. In Silver Blaze he says,
The Art of Detection is a complex art. It is not one in which anyone can claim to have reached perfection. Sherlock Holmes, a dedicated student of this Art, points out ...
Does Sherlock Holmes make mistakes? He would be the first person to tell you that he does. In Silver Blaze he says,
… I made a blunder, my dear Watson--which is, I am afraid, a more common occurrence than anyone would think who only knew me through your memoirs.
The Art of Detection is a complex art. It is not one in which anyone can claim to have reached perfection. Sherlock Holmes, a dedicated student of this Art, points out ...
Like all other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study, nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it.
--Sherlock Holmes, A study in Scarlet
Surrounded
We are surrounded by structures.
There are structures within structures.
There are structures sprouting out in all directions--nay, in n-dimensions.
There is so much for humans to find out.
Unfortunately, we can only focus on a few.
There are structures within structures.
There are structures sprouting out in all directions--nay, in n-dimensions.
There is so much for humans to find out.
Unfortunately, we can only focus on a few.
Three fronts
When we follow clues we advance on three fronts.
We gather evidence (for example, footprints).
We interpret the evidence (whose footprints?).
We construct theory (re-create the crime).
We gather evidence (for example, footprints).
We interpret the evidence (whose footprints?).
We construct theory (re-create the crime).
We don't do this sequentially but in parallel, as opportunity affords. And while these three fronts are advancing more or less in parallel they influence each other; they provide feedback for each other.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
How to develop new clues
In investigations we need evidence. The evidence we have to start with is usually not sufficient so that we will have to look for more. To determine whether a new, suspected piece of evidence is relevant we apply the theory we are developing to it to see if it can be partially deciphered. If it can, and moreover leaves only a small gap, we have in that small gap a new clue.
So, in investigations we look for evidence. We apply any theory we have developed to the evidence. In doing so, if fortune smiles on us, we develop new clues.
To make it easier for fortune to smile on us we gather as much evidence as we can.
Example:
There is a ten letter word in the new piece of evidence. Nine of the ten letters we already know. These nine letters then is a clue to the tenth. And it is a new clue since we could not decipher it based on former evidence.
So, in investigations we look for evidence. We apply any theory we have developed to the evidence. In doing so, if fortune smiles on us, we develop new clues.
To make it easier for fortune to smile on us we gather as much evidence as we can.
Relevant evidence
To solve a crime; to carry out any kind of investigation; we need evidence. In cracking a cipher the cryptogram is the evidence. This evidence leads us to the conclusion that the hidden message is such and such.
Suppose that in cracking a cipher, half way through we find we do not have enough evidence; the cryptogram is too short.
So we look for more evidence ...
By 'evidence' we mean of course 'relevant evidence'. How do we determine that we have found relevant evidence?
In cracking a cipher, we cannot take just any suspicious-looking scribbling as evidence for the cipher we are cracking. When we say we need more evidence, we mean we need more from the same cipher.
Suppose we now find some more scribbling. It looks like the old scribbling. But is it from the same cipher?
How do we tell?
This is what we do. The original scribbling has allowed us to recover part of the cipher. We now apply the part of the cipher we already know to the new scribbling, to see if it can be partially deciphered. If it can, we have discovered new evidence; the new scribbling is from the same cipher.
Strange but true:
When we are looking for new evidence, we do not do so with an empty mind to assure theory-neutrality. Instead, we interpret the new evidence according to the theory we are in the process of developing.
Suppose that in cracking a cipher, half way through we find we do not have enough evidence; the cryptogram is too short.
So we look for more evidence ...
By 'evidence' we mean of course 'relevant evidence'. How do we determine that we have found relevant evidence?
In cracking a cipher, we cannot take just any suspicious-looking scribbling as evidence for the cipher we are cracking. When we say we need more evidence, we mean we need more from the same cipher.
Suppose we now find some more scribbling. It looks like the old scribbling. But is it from the same cipher?
How do we tell?
This is what we do. The original scribbling has allowed us to recover part of the cipher. We now apply the part of the cipher we already know to the new scribbling, to see if it can be partially deciphered. If it can, we have discovered new evidence; the new scribbling is from the same cipher.
Strange but true:
When we are looking for new evidence, we do not do so with an empty mind to assure theory-neutrality. Instead, we interpret the new evidence according to the theory we are in the process of developing.
Direct experience
To a lot of people direct experience is more certain than conclusions arrived at by following clues. To them inferring that the butler is innocent can never be more certain than actually seeing the butler shoot the victim.
To detectives the reverse is the case: direct experience is open to doubt; which can only be resolved by following clues. Yes, the butler was shooting at the victim but clues told us the victim was dead before he was shot.
To detectives the reverse is the case: direct experience is open to doubt; which can only be resolved by following clues. Yes, the butler was shooting at the victim but clues told us the victim was dead before he was shot.
Eyewitnesses
Eyewitnesses to the same event often contradict each other. How do we find out who is correct (if any)?
We can find out only by following clues, that is, by playing Sherlock Holmes. If there are not enough clues to decide, we will have to find more.
Detectives have to be suspicious if they are to be good at their job. It is not just that people sometimes lie but even well-intentioned people sometimes make mistakes. From experience detectives have learnt it is best to take everything with a grain of salt. Listen to what people have to say; see what 'evidence' you can find; but decide whom to trust and what evidence to take as genuine only after the investigation, not before.
We can find out only by following clues, that is, by playing Sherlock Holmes. If there are not enough clues to decide, we will have to find more.
Detectives have to be suspicious if they are to be good at their job. It is not just that people sometimes lie but even well-intentioned people sometimes make mistakes. From experience detectives have learnt it is best to take everything with a grain of salt. Listen to what people have to say; see what 'evidence' you can find; but decide whom to trust and what evidence to take as genuine only after the investigation, not before.
Saturday, October 1, 2016
What should we do when we play Sherlock Holmes?
We should develop new clues from old. For, if new clues do appear, it means we have interpreted the old clues correctly.
Clues enable us both to discover and to evaluate. Clues do not just suggest theories which we then evaluate separately, as is commonly thought. Clues can lead to new clues. When they do, we know we are moving in the right direction.
This is to say, the context of discovery is also the context of evaluation. The two are one and the same.
Clues enable us both to discover and to evaluate. Clues do not just suggest theories which we then evaluate separately, as is commonly thought. Clues can lead to new clues. When they do, we know we are moving in the right direction.
This is to say, the context of discovery is also the context of evaluation. The two are one and the same.
Descartes on confessions
According to Descartes--who is sometimes called the Father of Modern Philosophy--there is no alternative besides confessions even if they are sometimes false. If we are to have any knowledge at all, he thinks ultimately we have to rely on confessions. Not, however, the confessions of just anybody, but God’s. What God lets us apprehend clearly and distinctly, Descartes says, must be true. This is the way God has chosen. Of course, He could have chosen otherwise but faith, Descartes says, requires us to believe He has not.
Human Rights
By introducing the theseological method to crime investigation, Sherlock Holmes has contributed to the advancement of human rights.
Once upon a time to catch criminals the common practice was not to follow clues, but to round up likely and not-so-likely suspects and torture them until they confess. Torture often produces false confessions besides being an affront to human rights.
See also Do Criminals have to Confess
Once upon a time to catch criminals the common practice was not to follow clues, but to round up likely and not-so-likely suspects and torture them until they confess. Torture often produces false confessions besides being an affront to human rights.
See also Do Criminals have to Confess
Mind Reading
In playing Sherlock Holmes we follow clues. Some clues are simple, so simple that we all know how to make sense of them. Who for example is not able to correct a typographical error? But what are we doing when correcting typographical mistakes? We are relying on context for clues; context tells us how the mistake should be corrected. Now we depend on context not just in correcting typographical errors but in filling in missing knowledge in other kinds of instances. When context is rich enough we can figure out what is in a person’s mind without that person telling us; we have all done this frequently enough with people we know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)