Mathematics and Language 7

Marsigit Dr MA •  

@Marty: I just to grasp what is the kinds of your model. All mathematics concepts are kinds of models. So your model can be a concepts in which I should pursue to understand. Under pressure by uncertainty of your model, intuitively I found the solution i.e. about who and how the model (like yours) is to be constructed. Again, I found here that there are only two sides i.e subject and object of the model. You are my subject of your model; and I am your object of your model. This is exactly the same case of what happened in teaching learning of mathematics. So whatever of your model, the problem is who and how it is constructed. If you wish to develop your model to solve the problems of communicating mathematics, especially for younger learner, I worry that you use your own criteria as the indicators; while the object should follow your scheme. If it is true, I then found that you may being effort to build your own world as it tries to perform hegemony. I totally disagree with any effort of older people (power/capital) teacher/institution to dominate the younger (powerless) people. Pure mathematicians, powerful adult peoples as well as powerful interdisciplinary modelers have their potentiality to do hegemony. I may misunderstand with your points. If it did so, you need then make your clarifications or additional information. Further, my question is how the common people be able to develop such model contextually. Your sincerity may lead to uncover further enigmatic.

Marty Stoneman •  

@David -- My pseudonym (since about 1980) for a lot of my books/writing is “Rikki” (my wife, Jane, and I needed an identity which could be either gender and multi-cultural). One of Rikki’s websites is

www.persuasionpollution.com

and you may enjoy navigating the essays at that site, including the Hofstra pub.

You might also enjoy a taste of my early model-making by reading one of my patents for a system of making a story-telling doll or other humanoid robot.

http://www.patentdoc.com/PatentPDF/7885912.pdf

The overall model (of which there is no single “link”) includes motor skills training to make more of our non-conscious brain operation available before the 300ms or so it typically takes for the “conscious” cortex operation to be consciously “known” to us. I have found that such skills training, while usually uncomfortable “emotionally” to almost everyone, seems required to grok the overall model (and to avoid the kinds of “conditioning” at the heart of what I call “persuasion pollution”.).

Lastly, for now, I hope to find enough curiosity in someone out there to give me an example (whether about education, human behavior, human condition, whatever) of something(s) they want explained – and we’ll see how, if at all, my model would explain.

David Reid :

@Marty, thank you for the information in the links.
A more readable (and complete) version of your patent appears on
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,885,912.PN.&OS=PN/7,885,912&RS=PN/7,885,912
To see the images, a free plug-in must be installed; one may find this by going to "Help" at the bottom of that page.
I shall be reading over the patent more carefully later, but my initial impressions are: if you are getting rebuffed about the ideas here, you are simply going to the wrong sources. Obviously there are a lot of technical details (in further patents) that still need to be filled in before the patent could be tested, but in the meantime, there are agencies that look for guidelines towards which to work. The European Union has just given a large grant for the funding of the extension of the Blue Brain project, and there are many spin-offs from this endeavor. Secondly, once some of the steps have been further formalized, sections of your patent can be submitted to the ASL journals I mentioned in my last post, or similar ones, to spur the necessary further formalization by other contributors in the field. Thirdly, several Japanese firms have produced androids for the classroom, and are working on perfecting their models.
As to your other article, reduction of such "pollution" is indeed an ongoing research endeavor; perhaps you should link into some of these projects. As an example:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-can-be-tricked-into-reversing-their-opinions-on-morality&print=true
Finally, if you wish to find open problems on which to test your model, this is no problem: again, in the ASL journals, open questions are regularly posted, and solutions are invited. You could start with http://www.aslonline.org/index.htm . This is a more serious set of publications that the ones which produced such wonders as the Sokal affair, and there are different journals for the different aspects (some more formal, some more philosophical, etc.) They should be available at a decent university library near you (and subscriptions are affordable, with access to back issues online).

Marsigit Dr MA •  

@ Marty, very great and astonishing works on a widely interdisciplinary modeler of human cognitive behavior. Looking at Figure 3. In your model, I then try myself to behave as if I was a data and flowed in the Flowchart; while on the other hand, as a very new and stranger to your work, I strived to examine every single step of my position, using my prior knowledge and experiences of communication. First I felt rather inconvenience due to the model was something very new with also the new criteria; so I strive to fit myself in order to maintain flowing in the model. Next, I felt I lost something i.e. my intuitions and my habitual logic as well as my framework of consciousness and understanding. I found I felt inconvenience with your input and output system, due to my prior experiences have no single pattern of getting input to my communication as the data. My pattern is not a pattern; so in my communication I have a huge un-pattern zed input of data. I prefer to use intention rather than notice; and before knowledge I found my concept. In this stage I also lost my habit of abstracting and idealizing the ideas. I prefer to use perception than recognition. In the next step i.e. the box of decision, again I lost my intuition and I feel strange with the term of decision. I prefer to use judgment than decision; because the first is deeper than the second, while the second tend to be more mechanical. In your decision step I still looking for my something contingent and logical and intuition as well. So too many things for me to suit to your models because I also found that one part and other parts to some extent not in the rule of if-then pattern as you did. I found something holographic and not in a certain pattern; however, it depends of the context, culture and a greater dimensional of communication. In line with my experiences, I also found that there are a lot of unpredictable notions or actions of the younger learner in doing communication. In sum, I found your model be more mechanical and formal rather than psychological, anthropological and philosophical. I found in my life that our communication sometimes enter to normative and even spiritual dimension of communication. Further, I saw a little bit dangerous following your scheme i.e. simplification of communication or life; it leads to elimination of some aspects of human life. As you know I always confront to the case. I am an adult who try to be aware of every single step of communication as it is in your model; I then can not imagine if there are the younger learner who just follow the adults without any considerations. So apologize for my perceiving the model sometimes can be a trap of communication. This is my very early trying to understand of your model; however, I do very appreciate of your great works.