What seems ‘Easy’ and is Not
The subconceptual domain may seem ‘easy’ mainly for those who operate predominantly within a conceptual framework. On the other side, what comes out of this domain may seem magical, almost impossible, for the same people.
This is highly relevant as subconceptual influences, often underestimated, can have profound effects on our understanding and interactions in various fields. This leads to specific challenges — firstly, to convince primarily conceptual thinkers of the possibilities; secondly, to mitigate anxiety when they see actually (being bound to) happen ‘what cannot be.’
In art
This may lead some to incredulously see others appreciate art as of prime importance. Of course, something isn’t art by virtue of being called so. This makes it even more challenging since some may call anything ‘art’ and try to get by for reasons of standing and money.
When is ‘art’ art? Difficult to say. In any case, it’s about more than what is superficially observed.
In coaching
Excellent coaching has an aspect of ‘as by itself’ — very different from ‘by itself’ (being magic) but this may equally be challenging to appreciate.
Thus, one may look at the printout of a coaching session without appreciating anything that is really happening in that session.
It may happen invisibly — even to the coachee.
In developing A.I.
Concocting something that appears somehow ‘intelligent’ is enough for some to deem themselves ‘A.I. developers.’
This is crazy stuff – yet frequently encountered – and uncannily dangerous on top of that!
In combination
Unfortunately, many (most) A.I. developers have no clue about the human subconceptual domain. Thus, they think that, for instance, human-A.I. alignment is a simple question of the right decisions (‘easily’ made by philosophers or themselves) and developing some software to enact these.
Sorry, but that would be hilarious if it wouldn’t be an existential threat to humanity.
Into what seems to be ‘easy’ and is not.
Doing this, one quickly enters a highly complex field full of mines and booby traps — no problem if you know more or less what you’re doing, but… precisely. And sadly, this may lead, in many cases, to the wrong experts leading the conversations even at decision-making levels.
This deeply resonates with AURELIS’ philosophy of integrating rationality and human depth, emphasizing the necessity of a balanced approach that respects both the conceptual and subconceptual realms, ensuring a holistic view that avoids oversimplification and acknowledges the inherent complexity of human cognition and emotion.
We need to know first who we are, then what A.I. can be.
Nothing is ‘easy’ just by itself.
Related Posts
Towards an Integrated Science of Mind
For centuries, mind has been treated as exclusively human. Today, that assumption is increasingly questioned. But perhaps, instead of asking who has a mind, we may first need to ask what ‘mind’ is. An integrated science of mind begins not with boundaries, but with structure. It does not defend human uniqueness by exclusion. It seeks Read the full article…
The Big Mistake: Mere-Ego vs. Total Self
To me, this is the biggest possible mistake. Unfortunately, it is made ubiquitously and runs culturally deep. Please also read about Inner Dissociation – Ego – Total Self. I think, therefore, I am. [Dixit René Descartes, °1596] But who is the I who thinks, therefore, is? If this isn’t clear, the rest follows in obscurity. Read the full article…
It’s about the Symbols
Symbols, more than just representations, connect to deep-seated patterns of mental content. This underscores the profound influence symbols can have on our non-conscious mind and behavior. Fundamentally, humans are symbol processors. Often, we don’t consciously act as such, but it fundamentally shapes our behavior. This non-conscious processing can lead to seemingly irrational choices, driven by Read the full article…