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
The Sea of Mental Depth
This blog is an invitation to feel – not merely to think about – the vast inner sea that lives within each of us. It is as close as breath and yet often seems unreachable. We walk with it, talk over it, build our lives beside it. And still, many know almost nothing about it. Read the full article…
Vagueness of Mind
We live and think in fog. Our most cherished inner notions – like love, self, or meaning – resist precise definition, even though we rely on them every day. This isn’t a failure of thought. It’s something deeper. Vagueness isn’t a problem but rather a subtle language of the mind — something ancient, dynamic, and Read the full article…
Our Memory is Our Thinking
Researchers used to think that human memory was an altogether different function from thinking, deciding, problem solving, etc. Not anymore. —Additionally, memory is also actively related to the act of perceiving. There are many functionally different brain parts, but they continually act together toward final results. The computer analogy From the start, digital computer guys Read the full article…