us.graph.md - thinking

E1: The objective of this Mind Complex series is to organize the bases of ideas that make up Simple Mind as a guide to applied reasoning at the level of excellence in human performance. “The unique development of the character provides the ideal elements, strategically placed within a dysfunctional family, to demonstrate how divine beings fall from grace in inhospitable environments.” The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky

E2: Definition of the basic behavior of the cells of the system. How each element behaves in the interaction. Note that the connecting elements are not taken into account here, only the automaton interacting through its primary function with the whole.

E3: Later, we developed the idea of several elements with the same function performing the same task, but realizing that there will be variability in each same action linked to the place and time in which each cell performs its function.

E4: Basic functions should not be understood as simple. If we think about the physiology of mitochondria, we will have primary functions being performed at all times. Thinking analogously, part of the functions of the Krebs cycle are their responsibility. In other functions, the mitochondria are only impacted. Therefore, thinking elementary does not mean thinking in isolation. But rather, trying to define the limits of functions. We will call this process of organizing thought levels of abstraction.

E5: Numerous methodologies work with non-explicit levels of abstraction. Here we use the strategy of absolute truth. We will always try to show the fundamental element of the idea. The truth is that there are few original arguments, and all we need to do is explain and organize the ideas of great thinkers and show them in the simplest way possible. At this point, you may be sad, thinking that you will never have any original ideas in your life and that a person over 2 thousand years ago in extremely adverse conditions thought of something that you will never think of with all the knowledge that exists today. In the same way, you can be happy: thinking that no one, absolutely no one, has your experience. And that only you can have your thoughts, no one else.

E6: There is no synergetic organization like your reasoning as it is now, and there will never be another like it. Consider that the great masters did not want to be, they just were. Same biological construction, same physical conception, and same living conditions, within the same planet. Many wasted their efforts with disorganized thoughts and a few sought a more satisfactory mental organization to contribute. By analogy, the following generations distorted the elementary model of thought by thinking about its result and not about its behavior.

E7: Apart from Jean-Paul Sartre, I do not know of any other person who would not like to receive this noble distinction which is the Nobel Prize. On the other hand, I do not know of anyone who would give up their precious life to win it, not even the actual winners, who wasted their lives observing repetitive behaviors through their microscopes day after day and taking endless notes whose destination was certainly the trash can, as if they were mining for pearls of knowledge. The paradox exposed: Those who want to be, are not! Those who are, do not want to be! Just do the best within your essence, and thus, achieve your excellence!

E8: How can we think elementary about a complex system? By changing the point of view and constantly redefining the levels of abstraction. Clearing any decontextualized information with each defined element. Let's think that there is no right or wrong. As an example, we can use the following figure of speech: Each geneticist will build a biological being with specific characteristics. The sum of the parts will build the whole. Within this construction, the sophistication of human beings is to have not only genetic definitions but also phenotypic ones. Currently, this relationship is being studied with greater interest, since genetics already has elements that can be changed according to the phenotypic one. In other words, we are built to adapt to different environments with the refinement of a unique variability within a universe of billions. Even identical twins have enormous variability from a clinical point of view; a medicine for a certain disease may not have the same effect on others, considering that both have the same symptoms.

E9: The paradox is that thinking in an elementary way does not mean thinking in isolation. Rather, what function does this cell have as a whole without, on the other hand, connecting it to the system? The basic idea is that the sum of the organic elements of a given being generates its life. Isolated, they continue to be elements, but together they are a single being. The element itself already has its complexity, we must be careful not to make the mistake of transferring the fundamental elements that make up our complex system to relationships. The connections must be treated in parallel and are complementary to the elements. A relationship of partial elements generates codependency, which is not a good relationship for either party.

E10: Thinking in an elementary way defines the construction of the whole. In the case of Dimitri (Mitia) Karamazov, the blame is attributed to himself, with his brother having made the statement that exonerated him. This was annulled because the brother was considered, at the time of the said statement, to be out of his normal state. In addition to the truth that Mitia was innocent, there was no legal alternative that would free him from the crime he did not commit. In this extreme case proposed by the author, our antihero ends up becoming guilty, therefore, of a crime he did not commit. All the elements were incorporated into the narrative for this purpose. A perfect example of what not to do to define elementary thoughts. Adverse conditions that lead individuals to find justifications to fill emotional and social gaps, without due care for the whole, built a classic case in world literature. For us, used as a counterexample of what Simple Elementary Mind thinking should be.

E1: Victor Hugo's Les Misérables. We will use as an analogy the idea of the human body: atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, organs, and systems. An element can connect with its peers, but for a better understanding of its function, we can group them under certain labels, such as those of an organism. Note that these classificatory definitions considerably reduce the number of relationships in a model. This reduction is based on the level of abstraction.

E3: Thinking about connecting, therefore, is not thinking about relating elements, but rather, grouping them by properties. The difficulty in this case is that one can use properties, direct relations, and/or related classificatory concepts to explain a model. But the impact of their use is different. Without defined parameters in the construction of the model, the developed software ends up following fragmented behaviors without any defined order or rules in its construction.

E4: Fortunately, some designers have obtained very satisfactory results, with abstract models that follow the compartmentalized structure of what would be the anatomical and physiological structure of the virtualized human being with different labels, but that follow the same pattern of mental definition proposed by biologists.

E5: There are two types of distance for classifying objects related to a given event. Temporal distance and location. Both have been widely used since the beginning of computing to build modern computer caches. When a memory is accessed, it is classified into these two aspects with two simple perspectives. The entire region is always searched and not just the memory specifically requested. Likewise, when a memory is accessed, it remains in the cache, since it is very likely that it will be accessed in a short period. Unfortunately, these two concepts are not widely used in the construction of models of system entities and processes. E6: In the case of a complex system, these concepts should be encouraged to create connections (classify elements) that capture more complex events, maintaining a relative temporal and spatial boundary from the point of view of their recording. Simple information to make a sale is name, date, value, and product.

E7: Complex information would be related to people's physiological and psychological data: heart rate, blood pressure, dopamine level, anxiety, compulsion level, etc. Moving away from the common sense of ERP software, we have information that is no longer limited to events.

E8: A cardiologist wants to do a cross-sectional analysis of his patient's heartbeats. A nutritionist and/or psychologist may want to know his patient's dopamine level over time. Thus, connections are not limited to obvious events. Specific events now become part of more complex cross-sectional events. Furthermore, it is considered that there is only an approximation of the truth in the attribution (definition and/or inference) of concepts to events. E9: In the book “Les Misérables” the author promotes two definitive reflections in his magical work on connection: The inexplicable connection we have with some people; and the connection with our actions, throughout life, which end up defining us as people. Developing the idea, the Author demonstrates that we can only connect with others when we are connected with ourselves.

E10: The central milestone of this idea, which synchronizes these two types of connection, is the moment when the main character tells the truth before the judge, leading to a sequence of unusual events in search of the evolution of the spirit! At that moment, human connection would not be possible if there were not in his being a sense of truth that could no longer coexist with lies. Let us remember the end of Socrates' question at the moment of his death: is it enough to know who the miserables were?!

Why are there endless activities assigned to your name within an office, within a company, so that the owner can get rich? And time has passed. The grand prize has ended and only now have we realized that we were not inside the cockpit but rather on the side of the track with a yellow flag that didn't even need to be raised, but we need guidance, from people with more experience in the path we want to follow. Yes, but that means you need someone to tell you the basics of life training. All people who practice a certain sport, especially amateur athletes, have almost the same information as professional Olympic-level athletes. Small strategic adjustments based more on the perception of coaches make the difference between gold, silver, or bronze. So, then, the standard is 8 a.m. to press Button B on Screen S to place Order O. The day goes on and at 6 p.m. we are in a cycle of temporal deja vu: press Button B(n) on Screen S(n) to place Order O(n). Endless mindless cycles in search of more money that will inevitably be spent seeking to regain the health that we waste in this meaningless routine.

Anyone older than that knows that success and money are ephemeral. A lifetime to achieve and a moment to lose! Knowledge is not like that. A lifetime not to achieve and infinite moments to share. Whenever we read a classic by a genius, it doesn't matter if it was the emperor of Rome or the exiled incarcerated. The ideas are timeless. I believe that the definition of genius is always centered on the timelessness of thoughts, which remain lucid for hundreds, and sometimes thousands of years. But here it is worth inserting an important element, even Rousseau, in his works (identical twins) Émile and Education and the Social Contract: It presents an irritatingly sad machismo. The master places women in a secondary role. It is up to scholars to enlighten us about the extremely positive aspects of historical thought that allowed the significant evolution of society after this genius, as well as others of his kind, most likely from some distant and evolved place that we do not know of! What is the point, even the genius limited himself to his reality to give vent to his primordial reasoning. Having to read the foundation of education in one line, and the other a sexist phrase. A fact that bothers us, if we do not think about the disruptive role that this brain was playing, in freeing himself from the shackles to propose a new educational and social concept that defines modern society. Can we invalidate the most sophisticated educational concepts that a person has ever written before and after the publication of these two works up to the present moment? To avoid meaningless discussions, at least similar ideas from some author, that you may eventually be thinking about, no more than the extremely assertive thoughts of Rousseau, without even considering the technical and scientific advancement that a researcher has today do not come close to the enlightened thoughts of the great masters. It seems far-fetched to talk about a classic work considering my day job! All the reasoning we are having now also goes through the limitation of what the world allows us to think! Any moment of rupture is fundamental! On the other hand, no form of thought is clean and sanitized enough to free us from limiting thoughts imposed by society, such as Rousseau's machismo.

get in touch

contact@graph.md to get more information on graph md points of view.

Av. João Pessoa, 731 - Sala 802 - Cep: 90.040-000 - Porto Alegre, Brazil