March 23, 2011
[Adapted from notes I wrote long ago.] The balance of keeping things fair now and adaptable for the future is hard. One could say there are two opposing forces. One that wants steadfast rules that explain how one should act. The other is the desire to be able to adapt to any change. One tries to fit new data into old ideas. The other says any rule will limit or be irrelevant to the future. In either case, its human nature to do both. Are the ideas that succeed at this balance the ones that survive?
This an example of something that’s been in my mind for a long time. Basically our mind tries to figure out patterns, I suppose mostly to predict things. And in that, there are two sometimes opposing ways of analyzing new experiences. I’m thinking we ask does any new experience it fit to an existing pattern, or is part of a new pattern.
Or more simply, with new data do we ask is it the same or different then other data. We have to look for both similarities and differences at the same time.
I think a large part of our emotional nature is when we have desires for one or the other. Then we don’t want to really see with open eyes. We want to have the conclusion without the experience to support it.