CZ:Cold Storage/Conceptual integration technique

This is a description of techniques for conceptual integration. Look for articles on Conceptual integration and Plausible science.

Introduction

The process of integration, leading to the formulation of a new, more plausible hypothesis, is part of the induction process, which is still unconscious and inaccessible for conscious reasoning.

The integration process is the elaboration of a new, more general hypothesis out of some particular hypotheses with limited applicability.

Because it is still largely unconscious, this process can not yet be described in detail, not yet operationalized, and not yet programmed for a computer. All computers are still deductive up to now, although when the possibilities are limited, a pseudo-inductive routine can be elaborated.

But although we can't yet describe the process in detail, we can identify several subphases, making the theoretical challenge more realistic, and perhaps coming closer to the long expected discovery of an Inductive Logic. We also will offer some auxiliary tools to enhance this subconscious integrative process.

Spontaneous induction

Our brain enables us, and, in fact, stimulates us, to make spontaneous generalizations, i.e. formulating explanatory hypotheses generated from the observation of analogous or related phenomena. Why and how the brain does so is discussed elsewhere. But two factors are limiting the probability for spontaneous generalizations to be exact and scientifically true:

(1) our normal observations are mostly limited to restricted number of applications

(2) in the field of alpha sciences ( = Arts and Philosophy, Law, Economics and Business Administration, Psychology and Educational Sciences, Political and Social Sciences) we still lack tools for exact measurement and the possibility to do experiments, two essential conditions for classical science.

We can expect that most of those spontaneously induced hypotheses are highly vague, incorrect, and indeed subjective (closely linked to our limited observation position).

This inability to observe details that could render the hypothesis more correct, yields hypotheses that, apart from a true (but unobservable) essence or kernel, consist of too generalized or too specific exaggerations. These superfluous aspects are called eductions.

Example. A teacher observes a pupil that is often absent-minded, and even plays during the course. He concludes that this pupil is not enough mature for this class, and should be helped by doing the year over. But should the teacher know that this pupil is highly gifted, he should better understand why he is so often absent-minded, and should rather be helped by jumping one year. In this example, the eduction consists in the assumption that this pupil will be absent-minded in all circumstances.

But if several observers perceive the same phenomena from different experiential observation points, we could expect that their eductions should be different, and that by a laborious work of comparison and reformulation, they could extract the kernel, the essence, thus developing a much more refined and plausible hypothesis.

Example. One of the teachers in the class is giving rather difficult lessons about a very demanding topic, and observes that the often absent-minded pupil becomes very interested and participating and excels in resolving difficult problems. He concludes, equally inexactly, that this a very excellent pupil, well adapted to the intellectual level of the teachings.

The integration technique tries intelligently to combine apparently irreconcilable hypotheses, by reformulating and adding nuances, decreasing the eductions (i.e. performing a retroduction), thus enabling the elaboration of a more plausible hypothesis.

Symbolic description

We can describe the integration procedure symbolically

Let's consider two statements, A en B. They seem irreconcilable, and <> symbolizes this incongruence:

A <> B

But let's suppose that, most probably, both observers were sufficiently intelligent not to be completely wrong, and were observing different situations: different factors elicited different behaviors in the same object. So the different perceptions of the same object are in fact compatible, save for the exaggerate generalization (eduction), unconsciously made in the absence of correcting phenomena, thus making the statements unnecessarily incompatible.

The solution is that both observers retroduce their statements, by adding nuances or limiting conditions, making an integration possible.

Let's symbolize the kernel by #, and symbolize the retroducing process by Ψ

Ψ(A) = A#
Ψ(B) = B#

Let's symbolize integration by Ω, than

Ω(A,B) = {A#B#}

The integration techniques

A practical description of tools to perform conceptual integrations.

Direct techniques

Ideally we should have an operationalized integration paradigm to our disposal, to perform direct integrations starting with conflicting hypotheses. Unfortunately, at this point in the development of science, such direct integrative tools are still lacking. Integration remains a procedure, performed by our Unconscious. Examples are the creation of Art, and inventions in general, even scientific. The traditional scientific tools are only able to check or to falsify proposed hypotheses, that were developed unconsciously. Science is the conscious control of hypotheses, developed by the unconscious.

Of course, afterwards we can try to reconstruct the way intellectual creations were made. E.g. we can make theories about the music of Bach, Mozart, and the way these musical styles developed, often from other sources and influences. Or the development of jazz, from Afro-American musical traditions and European classical music. But even that is usually very difficult. Even Einstein, making an integration of Newton's theories and recent observations conflicting with those theories, was unable to explain how he made his new theory.

Indirect techniques

The unavailability of direct techniques doesn't mean we are unable to forge integrations. We have a large number of methods to our disposal, that enhance the probability that our Unconscious will spontaneously develop new integrative hypotheses, and even applications based upon those unconscious hypotheses.

We will discuss here (A) some basic principles, and (B) some applied techniques

Basic Principles

Those principles can be grouped in at least two sections: (1) Mental attitudes, (2) Feeding inspiration

(1) Mental attitudes enhancing spontaneous integration

These are kind of beliefs, i.e. not yet proved (and hence easily refutable) convictions that new and better hypotheses can be developed, by us and by others. Of course, each conviction has to be formulated in a statistical way. These convictions don't necessarily ensure successful integrations, but maximize the probability to perform ones.

• (Nearly) always, even here and now, better insights and inventions can be realized
• I am (very often) able to perform such new insights
• A hypothesis, made by someone else and apparently conflicting with mine, has (nearly always) a valuable and irrefutable kernel
• Every conflict is a false conflict. An integration can (nearly) always be made (even if this consumes sometimes much effort and time)
• Experience, age, hierarchical position, academic degree and formerly made inventions (nearly) never coincide with creative productivity.
• Inspiration by observing other people performing creative work not only gives us new ideas, but boosts our mental attitudes
• A number of psychological factors doubtlessly contribute to develop a creative, integrative attitude. Even the IQ doesn't seem the major factor, as illustrated by Emotional Intelligence. <ref>http://www.eiconsortium.org/measures/eqi.htm

Application. Statistically speaking younger, non-academic etc. people make more (integrative) inventions than people supposed to do so by their age, diploma, etc. Perhaps partly because these mental attitudes are part of their natural confidence.

(2) Feeding inspiration by contrasting experiences

Although most probably several inspiring factors contribute to the occurrence of integration and progress, one of the major factors seems to be the exposure to contrasting experiences. Explanations for this phenomenon include

• discovering the relativity of local traditions, considered as universal and eternal
• discovering the explanation limits of one's own system, by observing the possibilities of unexpected variants
• the invitation to combine "the best of two worlds"

Some traditional examples are

• Hippocrates, who traveled years through the neighboring countries to study local medical treatments, before starting developing his own theories and practices
• Antique Alexandria, a meeting point of Egyptian mysticism and Greek rationalism, Jewish confidence and Babylonian science, developing an impressive amount of progressive sciences, ranging form philosophy and mathematics to geometry and applied physics
• The invention jazz by a cultural crossing of Afro-American rhythm and improvisation, with European musical harmony

Some applied techniques

To perform this integration, several methods seem useful:

- Each observer can be placed in the situation of the other observer, and discover that his statement needs some more nuance. - The observers can communicate their different approach to each other, believe each other, and by empathy understand the limits of their own experience, and make together an integrative hypothesis satisfying both of them. - One observer can accept the apparent contradictory statements as complementary, and try to formulate an integration.

5. Auxiliary methods

The intuitive integration probably will be inspired by analogies, and especially by analogies with fundamental features of reality described by the General Systems Theory, and assisted by inductive Logics.

In another article, several auxiliary tools to enhance intuitive integration, are described.

Primitive forms of Integrative Thinking

1. Introduction

If we consider the ways of thinking humans used in history, some difficult questions arise

- During Renaissance, the scientific method of thinking emerged, claiming that a hypothesis only could be accepted as "true" if experimental ebidence cam to support it. How do we explain that, before this time, so much exact science was developed, including Greek mathematics and science, Egyptian and Assyrian geometry, architecture and astronomy. How could, ironically, such a inexact way of thinking, typical for the so-called Dark Middle Ages, develop the laws of exact scientific reasoning?

- What's the difference between Aristotelian dualism and Cartesian dualism?

- Was thinking with revelated insight really so naive and so stupid?

These questions could perhaps receive a beginning of an answer with the following considerations.

2. Intuition and "Revelation" as a primitive form of integration

One could perhaps consider that those "primitive", "unscientific" forms of thinking were in fact kinds of integrative thinking. The most important condition for integrative thinking, i.e. a general knowledge of multiple fields of human experience, was fulfilled. The ancient philosphers, unless nowadays scientists, appeared to be experienced in many diverse "sciences", ranging from mathematics to architecture and the art of war making, from music to medicine, passing through law, politics and astronomy, all in one person. The notion of homo universalis,[3] i.e. someone who knows "everything", was a high ranking qualification until the 17th and even the 18th century. Blaise Pascal (1623-62) is renown as the "last" homo universalis, although I should tend to qualify Teilhard as a modern homo universalis.

This very general, universal intellectual development is a fertile source for integrative thinking. From such a diversified experience and knowledge, the philosopher-scientist tries to formulate for himself hypotheses that fit with his experiences. The control for the validity of such a hypothesis is his intuitive certitude that all important data are explained. The same phenomenon probably occurs with a successful artist: he "feels" that his creations are "right", i.e. an intregration between a series of good separate ideas.

The step from such an intuition towards the honest conviction that one is enlighted by divine revelation, is not far.

The thinking error is not that one conceives such intuitive integartions as plausible, but as absolutely true, because God can't lie.

3. The scientific method of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

The notion of thought or consciousness moving along a continuum of ever increasing plausibility seems to be compatible with Teilhard de Chardin's view that thought or consciousness gropes its way forward from one approximate conception of reality to another with, on average, later cognitional approximations being more accurate that earlier ones. In this regard, the French Jesuit writes: 'Consciousness, we know, does no more than grope its way forward, one approximation following upon another.' [4] And elsewhere, in a not dissimilar vein, he remarks that 'the history of the living world can be summarised as the elaboration of ever more perfect eyes within a cosmos in which there is always something more to be seen.' [5] Whether these eyes are those of the body or of the mind, their function is always 'to try to see more and better' [6]. So, Teilhard, here, does seem to be, at least in part, talking about consciousness at the thinking level, ever groping it's way, by means of increasingly plausible cognitions, away from falsity towards truth.

Hence I believe that Teilhard was, in large measure, an integrative thinker and theoriser. In this connection, in an essay of his, we read:

'What I wish to offer here is the outcome of my own thinking, expressed in a simple and clarified form so that everyone may be able to understand it without ambiguity, and may criticise and (this is my great hope) correct and amplify it.' [7]

So, to all appearances, the French Jesuit was open to having his outlook, on an ongoing basis, criticised, corrected and amplified with a view to having it continuously nudged forward along the plausibility continuum in the hope that it would ever move closer and closer to the truth.

I think that, (1) if we consider revelation not as a direct intervention of a Superbeing into the natural evolution, but as a message that can be "read" in nature and reality because it was there since the very moment of Creation, and (2) if we consider integrative thinking, including its primitive forms intuition and "feeling a revelation" as yielding plausibility in stead of absolute truth, we can still trust in integration.

   [1] Roose, K., 1980, Ontwerp voor een Integratieve Psychologie, Gent.
   [2] Roose, K. & Van Brandt, B., 1985, Het geheim van het geluk, Kluwer, Antwerpen-Deventer
   [3] Beckers, Danny, Pieter Nieuwland (1764-1794): natural philosopher, mathematician, and poet"; mathematical societies in the Netherlands and the ideal of the Homo Universalis" De Achttiende Eeuw, 33, 1 (2001): 3-20
   [4] P. Teilhard de Chardin, 'The Evolution of Chastity', in 'Toward the Future' (Harvest Book, 1975), p. 60.
   [5] P. Teilhard de Chardin, 'The Phenomenon of Man' (Fountain Books, 1977), p. 35.
   [6] P. Teilhard de Chardin, 'Phenomenon', p. 35.
   [7] P. Teilhard de Chardin, 'The New Spirit', in 'The Future of Man' (Harper & Row, 1969), p. 85