Examples of the Crow Epistemology

[LulieTanett]

Question/counter-example: All professional sports jugglers can juggle (which means continuously keeping track of) more than 5 objects at once, and the top players can juggle at least 7.

Not only that, but they can also do tricks: juggling them to different heights, manipulate their body while juggling e.g. spin around, etc. (For an example, see lauge999 on YouTube.) So arguably those are yet more things to keep track of.

How does this fit into the crow epistemology theory? How is it possible?

[sybo59]

@LulieTanett I'd think that the juggler is thinking one to three throws ahead of time. Why would you need to know seven steps ahead at every moment when you are following a pattern? Theoretically, juggling 50 balls would only require one throw of foresight, two to introduce a "trick", or new pattern. Good pool players think ahead, but do you need to know where every ball will go from the onset? No. Rand also classified the ability to think many steps ahead--like in chess--as not practical.

[DavidsIllustrations]

this was a good video

[kovertopz]

I was just thinking about jokes usually come into 3 parts. Probably just a coincidence...

[leitermann]

Excellent video! Can you refer me to a more comprehensive resource on this 'crow' epistemology? I would greatly appreciate more videos of this nature on whatever else it is you wish to discuss. Your videos are, in my humble opinion, both interesting, & at the same time superawesome.

[1000101er]

I don't think the Braille example is relevant. It's more about the surface area of the human finger tip than about the capacity of short term memory.

Perception and cognition are different processes. For instance, we have no trouble taking in the characters on a digital clock even thought they consist of seven segments. In fact we can process entire written words (or complex images!) in a single glance.

We use specialized modules in our brain to handle this, not short term memory.

[Sepero1]

Best video I've seen of yours yet. :-)

[ledbonzo86]

Valuable for pointing out or clarifying the phenomenon, but the terminology is inaccurate. For example, he states the conscience is finite, however, the conscience is generally associated with the mind and not the brain, and I hardly consider the mind to be anything near finite. I think this misuse of terms communicates a misunderstanding in the realm of his studies.

[sonofgondor1219]

So you spent 10 minutes telling me that its easier for me to keep track of 3 to 5 things? ideas? in my stream of conscious at once, but you did not say why. No one needs a lecture or a PhD in philosophy to grasp the concept that we cant be thinking about all of the ideas in our mind at once.

[tyrbolo]

So how far should things be dumbed down ??

No point to all this knowledge since you say it

can't be used anyway.

[cropperb]

I guess I'll have to do a video on further practical applications. When did I say this knowledge can't be used?

[horvay]

You should probably state where you got that quote from on the Internet since you are directly quoting it.

Pretty good video.

[horvay]

aw, an old dumb horvay comment :P

[theinquisitor]

Fascinating. Might this be part of the reason some people find scientific ideas so hard to understand, especially things with so many inter-connected ideas like evolution? When they look at the theory of evolution, maybe they just see an incoherent jumble, and find religious ideas more satisfying because they involve only a few simple ideas. It makes me wonder what an intelligence that can handle 19 things at once would be capable of. Are there things it could never explain to us?

[jiffy2001]

Would computers help?

[theinquisitor]

Well they could only increase how much we can perceive if we integrated them into our brains. That's a long way off though I think. It'll probably be easier to make artificial minds than to merge hardware and wetware. Not sure if that's what you meant though.

[jiffy2001]

It was.