What in incredible paper! This says so much computer and artificial intelligence than any of the popular talks.
Every process of thought or action is made up of sub-processes. Let us consider such examples as making a pencil stroke, writing a letter of the alphabet, or making a plan. Quite a few discrete muscle movements are organized into the making of a pencil stroke; similarly, making particular pencil strokes and making a plan for a letter are complex processes in themselves that become sub-processes to the over-all writing of an alphabetic character. 2a8
Although every sub-process is a process in its own right, in that it consists of further sub-processes, there seems to be no point here in looking for the ultimate bottom of the process-hierarchical structure. There seems to be no way of telling whether or not the apparent bottoms (processes that cannot be further subdivided) exist in the physical world or in the limitations of human understanding. 2a9
In any case, it is not necessary to begin from the bottom in discussing particular process hierarchies. No person uses a process that is completely unique every time he tackles something new. Instead, he begins from a group of basic sensory-mental-motor process capabilities, and adds to these certain of the process capabilities of his artifacts. There are only a finite number of such basic human and artifact capabilities from which to draw. Furthermore, even quite different higher order processes may have in common relatively high-order sub-processes."
I have had a few conversations w/ people who are not computer workers, for example, the girl who is taking care of my Dad. I have always found it difficult to demonstrate the value of computer, and at the same time annoyed by elites who brag about the future without understanding or even giving much thoughts to the complexity of their empty promise, and the implication, especially social ones, that a new way of doing things can bring. I will refine this further that there are too much attention given to the positive side of a change, which is exciting, both financially and socially, and too little to view it from a structure that, for example, presented in this paper, that guides to understand in which area/domain this change belongs to, how and why it can an impact, who is a first-degree neighbour thus be affected, and in what way.
Structure, framework. I have always been advocating that in order to approach an issue, however complex (or simplistic) it is, to have a framework in place (and it can be completely subjective and incorrect) is better than none. Framework is essentially of personal view of the issue. It is not an arbitrary mark you throw on the wall and call it a structure. Rather, it is a fruit of deep thinking based on that person's experience, intelligence, and view of the world even. It is actually a summary of the all the information presented at the time and were understood by this person, and is thus an aggregation of information in shape of a design. If you think about it, everyone is an architect — we all operate this way (just like this paper is presenting), that we use our sensory system to collect information, which by nature will only be a subset of ALL, and then even a smaller portion of these collected info will be comprehensive to us, and translated into a place in an overall hiearchy, which formulates a reason that explains the info ← this is the info process, and potentially triggers a motivation that leads to action.
Therefore, it is only natural that one has a framework, even implicitly, because one must have one to operate. Yet, the ability to recognize your own framework, and be able or willing to present it, is the difference. This probably can be argued as how much one understands oneself. Self-reflection brings not only a peace of mind, but a depressing view of oneself — how limited one is! how un-intelligent one is! But intelligence don't change unless one sees where it is (otherwise, one doesn't even have a reference to compare to, thus will know no improvement nor degradation). Thus, to define and present one's view, is a bold move, which shows in affirmative statements. But this is different from those emotion driven entrepreneurs, who lack the ability to think, but have too much ability to fool.
If we then ask ourselves where that intelligence is embodied, we are forced to concede that it is elusively distributed throughout a hierarchy of functional processes—a hierarchy whose foundation extends down into natural processes below the depth of our comprehension. If there is any one thing upon which this 'intelligence depends' it would seem to be organization.
If it were so very easy to look things up, how would our vocabulary develop, how would our habits of exploring the intellectual domains of others shift, how might the sophistication of practical organization mature (if each person can so quickly and easily look up applicable rules), how would our education system change to take advantage of this new external symbol-manipulation capability of students and teachers (and administrators)?
— by Feng Xia