A Critique of the Perception of Intellect

Prototype system for the evaluation of perceptions to create perspective. With subtexts of humor and hope.

If a system were made to assign value to data points and insights as they express perspective, it would then be easier to convey and discuss these data points and insights as well as the perspectives that emerge from them.

For there to be a correct perspective there must be a goal. Correct by nature is implicit with truth which is itself a goal.

To be correct one must have expressed a vector towards or away from a goal in symmetry with the trait of a pencil to not stand on it's tip. With any goal it must be that there is a set of correct perspectives rather than a singular perspective as a chaotic system, such as a double pendulum system, produces essentially infinite differing outcomes that will touch any one point that may represent a goal. If a perspective is compartmentalized into insights and data points then applying valuation to these two elements enables you to understand their relation towards bringing you towards a goal. In this case a perspective would parallel a system of data points and insights where in various vectors move throughout the system until a multi dimensional structure emerges from it. By evoking a vector, such as an action potential, into the system any item could be evaluated through the structure and come out with a valuation of truthhood or falsehood.

Then to evaluate the requirements of the system's ability to accurately and consistently judge truthhood and falsehood we must create an understanding of data points and insights and their effect on outcome. Thus if we say that the minimum required set of data points connected by insights must reach some critical limit in order to bring about the aforementioned outcome, we can conclude that data points and insights can be assigned values in relation to their effect on the outcome. It might be beneficial to weight the data points by their relation to the system on the whole where an insight may mirror a bridge in that it is potentially the only path from one group of data points interconnected by insights to another. Another example of where weighting the valuation of data points might be valuable is the number of insights that are connected to any one data points as paralleled by real world intersections. That is to say that it may be beneficial to assign greater value to data points and insights that have the unique characteristic of acting as limiters in some regard, such as being irreplaceable in the case of bridges, enabling mass insight in the case of intersections, or being required by all sets of data points and insights that generate useful levels of accuracy and consistency.

Another notion that may hold relevance is the idea of data points that create destruction of insight, such that a cul-de-sac prevents movement towards a goal, or even creates negative perspective which dissuade one from a goal, which is to say that they enable a probability of the goal being unattainable or undesirable through the output of negative values. Larger negative values would be higher probability of the goal being unattainable or undesirable.

Data points may even have emergent traits such as having collectively negative values while an incomplete set, but becoming collectively positive values once the set is complete.This system could be viewed to be modular but connected with subsystems in the same way a computer's components all rest upon a motherboard. Some systems of perspective may collectively have stimulus filtered through them to result in novel data points and the properties of that system will determine what data points emerge from it, or if a data point will even emerge from it. It might be such that a system of data points and insights result in the destruction of stimulus that may otherwise have resulted in new data points. If viewed this way there could also be a level of interconnection wherein multiple small systems that produce data points can also make up larger systems through the aforementioned bridges, as paralleled by the corpus callosum of the brain enabling communication between the two hemispheres.

From this we can also create a valuation of any individual stimulus which when processed through understood systems must produce predictable results, such as expected insights, data points, or nothing.

A set of data points and insights through this system can then be translated into a probability of achieving some measurable synthesis of perspective, non-perspective, or neutral perspective.

Thoughts?