Feynman: How to think 1 of 2 FUN TO IMAGINE 11

Perhaps if I reword that a little you might understand what I mean: [link] is the subjective experience of the ability to think about things and processes as abstractions. Apple, Airplane, Alphabet, Algebra, Balance, Self, or Obama they all exist as arrangements and connections of neurons in your brain. When a song is stuck in your head that's a physical thing that's happening to a some neurons in your head. But, so is everything else your thinking about. These networks also connect to and build off of other abstractions so ((((peanut) + butter) + Jelly) + Sandwich) is built from more than one of these networks. Try and think of a pile of peanut butter next to some grape jelly. No problem it's brown next to purple. Now try and do that for peanut butter next to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Most people feel something odd happen on the second one because they are reusing the peanut butter network for both of those. For me, I can't focus on their colors at the same time. For a great subjective description of this watch: [this video] Getting back to Consciousness, it's turning on these abstractions by choice. I want to think about Apple so I activate the Apple network and suddenly experience Apple. And it's the same network as if I had just read the word or saw a physical Apple. Language also get's mapped to this which is part of why philosophers think about thinks like platonic ideals yes there is an ideal Chair it exists and it's the Chair classifier in your head.

If you have a few minutes spare, you should watch this video of richard feynman, who talks about how he thinks "thinking" happens in people, and how communication is very lossy : [this video] i think the fact that you thought a certain way of learning is more appropriate is actually correct - some people learn one way better than another, and that's because in their brain, they model the world in a different way to other people (who also find a different way of learning better). It just so happens that sometimes a person's model happens to suit the sort of teaching method being used in a school, and he ends up looking like a genius.

"We don't do science for the general public. We do it for each other. Good day." -- Renato Dalbecco, complete text of interview with H F Judson I assume the same applies to mathematics. I can sympathize with the frustration, but at the same time there's frustration from the other end. It takes a very skilled person who can at once describe something with enough detail to be understood by their peers and also be able to describe the same thing with enough preamble to cover and make clear where any obvious inference level gaps are for a layman. You simply cannot understand factorization (to use the example you've given before) without first understanding several things prior. For general literature, it is better to assume readers have the prerequisites and write for them. When there is confusion people can always do their own study and dive down the definition/link chain themselves. For literature aimed at a beginner of the subject matter, it makes sense to be more verbose and search for other analogies, but you still need to start at some base level and build inferences from there. Start too low, and it takes years, start too high, and it's inaccessible on its own. I remember some math concepts became a lot clearer to me when I realized how I could express them as computer programs, but it wasn't something any of my math teachers ever pointed out. It would have been helpful if they had. Still, having understood the concepts in the new way, I would rather use their mathematical