The 'Feel' of Understanding is Created by the Brain's 'Compression'

And abstraction already exists within everyone

Introduction: I treat 'understanding' as a 'sensation'

'Understanding' and 'not understanding' are strange when you think about them.

We don't usually judge things because we can explain them instead, it's more that first,

• it just clicks

• it feels connected

• it seems predictable

• it has a tangible feel

—these kinds of 'sensations' arise, and then verbalization follows afterward.

Here, I propose a hypothesis.

1. The brain is, fundamentally, a compression device

The brain cannot store every experience exactly as it is. Because there isn't enough capacity, attention, or time, it inevitably does this:

• Takes experience (raw data)

• Turns it into some kind of rule or pattern

• Summarizes it into a form that can be used for future predictions

This 'rule' looks like a function to me.

In other words, whether we realize it or not, we are constantly 'compressing' every day.

2. 'Understanding' might be the signal that compression has succeeded

What happens when compression succeeds?

• Information becomes organized and lightweight

• Future behavior can be roughly predicted

• It can be applied even if the example changes

• It becomes harder to get lost

When you enter this state, what appears subjectively is what feels like 'understanding'.

Conversely, 'not understanding' is a state where compression has failed.

• You don't know what is important

• You cannot extract the rules

• You cannot make predictions

• You have no choice but to rely on ad-hoc memory

That is why I treat 'understanding' not as explanatory ability but first as the tactile sense of an internal state.

3. Everyone already possesses 'abstraction' (whether they can verbalize it is a different matter)

What is interesting here is that,

I think that is the case.

Anyone compresses their experiences just by living. In other words, everyone has 'implicit functions'.

• In this situation, I should behave like this

• This is dangerous / This is safe

• If I say this to this person, it will get through

Judgments like that work even if they cannot be verbalized.
That is already an abstraction, a model, and a function.

If there is a difference, it is probably

• whether you can turn that abstraction into language and inspect it

• whether you can hold onto the exceptions (the residue) without discarding them

or something along those lines.

4. Children seem 'innocent' because their functions have not yet fully solidified

Children seem innocent not so much because of their personality, but as a matter of structure,

• their functions (rules of the world) are not yet fixed

• they update quickly

• they easily absorb exceptions

• experiences tend to remain as they are

I believe that is why.

For adults, functions become stronger.
Strong functions are convenient, but the cost of updating them increases.

That is why adults seem stubborn, and children seem flexible.

5. The problem is when a 'biased function' is fixed as the 'correct answer'

Compression is powerful, but it is also dangerous.

Functions created from limited experience become biased.

For example, with little data,
you decide that 'this is how the world is' or 'this is how people are'.

Moreover, because the brain wants to save energy, it continues to use that function.
Once a path is formed, it only travels that path.

And this is the scary part.

You forget the very fact that you were 'confused'.
As a result, the function becomes fixed, and you become unable to notice counterexamples.

6. People who improve their accuracy can retain 'experiences that don't fit the function'

What I realized here is that

That is what I mean.

I would like to call this 'Residual'.

• Unsettling

• Sense of discomfort

• Something that bothers you

• Something that is 'there' even if it can't be put into words

This residual is information that could not be fully compressed.

If you discard the residual, you can quickly 'feel like you understand'.
But the distortion of the model remains.

If you retain the residual, it feels unsettling.
But later, a moment of 'that was important' occurs, and the function is updated.

7. The strength of people with large memory might be the 'mechanism' rather than the 'capacity'

At first, I thought this:

I still think this is partially true.
But the essence is more about

• being able to save counterexamples.

• Being able to hold onto a sense of discomfort

• Being able to doubt your own functions

• Being able to entrust it to external memory (notes or other people)

It might be more about the retention mechanism itself.

In other words, it's not the 'person with a lot of memory' who is strong, but the 'person who has a mechanism for not erasing residuals'.

8. Practice: A 'Lost Log' to avoid erasing residuals

Having written this far, this is the method I think is most useful.

Lost Log (record in 3 lines immediately after understanding)

• What didn't I understand?

• What was I misunderstanding?

• What was the deciding factor that made it click?

Once you understand, the detours disappear.
That's why there is information that can only be recorded 'immediately after understanding'.

Mathematics is the same; sometimes the process of solving is more educational than the completed answer.
Philosophy is the same; the 'way of handling confusion' is more valuable than the conclusion.

Conclusion: I want to treat 'understanding' as the 'tactile sensation of compression'

This is what I find most interesting right now.

• Every human being possesses abstraction

• 'Understanding' might be the tactile sensation of successful compression

• And growth might be updating functions without discarding residuals

That is why, from now on, rather than just writing 'conclusions', I will write

• logs of my confusion

• The residual of discomfort

• Where the connection was made

I want to leave that behind as well.

I would be happy if that became the seed for someone's 'hiring criteria,' and
above all, I feel like it improves the precision of my own functions.