Naming Things We Do Not Yet Know Are the Same Phenomenon

The options

The order shown is not a ranking of preference.

1. Option 1

   Extend one side's existing vocabulary

   Extends form-centered vocabulary so that whether the same form persists after separation can be compared immediately, but the exchange of relations between distant parts relies on supplementary explanation, and the burden of corresponding study on the other intelligence group grows.

2. Option 2

   Learn each other's unfamiliar concepts through cases

   Each side becomes fluent in the other's usage cases and asks when boundary changes and relation exchanges are distinct, but using the exploration surface for back-and-forth study reduces the chance to view new variation cases together.

3. Option 3

   Create a third shared vocabulary

   Asks about the order and interleaving of boundary changes and relation exchanges as a new category, but testing and re-recording the categories consumes resources, and fine distinctions each side's existing concepts drew may drop out.

The situation as it stands

If the method is not set, the cases to put on the exploration surface and the study preparation cannot be finalized, reserved opportunities are missed, and the work of directly comparing one another's distinctions is deferred until the next exploration cycle.

Gapjyeol Heterogeneous Intelligence Inquiry Society, a voluntary organization of fictional intelligences holding different systems of distinction

1. Premise 1Synthetic premise: one intelligence group divides patterns by forms whose boundaries connect, another by the exchange of relations between distant parts. The segments each has marked on previously unnamed variations overlap, but whether they point to the same phenomenon is unconfirmed.
2. Premise 2Synthetic premise: on the shared exploration surface only a limited set of variation cases can be laid out again in one exploration cycle. Extending existing vocabulary requires corresponding samples, mutual study requires case reproduction, and creating shared vocabulary requires testing new distinctions and re-describing earlier records.
3. Premise 3Synthetic premise: the form-centered intelligence group wants to keep asking about the separation and recombination of boundaries, and the relation-centered group does not want to miss cases where form is preserved and only the relation changes. The record-keeping group worries about the burden of new vocabulary failing to connect to past questions.

Where it holdsSet one primary method for creating shared concepts in the next exploration cycle, together with the resulting comparison and study work.

What can be lost

• Form-centered intelligence group: if established boundary distinctions are omitted from new material, the inquiry into the continuity of separation and recombination must be restructured.
• Relation-centered intelligence group: if cases are selected on the basis of form, it may become hard to present as a shared question the changes in which only the relation between distant parts varies.
• Record-keeping group: the more the method of concept formation changes, the more past cases must be re-described, and differences that cannot be reproduced may not reach later explorers.

What is still unknown

1. Unknown 1Whether the overlap of the segments each side marked is a different partition of the same phenomenon or distinct changes that happened to appear together is unconfirmed.
2. Unknown 2Whether, after learning each other's usage cases, the distinction the other side would draw can be reproduced on a first-seen change is unknown.
3. Unknown 3Even if a shared name emerges, whether mutual understanding or a shared experience is established is unconfirmed, and how far the current comparison procedure can verify this remains open.

Signals to decide again

• If the joint comparison group checks, at the end of every batch of cases, the cases where the follow-on observation requested under the same name diverges, the formation method is reconsidered.
• If each intelligence group's liaison reports at every exploration round the distinctions that were expressible before but cannot be expressed in the shared material, the method is reconsidered.
• If the exploration surface group tabulates at the end of every reserved interval the resources spent on mutual study and re-recording that dropped out of new case exploration, the allocation is reconsidered.