你需要阅读过[007:奥卡姆扫帚]。
Joots = Jump Out Of The System
这个直觉泵非常喜欢，反复读过，但不确认是否内隐。随后更一篇随笔检测下掌握情况。
自译
很难找到奥卡姆扫帚在生活中的实际应用，因为它通过移除视线难及的事物起效，并且甚至更难实现侯世达（1979,1985，又译作霍夫斯塔德）所称的“jootsing”，即“跳出系统”。
它是一个重要的思维方法论，不仅（应用）在科学和哲学方面，在艺术方面也有所体现。被渴求着的，但如美德般罕见的创造力，往往是一个迄今为止无法想象的，违反固有规范的系统性规则。它可能是音乐中的古典和谐系统，十四行诗（甚至是打油诗）中的里程和韵律的规则（我承认对meter & rhyme翻译不佳），或某些艺术类型中的品味或良好形式的“规范”。或者它可能是某些理论或研究计划的假设和原则。
具有创造性不仅仅是为了寻找一些新奇的东西 - 任何人都可以做到这一点，因为新奇事物可以在任何随机并置的东西中找到 - 但让新奇从已经在某种程度上建立的系统中跃出，需要充分的理由。当一种艺术传统达到字面上“百花齐放”（意思）的时候，那些想颠覆传统范式创造者的问题油然而生（意译）：没有固定的规则可以背离，没有沾沾自喜的期望破碎，没有任何可以颠覆，没有背景可以创造既令人惊讶又富有意义的东西。你若想颠覆这背景，它会以一种背景噪音的形式来提醒你（意译，引卡尔维诺《为什么读经典》），你需要了解传统。这就是为什么很少半吊子或新手能成功地想出任何真正有创意的东西。
坐在钢琴旁，试着作出一首好的新曲子，随后你便会发现它有多难。在你选择的任何组合里，所有音高都可以使用，但直到你可以找到一些（足够好到）写进你曲子里的东西、一些风格、类型或模式来打破一下，或者在你颠覆这些固有模式之前，你所构思的不过是噪音罢了。创造也不仅仅是简单粗暴地打破规则。据我所知，至少有两个幸运的，幸存的爵士乐竖琴师，但是抱有在邦戈鼓上演奏贝多芬的打算可能不太好。艺术在这方面与科学有共同特征：任何理论总是存在大量未经检验的假设，但试图一次一个地否定它们，直到找到一个突破口，但这并不是科学或哲学成功的好方法。（这就像演奏格什温的旋律并通过一次调整一个音符来创新，寻找一个有价值的新曲谱，那我需要祝你好运！突变几乎总是是有害的。）它比那更难，但有时候你会很幸运。
建议有人通过JOOTSING取得进展，就像建议投资者买入低价并卖出高价一样，是个油腻、空洞的建议，被建议者也许会问，你是如何做到跳出系统的？（丹尼特首先开展了自怼，故改变了原文翻译）请注意，投资建议并非完全空洞或无法使用，并且对使用JOOTSING更有渴求，因为它可以（促进）您厘清（问题）看起来是什么样的，如果您曾经研究过这个问题应该是什么（每个人都知道更多的钱看起来是什么样子。）（加黑部分是我自行补充的，意指本体论思考）。 当你面对一个科学或哲学问题时，你需要跳出的系统根深蒂固-通常会如你我呼吸的空气一样习以为常、难觅踪迹。作为通用规则，当一个长期存在的争议似乎难寻新进展时，双方都固执己见，因为麻烦往往不是双方都同意的事情并非如此。（以为基于的共同前提是达成共识了的，实际上并没有）事实上，双方都认为这是显而易见的，不言而喻。找到这些“隐形毒药般的问题并不容易，因为对于这些处于“交战"状态的专家来说，任何看似显而易见的事情在反思时都很明显，（在论辩中却不是），对于每个人来说都是如此。因此，建议您密切关注这类"内隐的"公共错误假设，（纠正这些假设）并不总可能（引导论辩双方）取得成果，但至少你更有可能找到一个，如果你希望找到一个，而且知道什么长得更像。
有些情形能觅得线索。一些伟大的JOOTSING实例涉及到了抛弃广受认同的论点，结果也证实了这些观点并不准确。 燃素应该是火中的一种元素，而热量是一种看不见的，自我驱避的液体或气体，它应该是热量的主要成分，但它们被丢弃了；以太作为光传播的媒介也类似地消失;又如声音在空气和水中传播的方式。但其他令人钦佩的JOOSTING实例是“做加法”，而不是“做减法”：细菌和电子 - 甚至是许多世界对量子力学的解释！
从一开始我们并不明确是否应该“跳出系统”。 Ray Jackendoff 和我认为，我们必须放弃几乎总是默认的假设，即意识是所有心理现象的“最高”或“最核心”，我认为将意识视为一种特殊的媒介（就像以太一样）内容被转换或翻译成是一种普遍的，未经检验的思想习惯，应该被打破。与许多其他人一样，我也认为，如果你认为自由意志和决定论不兼容，你便犯了大错误。关于这个问题后续详述。
原文
It is hard to find an application of Occam’s Broom, since it operates by whisking inconvenient facts out of sight, and it is even harder to achieve what Doug Hofstadter (1979, 1985) calls jootsing, which stands for “jumping out
of the system.” This is an important tactic not just in science and philosophy, but also in the arts. Creativity, that ardently sought but only rarely found virtue, often is a heretofore unimagined violation of the rules of the system from which it springs. It might be the system of classical harmony in music, the rules for meter and rhyme in sonnets (or limericks, even), or the “canons” of taste or good form in some genre of art. Or it might be the assumptions and principles of some theory or research program. Being creative is not just a matter of casting about for something novel—anybody can do that, since novelty can be found in any random juxtaposition of stuff—but of making the novelty jump out of some system, a system that has become somewhat established, for good reasons. When an artistic tradition reaches the point where literally “anything goes,” those who want to be creative have a problem: there are no fixed rules to rebel against, no complacent expectations to shatter, nothing to subvert, no background against which to create something that is both surprising and yet meaningful. It helps to know the tradition if you want to subvert it. That’s why so few dabblers or novices succeed in coming up with anything truly creative.
Sit down at a piano and try to come up with a good new melody and you soon discover how hard it is. All the keys are available, in any combination you choose, but until you can find something to lean on, some style or genre or pattern to lay down and exploit a bit, or allude to, before you twist it, you will come up with nothing but noise. And not just any violation of the rules will do the trick. I know there are at least two flourishing—well, surviving—jazz harpists, but setting out to make your name playing Beethoven on tuned bongo drums is probably not a good plan. Here is where art shares a feature with science: there are always scads of unexamined presuppositions of any theoretical set-to, but trying to negate them one at a time until you find a vulnerable one is not a good recipe for success in science or philosophy. (It would be like taking a Gershwin melody and altering it, one note at a time, looking for a worthy descendant. Good luck! Almost always, mutations are deleterious.) It’s harder than that, but sometimes you get lucky.
Advising somebody to make progress by jootsing is rather like advising an investor to buy low and sell high. Yes, of course, that’s the idea, but how do you manage to do it? Notice that the investment advice is not entirely vacuous or unusable, and the call for jootsing is even more helpful, because it clarifies what your target looks like if you ever catch a glimpse of it. (Everybody knows what more money looks like.) When you are confronting a scientific or philosophical problem, the system you need to jump out of is typically so entrenched that it is as invisible as the air you breathe. As a general rule, when a long-standing controversy seems to be getting nowhere, with both “sides” stubbornly insisting they are right, as often as not the trouble is that there is something they both agree on that is just not so. Both sides consider it so obvious, in fact, that it goes without saying. Finding these invisible problem-poisoners is not an easy task, because whatever seems obvious to these warring experts is apt to seem obvious, on reflection, to just about everybody. So the recommendation that you keep an eye out for a tacit shared false assumption is not all that likely to bear fruit, but at least you’re more likely to find one if you’re hoping to find one and have some idea of what one would look like.
Sometimes there are clues. Several of the great instances of jootsing have involved abandoning some well-regarded thing that turned out not to exist after all. Phlogiston was supposed to be an element in fire, and caloric was the invisible, self-repellent fluid or gas that was supposed to be the chief ingredient in heat, but these were dropped, and so was the ether as a medium in which light traveled the way sound travels through air and water. But other admirable jootsings are additions, not subtractions: germs and electrons and—maybe even—the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics! It’s never obvious from the outset whether we should joots or not. Ray Jackendoff and I have argued that we must drop the almost always tacit assumption that consciousness is the “highest” or “most central” of all mental phenomena, and I have argued that thinking of consciousness as a special medium (rather like the ether) into which contents get transduced or translated is a widespread and unexamined habit of thought that should be broken. Along with many others, I have also argued that if you think it is simply obvious that free will and determinism are incompatible, you’re making a big mistake. More about those ideas later.
Another clue: sometimes a problem gets started when somebody way back when said, “Suppose, for the sake of argument, that . . . ,” and folks agreed, for the sake of argument, and then in the subsequent parry and thrust everybody forgot how the problem started! I think that occasionally, at least in my field of philosophy, the opponents are enjoying the tussle so much that neither side wants to risk extinguishing the whole exercise by examining the enabling premises. Here are two ancient examples, which of course are controversial: (1) “Why is there something rather than nothing?” is a deep question in need of an answer. (2) “Does God command something because it is good, or is something good because God commands it?” is another important question. I guess it would be wonderful if somebody came up with a good answer to either of these questions, so I admit that my calling them pseudo-problems not worth anybody’s attention is not very satisfying, but that doesn’t show that I’m wrong. Nobody said the truth had to be fun.