What is the science of thinking?

[bimlas]

I apologize for writing to the group lately on philosophical topics, but a note-taking software isn’t worth much if the notes in it aren’t effective enough. I try to understand the process of thinking and adapt the workflow to it as needed, either by writing new plugins or by making more useful use of existing options.

With Zettelkasten, I understood why it is important to create a second brain, and the book Sonke Ahrens: How to Take Smart Notes highlighted that it is not only important but essential because we are thinking through writing. He talked a lot about how the brain works, how we can regulate ourselves, why rules and consistency are important.

Bret Victor’s almost every performance, but most of all Inventing on Principle, made me understand that in order to create something radically new, you have to completely forget what you currently know about the world (it is a must-see for any philosophical person, even if the basic topic is software development). Dare to think freely, as this was done by all those who ultimately changed the world (e.g., Einstein kicked Newton in the ass).

These encouraged me to think about the process of thinking itself. Is there a science of thoughts? Would that be the philosophy?

Can similar rules be drawn on thoughts as well, e.g. mathematical formulas, or program design patterns. Is it possible to standardize the way of thinking even with formulas? Is it possible to refactor thoughts? Can they be grouped (as integers, irrational numbers, etc.)?

Can thoughts be measurable, can they be quantified? Do thoughts have properties (such as time, importance of tasks)? If so, mathematical formulas can be used on them, they can be represented with a UML diagram, they can be arranged in a row, set theory can be applied on them.

I don’t think I’m the first to come up with these thoughts, so I’m asking you scientists what the name of this science is?

[Donald Coates]

It sounds like you are describing Information Architecture.

[si]

These encouraged me to think about the process of thinking itself. Is there a science of thoughts? Would that be the philosophy?

I think this would fall under cognitive science. I believe that we refer to the process of 'thinking about thinking' as metacognition.

I'm not well informed enough to give you any real info, but I am also fascinated with understanding how we think. Partly because it's just inherently interesting, but also because, as you say, it can help us to build tools that interact with out mind in a way that makes us more effective thinkers.

I aspire to learn more about this topic in the future, but for now I just rely on a very fractured and low-resolution understanding to help me make some sense of how my mind works with regards to learning and creativity.

[Charlie Veniot]

EDIT 2020-11-01: I was asked to comment on how my reply below related to the original "OP"

• From bimlas:  "I try to understand the process of thinking and adapt the workflow to it as needed, either by writing new plugins or by making more useful use of existing options."
  
• For understanding the process of thinking, I created this reply with a list of topics I consider useful.

If I may stand tall on si's shoulders ...

I'm thinking, as you dig into cognitive science, that there are a ton of overlapping and (to me) wildly interesting topics that compliment each other.

For example, (I like to think of these as all under and/or linked to si's great catch-all of cognitive science):

• Cognitive psychology
  
• Problem solving
  
• Cognitive load
  
• Information overload
  
• Disabilities affecting intellectual abilities
  
• Fight-or-flight response
  
• Instinct
  
• Experience
  
• Causality
  
• Philosophy
  
• Information Mapping (well, not the specific methodology, but rather in general approaches to organising thoughts)
• etc. etc. ad infinitum ad (well, the opposite to me because of an insatiable appetite for this kind of stuff) nauseam

There are so many things that can impact how each individual's thinking processes.  Stuff that makes the human species pretty interesting.

Fun post, bimlas !

[Charlie Veniot]

Arg, I should have added: 
Information science

Not just in the sense of "how do we record information/thoughts", but also how do these ways of recording impact our way of thinking?

For me, I see everything as connected directly of within only a few degrees of separation.  And new connections happen all of the time in an organic/evolutionary way.  That might explain why a wiki is my go-to solution almost every time because a wiki has that ability to handle all of the "intertwingularity" and to rapidly adapt (add new information, add new structures, evolve information and structures ...)

Many moons ago, I new an executive that did everything, no matter what, in spreadsheets.

Kind of a chicken and egg problem: is it the tool that impacts thinking, or is thinking that impacts choice of tool.

Oops, SQUIRREL !

[TiddlyTweeter]

Bimlas

At root, concepts ABOUT concepts are the domain of philosophy.

FYI there is NO universal agreement on what "thought" is so  the OBJECT of your query is itself not so stable.

Philosophy is the only discipline that rigorously explores such issues.

In practical USAGE to make stuff I will comment later.

Best wishes

TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

bimlas wrote:

you have to completely forget what you currently know about the world

In practice you learn how to: HOLD IT IN BRACKETS to permit The Other to Be Arising. Its a bandwidth issue really.

TT

 

[TiddlyTweeter]

bimlas wrote:

 in order to create something radically new, you have to completely forget what you currently know about the world

A major problem with "conscious forgetting" is THE WHITE BEAR problem.

Here is my instruction: Whatever you do, never remember the White Bear.  

Forgotten it yet? :-)

The solution is displacement. Prioritizing other thoughts. But this is not a trivial issue. It is a serious cognitive reality.

TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

bimlas wrote:

Zettelkasten

Is the brilliant application of a brilliant man's praxis. 

A praxis developed on paper where "external brain" was connections to zilliions of cards that never changed position.

The "network" is in the indices.

Does it expand to *all* people? I mean: is all thinking organised best like Luhmann's think brain-external card dynamic?

Maybe?

TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

bimlas wrote:

Can similar rules be drawn on thoughts as well, e.g. mathematical formulas, or program design patterns. Is it possible to standardize the way of thinking even with formulas? Is it possible to refactor thoughts? Can they be grouped (as integers, irrational numbers, etc.)?

YES. WITHIN domains of endeavour there are modes of application; rules.

The yearning for standards works. We have many of them. The ISO does them well. The reaching for them aids us.

Maths is particularly interesting as a "closed" system. Its edges are fascinating.

But, in broader terms, "is there a generic syntax for human meaning?" 

 

No.

TT, x

[Charlie Veniot]

Man, this thread is turning into something like crack for me.

That was awesome, TT.

Zettelkasten is quite awesome for folk who see everything as intertwingled.

I imagine for some folk, duplication of information/notes is easier.  This way each copy of a note exists in a structural view/context, entirely detached (neatly cleaved?) from other contexts.  In general, I think most humans like neat and tidy and hierarchical, without cross-connections or inter-connections.  Essentially files in structured folders.  Well, maybe, rather, people have been conditioned by computers into thinking files in structured folders.  (Chicken and egg problem ?)

I've never looked into Zettelkasten until today (wikipedia and a few YouTube videos).  I guess I've been organically doing that since I first started using wikis circa 2006.  Cool.

The only things about Zettlekasten proper that turns me off:

• the use of (contrived/artificial ?) "ID's" for each bit of information
• well, they make total sense to me with paper index cards kept in drawers
• this bit in the wikipedia description turns me off:  "The notes are numbered hierarchically, so that new notes may be inserted at the appropriate place"
  
• to me, every note is a first class citizen, so there should be no hierarchy anywhere except all the hierarchies derived from links between notes that form a structure for some information context
• so
• hierachical numbering makes no sense to me for the way I think/see
• there's so such thing as "appropriate place":  all notes are equally important, so they don't exist in any particular place (although they will show up, via the magic of transclusion, in all sorts of places)

- Blathering Me?

On Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 3:50:52 PM UTC-3, TiddlyTweeter wrote:

bimlas wrote:

Zettelkasten

Is the brilliant application of a brilliant man's praxis. 

A praxis developed on paper where "external brain" was connections to zilliions of cards that never changed position.

The "network" is in the indices.

Does is expand to *all* people? I mean: is all thinking organised best like Luhmann's think brain-external card dynamic?

Maybe?

TT

[Charlie Veniot]

I'd like to +1 that !

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Charlie

Add some comments on how this explicitly relates to the OP please.

Otherwise its just your shopping list of "to do later" which isn't useful.

TT

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Charlie

Actually in this GG past there have been very good, deep discussions of Z.

Its always an issue you we can't f*ing find anything easily after the fact.

TT, x

[Charlie Veniot]

I'd like to +1 that one too for the sake of this thread.

And I would like to +1 this again because you've just introduced me to a concept that explains oh-so-well something I've been trying to explain since being diagnosed, last May and in my early 50's, with ADHD (inattentive subtype.)

Everything (sensory and cognitive) competes for my attention.  I've known all of my life (for as long as I can remember):  when something is distracting me from my focus, the harder I try to ignore the distraction, the more energy goes into trying to ignore the distraction, I wind up having ever-increasing inability to maintain my focus on the thing that needs it.

So better for me to put the priority down for a quick moment and deal with the distraction and eliminate it.  Scratch the itch, so to speak.  If it is a thought, process the thought and/or write down a note for dealing with later.

Your info is ridiculously helpful.  (Ironic process theory) 

 

Thanks !

[TiddlyTweeter]

Charlie Veniot wrote:

Everything (sensory and cognitive) competes for my attention.  I've known all of my life (for as long as I can remember):  when something is distracting me from my focus, the harder I try to ignore the distraction, the more energy goes into trying to ignore the distraction, I wind up having ever-increasing inability to maintain my focus on the thing that needs it.

Absolutely right. That is how it works.

And learning how to quash it is seriously difficult. It IS Catch-22.

So better for me to put the priority down for a quick moment and deal with the distraction and eliminate it.  Scratch the itch, so to speak.  If it is a thought, process the thought and/or write down a note for dealing with later.

TBH I think that is a decent approach. Its a real step, if you can.

Best wishes

TT

[Charlie Veniot]

My "series" of replies likely aren't helpful to figure out the "branch of science" related to thinking, but I hope they can be useful to help think about "thinking" ???

• What kind of thinker am I? Linear vs. Non-linear thinking
  
• GREAT! QUOTABLE! The Writer's Problem! TN at Trinity U., Texas, ca 1989 (an interesting talk about the challenge of writing thoughts)
  

[springer]

Ha! Perhaps TiddlyWiki folks overlap disproportionately with this cognitive pattern (ADHD).

In order to gain traction on a task, I often need to back up and rework the *tools* (and/or the environment) in which I'm doing the task. 

To some degree, this is novelty-seeking (boredom-forestalling) behavior. But it's also a creative restlessness around unsatisfactory methods.

As for OP's ideas about thinking: pragmatists (such as Peirce) have been very insightful about the impossibility of questioning *everything* at once. We can be fallibilist and willing to question *anything* ... but must be standing on *some* habit of thought whenever we challenge another one. 

Last, I would caution here against confusing *thinking* with *information*. Thinking is a living process (semiosis, meaning-making, ever-shifting orientation to movement, perception, and intervention in the world). "Information" as a concept is bound too deeply to storable and fungible representations that function within existing structures and routines for interpretation/uptake. Of course, thinking becomes powerful through participating in exchanges of information, but thinking is more flexible than any "architecture" for information, since through thinking, we can tinker with those structures. So if you're curious about creativity and insight, be sure to attend to *activity* in addition to structure.

Cheers, all!

[bimlas]

Thanks for the lots of answers! If I have enough time, I will try to respond to all of them, but I’m almost certain I can’t answer for everyone because of the lack of free time, I apologize for that.

[bimlas]

It sounds like you are describing Information Architecture.

I may have misunderstood, but is https://schema.org an implementation of this?

[Charlie Veniot]

From the Wikipedia article Schema.org :

Schema.org is a collaborative community activity with a mission to "create, maintain, and promote schemas for structured data on the Internet, on web pages, in email messages, and beyond."[1] Webmasters use this shared vocabulary to structure metadata on their websites and to help search engines understand the published content, a technique known as search engine optimisation.

To me, that sniffs of information architecture with a very narrow focus (i.e. a common vocabulary for labelling/structuring metadata) ?  As in this one aspect about Information Architecture:

 The art and science of organizing and labeling web sites, intranets, online communities, and software to support findability and usability

[TW Tones]

Charlie et al,

I value this discussion, and hope to respond in more detail to the OT, because I value the forthright and open conversation, but I also need to disagree sometimes to be truthful. Just as I expect you to disagree with me. The fact is tiddlywiki helps us understand the process of thinking.

Charlie I appreciate you putting forward your view on how hierarchies can impact the way we see things, they can force us to "stay within the box". However as you have raised this a number of times I must say, I must point out that I believe, with all due respect ultimately you are wrong, or at least the way you say it is. 

My argument

As an creative Information Technology professional of many years, the way I use hierarchies is not the rigid inflexible ones you seem to speak of. With tiddlywiki I can apply, impose multiple hierarchies on the very same data. I can handle exceptions, build a supplementary network to accommodate the things that don't fit, so I am never restricted by them. Hierarchies can also "ebb and flow", A really simple example is "addresses", by definition they ultimately need to refer to a specific location - Planet, Hemisphere, country, state, region, town or location, street, number or block, even front or back gate, The ability to detect a hierarchy when it exists is critical, representing it as such, is information about the thing you describe, to deny it is to loose information.  But yes there are other substantially different ways to capture and organise information and I like to make use of them all. I have being exploring all the ways we can organise knowledge with tiddlywiki. A contra example with location is "address less" see What3Words, in this case we learn more from the fact that the hierarchy sometimes fails and another organisational method is needed, in the case of what3words you need to know the planet and three specific but arbitrary words from a database of 3 metre x 3 metre locations.

There is some good books on the way we think, and one of the strongest argued that the key to human learning, creativity and intelligence is our ability to "abstract", take a set of occurrences and identify both the similarities and differences, then take this abstraction and apply it in a novel circumstance.  This relates to systems theory, where one learns the system behind the observations, then applies the same system to other cases. Abstraction is almost totally a hierarchical model (if very flexible). There is good argument that we humans use this to write poetry, stories and uncover the systems behind nature.

I do understand what you are saying, and I think it is an important thing to keep in mind, the possible failings of a hierarchy, but then we must also recognise its values.

I am a "lay philosopher" and there are dozens of examples where we learn what appears to be a truth, or a good rule, but then we must keep it in mind, but set it aside, lest it restrict our vision going forward. This is I believe a case in point. Another is a need to accept we can be certain of nothing, but simultaneously, somethings are much more certain than others, how can these apparently contradictory things be true?  perhaps that just is how the universe is.

Regards

TonyM

[Charlie Veniot]

Now hold on for a second.

The moment anybody here says that any other member's perspective is wrong:  What Peter says about Paul says more about Peter than about Paul.  I can't seen anybody who says "you are wrong" as credible at all.

It is a pretty lousy way to give one's perspective.

Everybody here has equally credible perspectives based on her/his experiences.

I have 25 years of experience in the IT field as well, software developer with strengths in object-oriented programming, relational algebra, large queries, Object Role Modeling, and organising large amounts of intertwingled knowledge/information for a large suite of applications comprehensively supporting all facets in the domains of building construction management, space leasing, and facilities management.

I'm confident of my abilities, but I'm not all high and mighty about it.  They are experiences that have had trials and errors, and have shaped my views.

Aside from having ADHD (attention subtype), I have this strange cognitive issue in which I cannot see any one thing without all interconnected things (at however many degrees of separation) related to that one simple thing.   That makes it really difficult for me to discuss something in isolation without the context of all things connected.  So I have a lifetime of always dealing with complexity, always seeing everything as intertwingled, and always coming up with quick solutions and waiting for everybody else to catch up because I've processed so many frigging details that nobody else has processed.

Not for a second would I ever think that any of that makes me right and somebody else wrong, or use that as a way to make myself more credible than anybody else.

All of that, my experience and the "how I am wired" is only good to say "I think this way because ...", so that maybe the context helps make sense of whatever I'm blathering about.

Never never never would I ever consider saying "you are wrong."  Nobody has any business denying the experience-based perspective that anybody else has.

Every perspective from every contributor is right based on that experience (however great or small) and is of equal value.

All of that aside and just to reiterate: to me, every tiddler is a first class citizen.  There is no second class, no third class, etc.  Each tiddler participates in an infinite number of relationships which can be viewed as a hierarchical structure (or whatever kind of structure), and each tiddler can participate in any number of structures (each one being a useful information context).  In some scenarios, a tiddler may be at the top of the hierarchy, in others at the very bottom, and in others anywhere in between.  Such is the way I view all information.  It has helped me tremendously over the years.  That may not work for you based on your experience, but it doesn't mean it isn't right for some other soul out there with the same wonky set of circumstances as mine.

So with all due respect, if you have questions: ask.  If something I say doesn't jive with your experience, then ask: "how would you handle this/that"?  Ask.  More likely good stuff comes out of that.  Well, compared to a public "with all due respect, you are wrong."  Ouch.

[Charlie Veniot]

Just in case it helps clarify my thinking, at the risk of muddying ...

From Feasibility Study of a Wiki Collaboration Platform for Systematic Reviews:

One of the key characteristics of a wiki is its initial flat structure. Pages are easily created and are connected to each other via hyperlinks. This results in more of a web of nodes than a hierarchical structure which allows users to easily customize the wiki to meet the needs of individuals and projects.

So I guess, to me, I see every tiddler (or every granular piece of information), as a first-class node in a web of nodes, from which various information structures (useful contexts of information) can be drawn.

If I have a thought, I put it in a tiddler.  Maybe categorized (linked to some structure) at that moment, maybe not categorized at all until when I get around to it later.  Regardless, I never see a tiddler as bound to any category/structure.

Man, this is like me trying to pull my own teeth ...

[TW Tones]

Charlie,

Well, How did I know you were going to bite me?

It should not be so easy to get attacked when expressing a different viewpoint.

I inhabit this space as well, and whilst you demand something from me, please expect some demands in return.

The moment anybody here says that any other member's perspective is wrong:  What Peter says about Paul says more about Peter than about Paul.  I can't seen anybody who says "you are wrong" as credible at all.

You are not wrong as a person. You have given wonderful contributions, I think you are wrong about something you have said a number of times. I even raised this with you before, and you did not concede, that I even had a right to disagree, just as you you assert that right to say I am wrong now. What am I doing that you have not?

 

It is a pretty lousy way to give one's perspective.

Everybody here has equally credible perspectives based on her/his experiences.

Of course, did I say otherwise?, did I discredit you?, or are you reading insult between the lines I never wrote?

 

I have 25 years of experience in the IT field as well, software developer with strengths in object-oriented programming, relational algebra, large queries, Object Role Modeling, and organising large amounts of intertwingled knowledge/information for a large suite of applications comprehensively supporting all facets in the domains of building construction management, space leasing, and facilities management.

I'm confident of my abilities, but I'm not all high and mighty about it.  They are experiences that have had trials and errors, and have shaped my views.

If it was important, it is not, I could argue I have more qualifications than you, but I did not, and do not. I value your different position, but surely I am allowed to disagree with you, as apparently you have made clear, you disagree with me. But did I react as you have?

Personally I value diversity over prestige. 

 

Aside from having ADHD (attention subtype), I have this strange cognitive issue in which I cannot see any one thing without all interconnected things (at however many degrees of separation) related to that one simple thing.   That makes it really difficult for me to discuss something in isolation without the context of all things connected.  So I have a lifetime of always dealing with complexity, always seeing everything as intertwingled, and always coming up with quick solutions and waiting for everybody else to catch up because I've processed so many frigging details that nobody else has processed.

Here you are saying you are ahead of us all! That you deserve some exceptionalism? What do you know about me and my relationship to complexity? Is a diversity of views they most important thing here?

 

Not for a second would I ever think that any of that makes me right and somebody else wrong, or use that as a way to make myself more credible than anybody else.

Again I am arguing against an idea, not a person. Nowhere did I say your "idea"  was wrong because you made it. In this case I think my position was more credible, but I did not argue that, I argued the idea.

 

All of that, my experience and the "how I am wired" is only good to say "I think this way because ...", so that maybe the context helps make sense of whatever I'm blathering about.

Never never never would I ever consider saying "you are wrong."  Nobody has any business denying the experience-based perspective that anybody else has.

I do not deny anything, but if you keep posting an idea you may know others disagree with, perhaps you are "denying the experience-based perspective that I have".

 

Every perspective from every contributor is right based on that experience (however great or small) and is of equal value.

Of course and always, so where is your equivalent treatment of me, should I not disagree with an idea you put forward?

 

All of that aside and just to reiterate: to me, every tiddler is a first class citizen.  There is no second class, no third class, etc.  Each tiddler participates in an infinite number of relationships which can be viewed as a hierarchical structure (or whatever kind of structure), and each tiddler can participate in any number of structures (each one being a useful information context).  In some scenarios, a tiddler may be at the top of the hierarchy, in others at the very bottom, and in others anywhere in between.  Such is the way I view all information.  It has helped me tremendously over the years.  That may not work for you based on your experience, but it doesn't mean it isn't right for some other soul out there with the same wonky set of circumstances as mine.

If my characterisation of your idea is wrong, just tell me so. I do not need to get upset because someone disagrees, I don't think you need to as well.

 

So with all due respect, if you have questions: ask.  If something I say doesn't jive with your experience, then ask: "how would you handle this/that"?  Ask.  More likely good stuff comes out of that.  Well, compared to a public "with all due respect, you are wrong."  Ouch.

Well, if you were a reader of my posts you would know this how I most often operate. As a very large contributor, for much longer than you here, I have a body of work in this forum who Indicates who I am as a contributor. You along with ONE other person, likes to take offence in this community. It would be easier to self censor and shut up in the face of their replies, but as long as people are respectful,  it should be OK to disagree with an Idea (not the person). 

Perhaps you forget, that when you target one person (not an idea they put) that everyone else is a bystander. 

You have mentioned how you are not neurotypical before, and perhaps neither am I, but to assume your telling me means something about how I am supposed to respond to you I don't know, how am I supposed participate, if I need to keep a dossier on each person to make sure I don't offend them, when I thought I was in a market place of ideas.

Please let us de-escalate this and I am fine if you disagree with me, please keep it about the ideas as you have so often.

Perhaps for now it is too late to address the differences between our view points, on the subject of hierarchies, Feel free to post a direct reply in public, but perhaps we should take this off line after that?.

Yours Sincerly

Tones

[Charlie Veniot]

 

From me (Charlie

Aside from having ADHD (attention subtype), I have this strange cognitive issue in which I cannot see any one thing without all interconnected things (at however many degrees of separation) related to that one simple thing.   That makes it really difficult for me to discuss something in isolation without the context of all things connected.  So I have a lifetime of always dealing with complexity, always seeing everything as intertwingled, and always coming up with quick solutions and waiting for everybody else to catch up because I've processed so many frigging details that nobody else has processed.

From Tones

Here you are saying you are ahead of us all! That you deserve some exceptionalism? What do you know about me and my relationship to complexity? Is a diversity of views they most important thing here.

Ah crap.  No, that was piss-poorly worded by me.

A lifetime struggle of trying to take the intertwingled mess in my head and trying to sort it out and keep it short, and that's a regular/recurring fail on my part.

Seeing everything as interconnected/intertwined/intertwingled, and feeling so different from everybody my whole life because of it, I've come to see it as me being cognitively flawed.  A weakness. Something that makes me broken vis-à-vis everybody else, as in I don't fit in this world.  Hardly something that makes me better than anybody.

To compensate for that broken feeling, I try to think that a greatest weakness can be a greatest strength.  It makes me feel better about myself.

I was trying to express where my obviously unorthodox way of thinking comes from, and to express that I try to see my flaw (seeing everything connected) as a strength, and that "strength", just as my experiences, are just things that shape my perspectives, not things that make me better than anybody else.  Maybe perspective in context is useful.

All of that just in the hopes that folk can understand my perspective (agree or disagree, both are A-1;  just like any perspective you may have, it is based on your own experience, so your perspective is just as valuable as mine in conversations.)

Expressing my own perspective is always in the hope of connecting someday with somebody who may understand what I'm trying to convey, and maybe find a better way to explain it back to me, because I struggle to find the words to explain what I think.

[TW Tones]

Charlie,

Perhaps it would help if I say I do understand your ideas most of the time and value them, I also find some challenging me and in return sometimes I want to challenge you. Also to reassure you this thing you call intertwingularity is similar to a range of philosophical and religious ideas that I too have taken interest in. I took a learning interest in Buddhism and they speak of the interconnectedness of all things, and "there was no original cause"  meaning all things are caused by others. I have no doubt you have original ideas, perhaps as yet unnamed by others, and most definitely original to you as you explore the universe, but you may be surprised to learn you are not on your own with such thoughts, that in fact you belong to a larger cohort than you think.

Keep the conversation going, and please don't take offence.

I personally favour taking an egoless approach to design and review of code and ideas. https://medium.com/@charlesrt/egoless-design-fe91dea51e25

Thanks for being a big contributor in the community.

TonyM/Tones