Ralational Brain Training web app

[Fredo Corleone]

It's been a while since my last post here. Few days ago I've put online a simple yet effective web app called [Syllogimous] (https://bit.ly/2I1BgWz)

I say effective because 4 people me included (all test subjects until now) have reported Lucid Dreaming after the first few training sessions.

Test it and report your experience!
Have a good weekend.

[Noah I. Ydreskog]

I love this app.  Thank you for sharing.
Will be interesting to see what it might do in the longer term.

/n

On Sunday, April 07, 2019 01:01 CEST, Fredo Corleone <stopchemt...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

It's been a while since my last post here. Few days ago I've put online a simple yet effective web app called [Syllogimous] (https://4skinskywalker.github.io/Syllogimous/)

I say effective because 4 people me included (all test subjects until now) have reported Lucid Dreaming after the first few training sessions.

Test it and report your experience!
Have a good weekend.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-trainin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

[Fredo Corleone]

Il giorno domenica 7 aprile 2019 03:59:43 UTC+2, Graham ha scritto:
> It seems like there's bugs.
>
>
> How can number 8 be true and number 9 be false? Is the program buggy?
>
>
> For number 8:
>
> W = Stupid people
> T = Assholes
> Q = Intelligent people
>
>
>
>
> For number 9:
> A = Cats
> R = Biting
> N = Dogs
>
>
> Thus the statement can be true.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+10, Noah I. wrote:I love this app.  Thank you for sharing.

> Will be interesting to see what it might do in the longer term.
>
> /n
>
> On Sunday, April 07, 2019 01:01 CEST, Fredo Corleone <stopchemt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  It's been a while since my last post here. Few days ago I've put online a simple yet effective web app called [Syllogimous] (https://4skinskywalker.github.io/Syllogimous/)
>
> I say effective because 4 people me included (all test subjects until now) have reported Lucid Dreaming after the first few training sessions.
>
> Test it and report your experience!
> Have a good weekend.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  

You can't say picture 9 is true because despite the fact there's a possibility you don't have the complete certainty (infact "Some N is A" is another possibility).

Picture #8: Some T is clearly not W, in particular the Q part of T, because Q shares elements with T and there are no W in Q.

Picture #9: That's false because there is the possibility for N to shares elements with A. I agree woth you that it's possible that "No N is A" but that's not asbolutely true.

The application is working, I've completed 500 syllogisms and so far I haven't found any flaw.

If you are having troubles I suggest you to take your time and search any flaw in YOUR reasoning.

[Moon Kyu Seong]

This is amazing. Does it have levels past 2 premises?

[Fredo Corleone]

There is a "level-up" mechanism which starts from 100 points up to 2000 points, it slowly increase difficulty. The "more premises" feature is something I'm thinking about, but as long as the training keeps me Lucid Dreaming I won't make any changes. 

[Fredo Corleone]

Il giorno domenica 7 aprile 2019 13:22:29 UTC+2, Graham ha scritto:
> Thanks for getting back to me Fredo, yeah I understand where you're coming from but for me its not real world reasoning so has its flaws there. I'd prefer a game where you could easily apply examples like that and it would return a true match. Interesting idea though!

The one implemented in Syllogimous is called formal logic and it's reasoning at its core. There is nothing flawed and it perfectly applies to "real world reasoning".

The flaw is that you want to consider a conclusion as true based on a particular case. That's YOUR flaw. The conclusion has to stand true for every possible substitution of those placeholders!

[Moon Kyu Seong]

Just curious, have you considered creating games for other types of relations? This game seems to be based on venn-diagram like logic, where one could consider each "letter" a category, within which there are multiple items that could exist in other "letter" categories as well... Another type of relation could be location-oriented, where a bunch of north/south/east/west relations are given as premises, and the question asks something like "is W is east to F?", or something like that... Idk, I just feel like creating games that similarly use logic, but vary in terms of what kind of relational logic, could definitely help make us smarter in many different areas. I really wish I could program games, but I'm still a high school student and I'm busy af doing schoolwork so... Anyways thank you again for this game, it's great and seems like it will be very beneficial.

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 8:01:18 AM UTC+9, Fredo Corleone wrote:

[Fredo Corleone]

You've had a good idea, perhaps using relative positions like:

A above B
B below C

C below A

I think it's easier than a syllogism.

[Nathan]

I like this.

[Nathan]

I am able to solve the problems easily by visualizing a venn diagram. It seems that there are only one of these possibilities: 

three disconnected items

two overlap, one alone

three overlap

two intersect, one alone

two intersect, one overlaps with both

all three intersect

It certainly seems that difficulty can be added by adding more items. It seems that the items could almost form structures, like a ring of 6 items overlapping would be like a hexagon and it could have a "tail" stretching off from it of successive overlapping items.

Directions like east/west wouldn't be possible, you would need to know distance at some point and that defeats the purpose of being "simple." But I like the idea of directionality, such as with directed graph. So this program could be altered to use directed graphs rather than venn diagrams. Such as if A then B, etc.

[Fredo Corleone]

In case you want to know more head over Syllogism page of Wikipedia :)

[Fredo Corleone]

That way you could arbitrarily decide what to feed in those placeholder and pretend those premises are true and then... basically anything can happen! Answers would vary from interpretation to interpretation.

I'm still convinced that's YOUR flaw. Let me try to convince you...

Take for instance your example #9, you are not certain of the premises you've made in the first place (Some Cats are Biting and Some Dogs are not Biting).
You've arbitrarily decided to place those words there and take those premises for granted.

You really don't know anything about the state of both Cats and Dogs, therefore you can't infer with deterministic precision the truthness of your custom premises. 

I hope you understand by now where the flaw is.

If you want you can fork the repository and make the game your way, I'll be more than happy to look at your implementation and play the game.

Il giorno lunedì 8 aprile 2019 01:32:11 UTC+2, Graham ha scritto:

"The flaw is that you want to consider a conclusion as true based on a particular case. That's YOUR flaw. The conclusion has to stand true for every possible substitution of those placeholders!"

I disagree, I think it should be the other way around. That's your perspective. I think the underlying logic has to stand true for every possible situation, that seems far more logical and in line with reality. If an anomaly is present in reality then the logic isn't in line with reality, common sense. 

[NyanShadow]

This is very interesting, I would love to try this out. Besides lucid dreaming, what other effects would/should this app have? What is relational training (especially when it comes to this specific app)?

[Fredo Corleone]

I don't get why you behave this way. Please re-read my message again, it's almost math-clear on why the FLAW IS YOURS.

Take for instance your example #9, you are not certain of the premises you've made in the first place (Some Cats are Biting and Some Dogs are not Biting).
You've arbitrarily decided to place those words there and take those premises for granted.
You really don't know anything about the state of both Cats and Dogs, therefore you can't infer with deterministic precision the truthness of your custom premises. 

Il giorno lunedì 8 aprile 2019 12:19:42 UTC+2, Graham ha scritto:

" basically anything can happen! Answers would vary from interpretation to interpretation."

No it can't, only relative to the logic of the statements themselves. On that note confined to the statements as they're presented both can be true, its also relational reasoning not ralational reasoning but that's not too important here. If you wish for your version of things to be true, change the statements so that they can't be misinterpreted relative to regular logical parameters. I'm not going to recommend anything to you anymore though, its obvious my time is better spent elsewhere. Sincerely though, good luck!

[Fredo Corleone]

I've been inspired by https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10864-018-9302-2
Even though I don't believe in its conclusion due to small sample and poor methodology.

[Nitesh Yadav]

Flaw in your reasoning is that you  are assuming that no dog is a cat before starting to solve the problem, some dogs can be cats, who knows maybe genetic mutation, maybe alien experiments, maybe quantum mechanics?  And as it is uncertain that some dogs may be cats, it is easy to say that the conclusion is false which says that no dogs can be cats altogether.

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 7:29:43 AM UTC+5:30, Graham wrote:

It seems like there's bugs.

How can number 8 be true and number 9 be false? Is the program buggy?

For number 8:

W = Stupid people

T = Assholes

Q = Intelligent people

For number 9:
A = Cats

R = Biting

N = Dogs

Thus the statement can be true.

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 9:04:53 AM UTC+10, Noah I. wrote:

I love this app.  Thank you for sharing.
Will be interesting to see what it might do in the longer term.

/n

On Sunday, April 07, 2019 01:01 CEST, Fredo Corleone <stopchemt...@gmail.com> wrote:
 

It's been a while since my last post here. Few days ago I've put online a simple yet effective web app called [Syllogimous] (https://4skinskywalker.github.io/Syllogimous/)

I say effective because 4 people me included (all test subjects until now) have reported Lucid Dreaming after the first few training sessions.

Test it and report your experience!
Have a good weekend.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dual N-Back, Brain Training & Intelligence" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to brain-t...@googlegroups.com.

[Nitesh Yadav]

Let us assume there are 3 bags, A,R,N

There are three colored balls of uncountable number and we dont know what ball is in which bag.

Statement 1- Some A is R, this means some balls of same color exist in both A and R

Statement 2-  Some N is not R, this means that N and R will not have completely same balls, there can be some other color too, or completely different colored balls in both bags.

Conculsion- No N is A, how can we be certain that from the above info that N and A will have completely differently colored balls. So its false.

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 4:52:29 PM UTC+5:30, Graham wrote:

Thanks for getting back to me Fredo, yeah I understand where you're coming from but for me its not real world reasoning so has its flaws there. I'd prefer a game where you could easily apply examples like that and it would return a true match. Interesting idea though!

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 6:21:44 PM UTC+10, Fredo Corleone wrote:

[Nitesh Yadav]

Wow, very cool app, thanks for your effort. may the gods of intelligence bestow their love on you and your codes compile in first try

[Nitesh Yadav]

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 4:31:18 AM UTC+5:30, Fredo Corleone wrote:

[Nitesh Yadav]

Let us assume there are 3 bags, A,R,N

There are three colored balls of uncountable number and we dont know what ball is in which bag.

Statement 1- Some A is R, this means some balls of same color exist in both A and R

Statement 2-  Some N is not R, this means that N and R will not have completely same balls, there can be some other color too, or completely different colored balls in both bags.

Conculsion- No N is A, how can we be certain that from the above info that N and A will have completely differently colored balls. So its false.

Computer logic is not wrong, your examples are...

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 4:52:29 PM UTC+5:30, Graham wrote:

Thanks for getting back to me Fredo, yeah I understand where you're coming from but for me its not real world reasoning so has its flaws there. I'd prefer a game where you could easily apply examples like that and it would return a true match. Interesting idea though!

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 6:21:44 PM UTC+10, Fredo Corleone wrote:

[Moon Kyu Seong]

I understand that you are frustrated with how this kind of logic seems not to work in real life. But that's because in real life, we tend to use symbols(language) that doesn't set exact, clear rules and boundaries for how they "should" be used and what they mean. In fact, our perceptions of what we mean when we say certain words are different for each and every person and also differs over time, if we really want to get to the granular details. 

Meanwhile, the type of computer logic used here is only a means to discern certain truths(situations that have to be true given the premises), versus situations that could be true/not true and certainly not true. This type of logic stays prevalent no matter what letters are used, because only the structure of the logic is what matters(since we are assuming that all symbols, in this case, letters, are groups/categories of the same type). And might I add, mastering the structure of correct logic is really what's going to make you smarter, which is what we're all here for.

In real life and daily thinking, our perceptions of what we think certain symbols should be/mean/include tend to influence our logic(when they really are different for almost every person and point in time), leading to mistakes in thinking. In daily life what "letters" or categories being used does matter because they tend to be different kinds of categories from one another to a certain extent, for every case of comparison.

Which might make you think, then why exactly is this game/practice of logic useful? Think of it like this: in real life thinking, no statement is absolutely true, because most symbols used in daily language are inherently incomplete. But properly using exact logic(assuming that certain symbols are absolutely "true" in order to properly determine their relationships) like that used in syllogisms, computer programs or maths during our daily decision making helps us move closer towards the "absolute truth", since it helps us really focus on what has to be/is true. It doesn't bring us the "absolute truth" in real life, since that is not possible with current technology, only closer, but that makes a big difference in our decision making performance.

I'm not sure if I just made it more confusing, or if it was of help. Hope it was the latter.
Btw, "common sense" is merely another symbol. How this word is used(like most other words) depends on the person using it and the situation it is being used in. Try coming up with an absolutely impeccable definition of "common sense". The only reason why it is a useful word is precisely because it's usefulness doesn't depend on being absolutely true, rather, it helps us communicate efficiently in a vague(to some extent), generalized manner.

On Sunday, April 7, 2019 at 8:01:18 AM UTC+9, Fredo Corleone wrote:

It's been a while since my last post here. Few days ago I've put online a simple yet effective web app called [Syllogimous] (https://bit.ly/2I1BgWz)

[davidw...@gmail.com]

I feel like this would kind of be like playing chess and someone checkmates you with their queen and you say "Actually, in the actual reality of the world, there have been few instances of monarchical systems in which a queen holds more power than a king. Therefore, this game makes no sense and is useless." Or someone says "A4" and instead of saying "you sunk my battleship!" you say "Actually, in the actual reality of maritime warfare . . . therefore, this game makes no sense and is useless"

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 2:14:44 AM UTC-4, Graham wrote:

Moon Kyu Seong, the approach is one from the perspective of formal logic (this will cause problems for the general consumer as well), not real life and that's where the problem is, moreover the game is too easy as I will describe. 

Learning logic that isn't true in real life isn't going to make you 'smarter' more than the way I've described, both will improve cognitive control relative to the problem set and in as much the student hasn't learned the patterns yet in exactly the same way we're only talking about a minor difference here that is only going to annoy people that aren't familiar with formal logic. 

Moreover the patterns of the syllogisms are extremely easy to predict once you get the hang of it so if the game wants to be any good it should have an n-back component included as I've just discovered robert chalean's relational reasoning game does but it has some errors it seems as I've mentioned, it supports the updating function in cognition which is necessary in the connecting of past and future elements in cognition, a necessary function in solving any IQ question when you're generating possibilities about potential patterns not merely connecting statements. The latter is a linear process the former is a non-linear process thus requires the updation and comparing of information in working memory more.

Real life is most likely probabilistic not deterministic, its a process of game theoretic parts competing against one another which form a system in their interaction which then give rise to new parts which then gives rise to new and updated systems and so on and so fourth. In the situation described, you should be exercising probability on whether ALL or just SOME of N is not R, probability is the best means of reasoning about unknowns so you don't take unnecessary risks, SOME of N is R therefore remains possible which makes the rest of the statement true as we haven't properly determined whether the fact that NO N is A is meaningful to the statement NO N is R or is merely ancillary but not yet known whether its necessarily true.

Moreover, in the process of solving these syllogisms what you're utilising is hypothesis based thinking, which is to prediction and prediction is to probability, to reduce probability down to a rigid absolutist structure isn't a sound process when you're trying to apply this thinking to any real problem, including any said problem on an IQ test, a subject that you've brought up above.

Thank you for your time and respect Moon Kyu Seong,

Graham

[dw]

1) The rules of formal logic aren't arbitrary. They are clearly defined and the same every time.

2) You actually said "actually"

3) The whole checkmate thing makes me feel like you're feeling a little bit threatened, as if this conversation was somehow a game of wits that you can win. It's not, man. You're basically arguing "2 + 2 CAN equal 5, if you think about it". Fredo was unnecessarily harsh with you, Moon Kyu Seong literally did the best anyone could to try and get you to see this without making you feel stupid, and I was attempting to give you a silly real world example of the type of error I think you're making here, but if what I meant as humorous seemed aggressive I apologize. I seriously  suggest you suspend the debate for a few minutes and really go think through the example.

Or maybe go sleep on it. After all, Fredo never claimed that the game was intended to generate new insights about the nature of the universe, or to be taken as an invitation to debate the probabilistic nature of phenomena, or give anybody sherlock powers. He just claimed it helped him lucid dream, and then you got really mad about getting one wrong and took it way too seriously when people tried to explain it.

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 at 3:02:52 AM UTC-4, Graham wrote:

Well the difference here is that you're trying to train your reasoning, not merely play some game that has some arbitrary rules. I predicted someone would say something like this actually, but just because someone hadn't said it didn't mean it was excluded from reasoning and therefore should be considered a false statement, that's essentially what this is about, the removing of that subtraction of valid extra reasoning of probabilities concerning the relationship between X and Y or in this case N and R. Checkmate.

[Fredo Corleone]

I have just few points for Graham:
1. Please keep calm and discuss peacefully;
2. I didn't try to restrict your view on logic, I just wanted to prove that the game is consistent with what you would expect from formal logic;
3. Roberto has great ideas yet he focuses so much on releasing quickly and that leads to buggy code;
4. You said it's too easy, and that's for a reason: BEGINNERS. The true challenge starts at 1000 completed syllogisms;
5. The logic involved in the game is really sound, infact it's constant in many standardized tests for assessing mental faculties and even IQ tests;
6. I'm not naive and certaintly not a beginner, I'm a seasoned BT user.

I'm more than willing to have feedbacks, but please think twice before "opening" an issue to address a bug. That may be detrimental to the reputation of my idea.

I'll try to be more polite, but keep in mind that if my language sounds a bit rude it may be due to the lack of vocabulary as English is my third language.

[Fredo Corleone]

1. It's an idea I'll keep in mind for further conaiderations;
2. WAIS IV verbal reasoning test has syllogism-like questions, personally I've encountered some analogies in a mixed test by Mensa.

[Fredo Corleone]

I don't have experience with WAIS IV, I was just reporting what I've heard about it, therefore I'm not sure about the presence of categorical syllogisms.

As a note I've not been able to considerably influence my general intelligence factor with Brain Training (Lumosity, Peak, DNB, BrainExer, Pasat, etc.).

That's why I'm experimenting something "new".

Il giorno mercoledì 10 aprile 2019 09:44:46 UTC+2, Graham ha scritto:

Right, but was it symmetrical to the type of questions in the screenshot? Meaning formal logic. My prediction is not but that's okay (as it requires former knowledge). Yes, they splash syllogisms in the IQ test bathtub everywhere nowadays, variations of course being analogies as well. 

[Fredo Corleone]

Pattern recognition tasks such as Raven's matrices are the most g-loaded tasks and are pretty good in estimating general intelligence factor.

Syllogisms are also good indicators: Shikishima, et al. (2011) suggested a strong association between syllogistic reasoning ability and general intelligence (g).

[Fredo Corleone]

adding an n-back variation at least provides some kind of pattern recognition

1. You speak as N-back were a pattern recognition task. For me, at least from my intuition based style of playing, N-back is not a pattern recognition task. While playing DNB I just hold a buffer of N items and check each new stimulus against the Nth-back. I don't even visualize anything just pay attention to the inputs.

2. You seem to miss the fact that syllogism are close to pattern recognition tasks, as an argument I may tell you that syllogisms are named after their very patterns, from Wikipedia: Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque, Baroco, Bocardo, Barbari, Celaront, Camestros, Felapton, Darapti, and others.

I don't think Syllogimous is a memorization exercise. There are 256 unique syllogisms (512 if you count for the inversion of terms), I don't think it's feasible to remember all of those. More than that I think it's pretty hard to validate similar syllogisms at first glance, for example:

 #1 True AAA:

 All POPE is ROPE

 All SLOPE is POPE

 All SLOPE is ROPE

 #2 False AAA:

 All POPE is ROPE

 All SLOPE is POPE

 All ROPE is SLOPE

I'm having more lucid dreams (for me the best indicator of mental effort) with 15 minutes of Syllogimous daily (~100 syllogisms) than when I was used to play 30+ minutes of DNB daily.

Il giorno venerdì 12 aprile 2019 01:28:35 UTC+2, Graham ha scritto:

Thanks Fredo,

Only because I'm a little picky I'll train on your game once a non formal logic variation (analogous to and or more advanced than Shikishima, et al. (2011) research which I've just checked out) is created and n-back is implemented, its a great start and good work.

I'm not at all surprised at their overlap, simply because the Raven's requires relational ability at higher levels where you're remembering previous patterns you've figured out while you're sorting through contents to either discover other patterns, while ignoring other patterns or while comparing to other patterns until a final resolution is reached.

I highly doubt relational ability where its paired with syllogistic reasoning is isomorphic to pattern recognition however its not impossible (my prediction is that there's ZERO relationship) and is still an interesting question to figure out beyond an abstract level where we understand scientifically those differences. As well as likely being a higher syllogistic (relational ability) loading adding an n-back variation at least provides some kind of pattern recognition (even if it's just at a low level) so you're training both simultaneously.

[Fredo Corleone]

you're exerting zero cognitive effort at in the beginning to see a pattern merely make a logical connection based on the statements described.

1. Wrong, you are generating cognitive effort (keep data into either phonological loop or visuospatial sketchpad).

you're not generating the connections between those statements.

 

2. Wrong, some syllogisms need more than loading data into memory to be solved, for instance:

Baroco AOO-2:

 All A is B

 Some C is not B

 Some C is not A

You have to infer something to get this right.

As far as I know most people get Baroco-like wrong.

More than that not all Baroco evaluate to the same result (isn't this pattern recognition?).

Citing random persons isn't going to do it, especially without any quoted text.

 

3. That was reference to a study: Shikishima, et al. (2011). In that study a group of Japanese researchers used Baroco Short test to find out if syllogisms reliably correlate to g-factor, and they've found out it does.

I think that at this point I've exhausted everything I could say to convey a message to you (the message being that it's worth giving Syllogimous a try).

Your last comment convinced me you are not experienced with syllogisms, you haven't play with them enough.

There are simply too many flaws in your argumentation.

Il giorno venerdì 12 aprile 2019 11:07:43 UTC+2, Graham ha scritto:

"1. You speak as N-back were a pattern recognition task. For me, at least from my intuition based style of playing, N-back is not a pattern recognition task. While playing DNB I just hold a buffer of N items and check each new stimulus against the Nth-back. I don't even visualize anything just pay attention to the inputs."

At a rudimentary level, it qualifies as in part a pattern recognition task. You see a stimulus repeat in a place it was before, ergo pattern. Its important to define what a pattern is before you can categorise something as a pattern or not pattern recognition task or not, a pattern is merely self similarity. That's it. N-back achieves this at the most rudimentary level possible.

"2. You seem to miss the fact that syllogism are close to pattern recognition tasks, as an argument I may tell you that syllogisms are named after their very patterns, from Wikipedia: Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferioque, Baroco, Bocardo, Barbari, Celaront, Camestros, Felapton, Darapti, and others."

Close is not the same as, it does qualify at a low level given the parameters I've described above but not at a high level. For one (1) you're merely recalling prior logical connections to see if something fits in with something else and two (2) These patterns are laid out for you, you're exerting zero cognitive effort at in the beginning to see a pattern merely make a logical connection based on the statements described. As I noted in prior comments above, you're merely connecting statements you're not generating the connections between those statements. If the task required you to make the connection to generate the IS's/NOT's then it would obviously be one but because its not, its obviously not or merely at a low level. 

If you still believe that its a (good) pattern recognition task then you should have no problem at explaining how this process of solving syllogisms in the context of pattern recognition is reflected in an IQ test (i.e. Raven's Progressive Matrices +) as an example. I've already done so from the perspective of relational working memory, however I've failed to do in light of pattern recognition given I think the relationship is negligible. Would be happy to be proven wrong however at present the logic simply isn't there.

Citing random persons isn't going to do it, especially without any quoted text.

[Aldona Odojewska]

Are there any syllogism games which deals with four terms/sets? so that if you want to solve a syllogism visually you have to use four-set Venn diagram. 5 and more terms would be more benefitial (32 possibilities). I don't mean games with simple relations like: "=", "is opposite to", "<" etc. I mean  at least four Aristotelian "a", "e", "i", "o".

[Fredo Corleone]

There the possibility to extend the game with a level-up approach and make it multi-premises. If you know how to program you can find the repository here: https://github.com/4skinSkywalker/Syllogimous. I'm not willing to put effort into it at the moment as I'm fine with the result. :)

[Leonardo]

Would you consider increasing the variety of exercises, as in including some like the ones present in the SMART program, and the number of propositions now? It is a great piece of software, that is why I would love to see it improved. Also, a memory version, where you see one line at a time and the last one disappear before you get to respond will be nice to further challenge your working memory.

I haven't experienced any lucid dreaming, sadly.