RE: The Simple Puzzle That Shows How Illogical People Are

[☉]

http://nautil.us/blog/the-simple-logical-puzzle-that-shows-how-illogical-people-are

More than 90 percent of Wason’s subjects erred, too, and in quite a systematic way; the mistakes they made followed a pattern. “I feel very unhappy about my original choice,” a subject once told Wason, “but yes, I would still choose the same ones if I had to do the task again.” In that 1968 paper, titled “Reasoning about a Rule,” he wrote that these were “disquieting” results. The reigning assumption was that humans naturally reasoned analytically, but here was Wason’s subject admitting that, if given the choice, he’d be irrational again. It made Wason wonder: Is it the logical structure of the rules that make the puzzle difficult, or are people tripped up merely by the words with which the puzzle is expressed?

How might a brain training system or program best continuously and consistently engage system 2 thinking? Would such a system (I initially doubt it may be implemented in a simple task) actually improve human intelligence without confounding measures thereof by, for instance, avoiding the pitfall of mimicking commonly used metrics for human intelligence?

Inasmuch as humans express intellectual abilities differently among each other, would it be reasonable to expect that in light of such differences, we might find individuals who are better able to engage system 2 thinking more efficiently? If so, what may we learn from those differences? What is it about most persons' cognition that causes their thinking to be distinctly social instead of general? Can that be improved with brain training?

These are questions not necessarily seeking answers but perhaps yet more questions.

argumzio

[Hi]

This was cool. 

I got it right but I disagreed with my choice, I just anticipated the related reasoning that they'd (i.e. creators of the game) likely make in relation to why the choice I ultimately made would be most correct, so I was more accurate relative to the game as it concerns their intentions.

I'm kind of an enigma myself, I can read people especially well however I'm especially not social, specially so.

Some simple to highly complex and creative (which would include but would not be limited to certain ways of interacting with the statements, program directed and inner (i.e. imagination) directed) variations of "if then" statements combined with the relational categories already applied by maxim (as well as other categories) would likely encompass most of what is implied as it concerns "intelligent assessment" (which infers decisions and related solutions however assessments just seems an all encompassing enough term to imply all the necessary related perceptuo-cognitive hierarchical organisation of the 'steps', so to speak).

"If then" could be adapted to all sensory modes and their various levels. How it applies to visuo-spatial (i.e. mechanical) qualities and quantities is especially intriguing to me. 

Dual-n-back is one of the variations of "if then", given this it does seem that "if then" has both passive and active qualities that need to be taken into consideration as it concerns the development of an adaptable enough device software or otherwise (which includes mental, at least for me with the exercises I'm slowly simultaneously developing and synthesising) that it can press not just multiple cognitive buttons but switches, levers, radar detectors, magnetic attraction points and others as well. This would be in an effort to fully appreciate the nuanced expression of intelligence rather than try to reduce it to one or even a few colours which would only make Da Vinci severely embarrassed if his paintings were to ever be compared or admired with a similar level of simplicity. 

Over-all I guess we could potentially say at present we are especially falling short of training cognition optimally, that is at least if humans are aiming for something special, which if we were to use enough "if then" statements I believe we would have no choice but to become convinced that this is the only reasonable course of action. Meaning, to treat life as something special, and to coordinate our efforts accordingly, especially so for special to ever have a chance of happening as an "if then".

[Brandon Woodson]

This problem has already been solved.  I don't want to plagiarize anyone else's work, so I won't. But getting people to solve this problem correctly, and think in System 2 consistently, isn't very hard at all. It's actually extraordinarily simple when you understand the matter in its entirety.

There are three fundamental errors; three categories of error that every error any person ever has made and ever will make falls under. Every major blunder in history has to blame at least one of these basic errors. Additionally, any time you've been fooled or tricked -- ever -- you committed no less than one of these mistakes.

Insufficient analysis (failure to thought stream) is but one of those errors. So what about the other two?

The secret to being right -- which is merely not being wrong by avoiding those three fundamental errors -- is this: not merely thought streaming, which is analysis isolated and streamlined, but thought streaming conscientiously on *perfect* data.

"Perfect data" is the operative phrase there. The ability to identify perfect data (assuming intelligence, "the ability to differentiate", is a given) is the only major difference between intelligence and genius.

High intelligence (without genius) differentiates (relatively) well, but often falls to perceptual errors.

I'll leave it as a fun exercise for those interested to figure out what the other two fundamental errors are. (Hint: one can find the solution in a matter of minutes by thought streaming on the operative phrase above).

After the three errors are identified, the remediation is as simple as cataloging one's own day-to-day mistakes into each of the three groups. Eventually, one will remember and effortlessly avoid making those errors and System 2 thinking will gradually result as a natural consequence.

Yes, really; it's that simple. ;)

-- Brandon

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[αrgvmziΩ]

I would rather see the source for these ideas than be talked down to. For one, I am skeptical of anyone who pretends to think if all they ever do is put on someone else's cognitive garb without attribution.

And if there is such a brain training program with results, I sure hope you are able to point us in that direction.

The best optimizer is a slime mold engaging system 0 thinking, by the way. Am I right? Think about it. ;)

argumzio,
integrally imitating the inimitable

[Brandon Woodson]

> "I would rather see the source for these ideas"

I omitted the source, which is irrelevant, intentionally.

>"than be talked down to."

Do you think you're being or will be "talked down to"? If so, why do you believe that?

>"For one, I am skeptical of anyone who pretends to think if all they ever do is put on someone else's cognitive garb without attribution."

Well, interestingly enough, your concerns are circumvented by this solution.

Though I suspect if this is your objection you're not thinking broadly enough and needlessly complicating the issue.

> "And if there is such a brain training program with results, I sure hope you are able to point us in that direction."

I'm trying.

> "The best optimizer is a slime mold engaging system 0 thinking, by the way. Am I right? Think about it. ;)"

I'm not sure I follow. Can you elaborate? :)

-- Brandon

[jttoto2]

 For one, all I could think about during the video was were these the only 4 cards that followed or did not follow this rule? (thinking it was a tick question) All I am told, based in the video, was that I am given 4 cards, but there could be 400 cards that could or could not follow this rule.  If this were true, I could turn over all four cards, and I still won't know if the statement is true or false, since it says nothing about the other 396 cards.

Maybe I read too much into it, thinking it was a trick question, so I chose nothing as my choice.  Or maybe I'm just an idiot.

[☉]

While it is idly amusing to speculate about what two other possible categorical errors your source seems to have convinced you of, I can easily conceive of more categorical possibilities than three - and I am certain that I am not the only human capable of conceiving of more than three taxonomic categories for errors. Why do you suppose that the source is irrelevant? I think it is quite relevant, if you believe there is a genuine program to educate individuals on how to engage system 2 thinking consistently. Perhaps it can be used as a first approximation to a brain-training program. Why hinder that? It doesn't seem to make much sense for you to do so. Enough trying. More doing.

Feel free to elaborate on the wisdom of the ages to show us the errors of our ways any time.

http://www.physics.nmsu.edu/research/lab110g/html/ERRORS.html

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~allch001/papers/e-types.pdf

argumzio

For the love of Free and Open Source Cognition

[Brandon Woodson]

> "While it is idly amusing to speculate about what two other possible categorical errors your source seems to have convinced you of, I can easily conceive of more categorical possibilities than three"

Well, I figured as much, else we'd already be on the same page.

Fortunately, you don't need more than three -- only two. And two is *obviously* easier than more than three.

>" - and I am certain that I am not the only human capable of conceiving of more than three taxonomic categories for errors."

Yes, I agree and even suspect that number is higher than three as well.

>"Why do you suppose that the source is irrelevant?"

That's irrelevant too. Only the conclusions are important.

>"I think it is quite relevant, if you believe there is a genuine program to educate individuals on how to engage system 2 thinking consistently."

No, the source has little to do with the information gleaned from it, about as much as the chair being a landmark idea but only if we got it from a fellow named Bob.

>"Perhaps it can be used as a first approximation to a brain-training program. Why hinder that?"

Not necessarily a computer program (for the foreseeable future), but it is quite useful.

>"It doesn't seem to make much sense for you to do so."

I can only imagine it's hopelessly difficult to assess that from the vantage of someone who is still asking 'why'.

>"Enough trying. More doing."

Effective communication is more than a one-way street, unfortunately.

>"Feel free to elaborate on the wisdom of the ages to show us the errors of our ways any time."

You know, it's strange that you use the terms "us" and "our" and "wisdom of the ages". If I didn't know any better, I would think you are trying to create the subtle impression of large numbers who side with you, and even obliquely mocking me. But you wouldn't do that, right? :)

And you're still making this more difficult than it needs to be. It's surprisingly straightforward.

(Seriously, what does it mean, in the most general sense, for something to be perfect?)

Brandon, commuter on this standstill informational highway

[☉]

I submit Brandon is showing us how not to engage in an intellectual discussion here. His third post in and we still have no idea what he's going on about. We're supposed to be at least as smart as him to know what he's talking about, because everything he says makes perfect sense.

Man this group is really something else some times.

So, since is this is another thread about showing how big our e-penises are, Brandon, who can never be wrong, why don't you tell us your highest I.Q. scores. Y'know, 'cuz, nothing else you've said so far is particularly relevant anyway.

Anyone else is invited to take up my baton and answer to Brandon, who clearly has all the answers.

argumzio

why I genuflect before arrant nonsense six times before breakfast

[☉]

1/10 shot on average of getting it right. Well, I wouldn't suggest that is clear evidence of you being an idiot. Just evidence that you couldn't answer the problem correctly. Errare human est and all that.

argumzio

[jttoto2]

I have to admit my ego is a little bruised, and now wished I stumbled upon the bar question first, which seemed much easier.  To reference the original post, there may be an innate tendency to scrutinize social information, and thus people are less likely to fall prey to logical pitfalls. Whether or not it can trained to include non-social information, I'm not sure.

[☉]

Don't feel too bad. I mean that honestly. There are problems I know some incredibly intelligent people simply cannot solve at all... and I have solved them myself very easily.

I was reminded of Schopenhauer's The Art of Being Right due to the general tenor of some of the posts here lately. I am reminded that il lume naturale, inherent to sentient beings, is not that which is at issue in the Wason sorting task, but rather that which Schopenhauer refers to as dialectical reasoning, which he points out varies among humans, as it is primarily dependent upon the contents of the things reasoned about rather than the logical form of the reasoning indicated.

That much aside, I recall that based on a few genetic markers as described at http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/psychological_traits_snp.shtml we can expect differences in how individuals respond to tasks neurologically. A relevant SNP associated with prefrontal activation in WM tasks may mediate a great deal of what we see in studies like n-back; as it turns out, not everyone will respond "appropriately" to a task to adapt to it accordingly. I am curious what genetic analysis might uncover with any differences in expressed system 2 thinking. Might need to look somewhere in the literature for that. While it is tempting to think system 2 thinking is strongly correlated with I.Q., I suspect it is mediated by a number of other factors, including personality (deep limbic structures), like the reticular activation system.

argumzio

[Brandon Woodson]

On Jun 22, 2015 3:24 PM, "☉" <argu...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> I submit Brandon is showing us how not to engage in an intellectual discussion here. His third post in and we still have no idea what he's going on about. We're supposed to be at least as smart as him to know what he's talking about, because everything he says makes perfect sense.
>
> Man this group is really something else some times.
>
> So, since is this is another thread about showing how big our e-penises are, Brandon, who can never be wrong, why don't you tell us your highest I.Q. scores. Y'know, 'cuz, nothing else you've said so far is particularly relevant anyway.
>
> Anyone else is invited to take up my baton and answer to Brandon, who clearly has all the answers.
>
> argumzio
> why I genuflect before arrant nonsense six times before breakfast

Oh, calm down already, you big baby.

The answer is simple; it has to be to cover the entire range of human thought. Anything too complex would be too specialized.

As discussed in an earlier thread, "perfection" is the same as completion. Nothing extraneous, nothing wanting. The reason for "perceptions that are wanting" is obvious enough that even without an "e-penis" the stature of mine, it's quite self-explanatory. :) "Perceptions that are extraneous", as an error class, covers the gamut of all *false* perceptions. That includes cognitive bias, assumptions, and so on. These together make up the binary couple of "real and unreal" perceptions.

Any error you have, or anyone you know or know of has, made was either due to a a.) failure to perceive fully (before making a conclusion), b.) failure to exclude assumptions or other false perceptions, or c.) a failure to sufficiently differentiate, d.) a combination thereof. There are no errors of class existing apart from those described classes that aren't included in those described classes. All the ones you referenced earlier in citations were merely circumstantial instances of those three.

If this needs illustration, watch something along the lines of one of those magic shows where the tricks performed are explained after. Every successful legerdemain will fall into one of those categories, and so it is for all human error.

-- Brandon, geez-ing for sanity's sake

[☉]

Name calling now? Wow. This is the best test I've ever sat for in my life. Fo' real, dawg.

All of the categories you mention can be combined into one rule. So you've misled us. Thank goodness I didn't have to spend money on this rigged test.

argumzio

[Brandon Woodson]

> Name calling now?

It was honestly meant in good spirit, and no more antagonistic than what I'm sure others would consider your cantankerous behavior on the ML for the past couple days.

In any case, I apologize if it was offensive.

>"Wow. This is the best test I've ever sat for in my life. Fo' real, dawg."

Yawn. It's a pity we're seeing you stoop to such depths. Weren't you the one just complaining about a lack of substance?

>All of the categories you mention can be combined into one rule."

Please explain.

>"So you've misled us."

Probably not; this is likely a fine example from you of the second type of error. But I'm willing to reserve judgment to prevent from making an example here myself.

>"Thank goodness I didn't have to spend money on this rigged test."

For more than one reason, huh?

I won't be responding to anymore of the invective from here out. I am, however, quite happy to discuss any subject-relevant topics.

-- Brandon

[☉]

Yes, yes. All meant in good spirit.

Trust me. All of the rules you mentioned can be combined into one. I'll even pinky swear before I tell you. Let me know once you've perceived it, though. :)

argumzio

[Brandon Woodson]

I didn't say I didn't know. I asked you to explain because I was curious what you formulated. More reason you should try to work on the second rule in the way described above.

Always a pleasure, argumzio. :)

-- Brandon

--

[☉]

I didn't say you didn't know, now did I?

Might want to review those rules very carefully again. Not saying you should. Just a suggestion.

argumzio

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 5:24:15 PM UTC-5, Brandon Woodson wrote:

I didn't say I didn't know. I asked you to explain because I was curious what you formulated. More reason you should try to work on the second rule in the way described above.

Always a pleasure, argumzio. :)

-- Brandon

On Jun 22, 2015 5:15 PM, "☉" <argu...@protonmail.com> wrote:

Yes, yes. All meant in good spirit.

Trust me. All of the rules you mentioned can be combined into one. I'll even pinky swear before I tell you. Let me know once you've perceived it, though. :)

argumzio

On Monday, June 22, 2015 at 5:07:28 PM UTC-5, Brandon Woodson wrote:

> Name calling now?

It was honestly meant in good spirit, and no more antagonistic than what I'm sure others would consider your cantankerous behavior on the ML for the past couple days.

In any case, I apologize if it was offensive.

>"Wow. This is the best test I've ever sat for in my life. Fo' real, dawg."

Yawn. It's a pity we're seeing you stoop to such depths. Weren't you the one just complaining about a lack of substance?

>All of the categories you mention can be combined into one rule."

Please explain.

>"So you've misled us."

Probably not; this is likely a fine example from you of the second type of error. But I'm willing to reserve judgment to prevent from making an example here myself.

>"Thank goodness I didn't have to spend money on this rigged test."

For more than one reason, huh?

I won't be responding to anymore of the invective from here out. I am, however, quite happy to discuss any subject-relevant topics.

-- Brandon

--
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-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.

[jotaro]

hi brandon my man but your task can be done if error can be caught, if it cant then you cant categorize it.

well if you can catch you error then consider you didnt make an error, error is while you are not aware that u made it.

[Brandon Woodson]

"Once" implies temporal coincidence. If you've already worked out (backwards) time travel, then you really are good.

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 http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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.

[Brandon Woodson]

Even extremely bright persons, persons who avoid those errors quite well, fail occasionally. Each failure, each time you are wrong, is an opportunity for review.

Need a hand finding errors? Think of the three categories every time you're unhappy, even momentarily. There's always an error there.

[jotaro]

yes, that one  i know, but there are errors you dont feel unhappy.

lol.

and you discover that you made those error on coincidence. then what about those others, that you didnt discover? umm. of course we can use those errors,

but what about errors, that are a bit different errors, that we cant really check.?

maybe we should not bother with them?

yes of course if you think that the bird is blue, and you see the same bird is blakc then yeah, but, what if you dont see the bird at all, after this thought.

the error is their but how are you gonna catch it?

[☉]

That was actually a hint, not any kind of implication. Perceive away! :)

argumzio

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

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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-training+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to brain-training@googlegroups.com.

[Hi]

Hi maxim,

If you're reading this thread (check the second post or the one linked to this message) just a heads up that most of it is irrelevant to the suggestions I was hinting to ;) , although, the mating courtship we do on display here does of course entail complex game theory that I was considering to discuss with you and am implementing in my own practices, practices which are less (psych) institutional than what we might perceive is being put on display here. 

Who knew these sorts of peacock feather dances proved to be this evolutionarily adaptive that they'd make it this far down the gene pool and into the 21st century? Fascinating double-helix kapows, from more than (system) 2 perspectives!

[☉]

I think I came up with something that simply utilizes the rule-based thinking like that in the Wason sorting task, but has basic features of n-back.

With simple rules, we can change which features we would want users to track in n-back. N-back has us track temporal sequences, which isn't particularly abstract. We can add an abstraction layer to the task as follows:

Let's keep it simple with DNB, visual and auditory (letters, numbers).

What are the characteristic visual features we can have users focus on? 3x3 matrices have a center, 4 edges, and 4 corners. (See http://www.cs.swarthmore.edu/~knerr/helps/cube/cropsmallDSCN9133.JPG as an example of how this terminology works.) We can select a number of arbitrary rules using these primitives, but to keep things straightforward for illustrative purposes, we can select among certain rules for users to seek matching patterns as they proceed through the n-sequence. E.g., corner {=>, =/=>} {corner, edge, center}. That is, let's say for a session we are told that, if there is an corner piece, then the nth figure must be any edge for it to be considered a match; and for all others, simply match for its position as usual. Similarly, we could also say that, if there is a corner piece, then the nth figure cannot be an edge. And so on with this simple example with positions.

Letters can be broken down by consonants and vowels. We may even relate them to numbers, but that might be a little to far reaching. Numbers would be easier to incorporate under this, as in evens, odds, primes, and composites, with similar matching rules using those numerical concepts.

I think this added abstraction would force players to keep on their toes a little longer than with traditional n-back. The only issue, as always, is prolonged use leading to skill acquisition and the transition from system 2 to system 1 that that entails as users become familiar with the rules. One would have to conceive of a large enough rule space but keeping within the n-back format, since I think n-back would be the most interesting implementation of this.

The cool thing is that you wouldn't even need to present these rules linguistically but in terms of the symbols themselves. Think of a matrix with the edges colored with an arrow pointing from it to a square with the corners colored. You can even generalize this to any arbitrary set of positions matching for any other arbitrary set of positions. As always, this can easily be extended to numbers as well. E.g., you could write {0,2,4,6,8} => {1,3,5,7,9}, or even {2,3,5,7} <=> {1-9}. The rule would of course remain visible throughout the session above the playing field.

What would this be called? Wason Back? Rule Back? Well, whoever implements it can claim dibs. Just thought some might find the idea interesting.

argumzio

[Dorso Lateral]

Argumzio,

According to Stanovich, system 2, which he also calls the algorithmic mind, is more or less Gf.  If so, we're right back to where this message board started. 

However, he and nearly all the other dual systems theorists agree that high IQ does not reliably lead one to utilize system 2 on tasks like the Wason one.  (Poor IQ-rationality correlation) This lead him to conclude that there was a third system - composed of thinking dispositions and mindware (rationality) that could be taught - that could help a person avoid system 1 heuristics (cognitive miserliness, etc.) and instead engage system 2.  But I'm not sure how far he's gotten with that line of research.  I know he's been working on a test of rationality for many years, an expanded version of the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), I guess, but I don't think it has appeared.  Similarly, I don't think any systematic pro-system 2 mindware training programs are out there.  

Recently, a challenge to Stanovich's rationality/mindware view has emerged: findings that CRT performance correlates very well with working memory capacity (WMC).  From this paper: 

Cognitive miserliness could be argued to be relative to the

cognitive resource of the participant. A participant with a

high WMC who provides heuristic responses to the CRT

would be categorized appropriately as a cognitive miser as

they had the necessary cognitive resources, but chose not to

apply them to the task. In contrast, a participant with lower

WMC who devotes considerable time and effort, but arrives

at a heuristic answer would be inappropriately described as

miserly (perhaps they could be considered cognitive

wastrels instead). It may be that those participants with

greater WMC can engage in the deliberative thought

required to avoid the heuristic response with relatively less

effort when compared to those with lesser WMC. This

reduced cognitive cost may become affordable to the

participants with more miserly tendencies, but who also

have ample working memory resources available

De Neys et al. (2013) suggest that participants are aware

of the incongruity of answering 10 cents to the bat and ball

question, but often fail to engage the deliberative processing

required for the correct

answer. We would add to this claim that while cognitive miserliness is almost

certainly a factor, our data indicate that, for a proportion of

participants at least, they may not have the cognitive

resources to pursue their metacognitive uncertainty about

their intuitive response. Alternatively, the intuitive response

may offer a cognitive escape hatch, if processing demands

are too great (cf. Quayle & Ball, 2000).

And that also takes us back to something like system 2 = WMC = (0.8)Gf

BTW, I think Argumzio and Brandon are two of the most significant contributors to this forum, which has been languishing lately.  I think all the rest of us would really appreciate it if you two could bury the hatchet.  

Brandon, I think your first post in this thread could have been clearer.  I'm very interested in what you have to say on this topic, but I don't have time (or maybe the cognitive resources) to figure out the other two types of errors.  Would you please share a plainer and less riddlesome presentation of your ideas?

Cheers  

[Brandon Woodson]

Sorry, I got pulled away with work-related stuff.

It's probably for the better that we only detect errors within a range guided by our intelligence. After all, the converse scenario (to graduated error detection) is that we see none or all. Can you imagine a more unpleasant outlook than the latter?

To scale it back to the topic, whether they are currently observable is of less importance than simply being able to categorize them at all. The sensitivity to any particular type would necessarily be suboptimal, meaning you would preventably miss errors and not know you were missing them, unless you were already maxing out your perception and intelligence.

Also, there are certain errors with any given category that likely wouldn't appear without first eliminating simpler errors in the same category. Prevention of current errors of a given category would give way to detection of more subtle ones of identical nature.

W.r.t. intelligence, this is related to the Dunning-Kruger effect, but there are signs a similar effect holds, generally speaking, for the other two categories as well.

The only way to catch some (read: most) errors would be to be more vastly more perceptive and intelligent than one already is, which is absurd. If for no other reason, I wouldn't grasp for perfection at onset.

For the others within reach, belaying the possibility they can't be trained, actively searching for and solving problems (rather than waiting for them to occur spontaneously) might help.

The worst that can happen in any event is that you unknowingly miss something you would've unknowingly missed anyway.

[☉]

Aha, thank you for that bit of information on Stanovich and the Cognitive Reflection Test. I will have to look into that. As mentioned earlier, the transition from system 2 to system 1 (as in skill acquisition) perfectly mirrors the transition from gF to gC for all tasks that load on cognition (i.e., novelty -> routine). That's why I brought it up. :) This is also why I suggested layers of abstraction on n-back, because calcified skill does not load on gF, but rather, how well you can retain an acquired skill (gC), rather than how quickly you can acquire it (gF).

Then again, devising tasks that load on gF may merely be the surest way of expanding and exploring measures for gF itself rather than for improving it. Such is the dual nature of the human mind, apparently. IIRC, I have said this long ago, i.e., that brain training tasks are like I.Q. tests.

argumzio

[Brandon Woodson]

argumzio is right. I wouldn't be too upset -- in fact, quite the contrary. Arguably, it's actually a sign of mental flexibility to notice that kind of latent assumption. It's better to notice an assumption and decisively impute it than not notice and inadvertently do so.

--

[Brandon Woodson]

How does a hint meaningfully differ from an implication? A hint of any sort is an implication! :)

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 http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 http://groups.google.com/group/brain-training.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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.

[Brandon Woodson]

>"Brandon, I think your first post in this thread could have been clearer.  I'm very interested in what you have to say on this topic, but I don't have time (or maybe the cognitive resources) to figure out the other two types of errors.  Would you please share a plainer and less riddlesome presentation of your ideas?"

Thanks for the feedback.

I presented the other two types in my post sent at 4:29:55 PM UTC-5.

[Brandon Woodson]

To be clear (and maybe for future reference), 4:29:55 PM UTC-5 on yesterday (06/22/15).

[Hi]

You forgot to put in your dynamic perimeter of latitude, longitude and and elevation above sea level!

[Brandon Woodson]

Hi, friend, salutations. :) I'll be careful not to let that happen again!

--

[jotaro]

can you elaborate about

c.) a failure to sufficiently differentiate

what exactly do you consider sufficiently? and differentiate as well??

while i have already noticed

the a) not consider all the information

b) not subtracting false assumptions

in myself.

i have no idea of c.

can you give examples.

[Brandon Woodson]

Sure, "ability to differentiate" could be reworded as "ability to tell difference and lack of difference".

Let's move from the bottom up. Say we take a perspective which has minimal intelligence. This entity likely would be anoetic, incapable of so much as ascertaining its own existence.

Let's give it a little intelligence. Say the ability to perceive only enough that it cannot make out but its own existence; maybe enough to form a subject-object orientation with its environment, yet not be able to discern any details.

The next stage, it sees a single object with no features situated in its environment.

Then the object therein has two features.

Then five.

As we increased the entity's intelligence, it would suddenly become capable of yet more features.

Unpacked, what happened above might look something like this:

(*) - The proceeding features share the same truth value as the feature on the line directly above

At the beginning:

Existence, no
Feature #1, no
Feature #2, no
(...) (*)
Feature #n, no

At the next step:

Existence, yes
Feature #1, yes
Feature #2, no
Feature #3, no
(...)
Feature #n, no

Then:

Existence, yes
Feature #1, yes
Feature #2, yes
Feature #3, no
(...)
Feature #n, no

Fast-forwarding to the final:

Existence, yes
Feature #1, yes
Feature #2, yes
Feature #3, yes
(...)
Feature #n, yes

The rule of logic is non-contradiction, logical consistency. A failure to sufficiently differentiate would result from not analyzing far enough to see a relevant binary distinction. Humans naturally sense contradiction, so long as they are seeing all of the relevant yes-no distinctions. But there is no chance of sensing contradiction in a dichotomy that isn't perceived. Hence, the basis of the third type of error: failure to sufficiently differentiate.

An example might be:

A small child asks for a popsicle (containing sugar) during a grocery trip. His parent replies, "No, we want to limit your sugar consumption. And we already have juice." The child counters, "But I don't want sugar, I want popsicles."

To the adult of average intelligence, the child's reasoning seems somewhat absurd. To the child, his reasoning is perfectly consistent. The child does not "sufficiently differentiate" the popsicle.

Yes, he noticed enough of its features (e.g., color, shape, texture) to differentiate it from, for instance, broccoli, which incidentally he hates. But he didn't differentiate *enough* to avoid the error.

If he had further parsed the object, he would have likely noticed sugar being among the other ingredients (i.e. that the popsicles in question were in part sugar), easily (and perhaps unwittingly) assigned a "yes" value to his brief "contains sugar" check, and realized and prevented the contradiction in his reasoning.

All errors in reasoning, which aren't strictly perceptual (i.e. due to bad data), are merely the result of such unnoticed or imperceptible dichotomies. The causes of this are manifold, but this is always the basic result.

--Brandon

[4d8d12d]

Let me sum up the three errors (As they are not originally from him) that Brandon has been speaking about.

The three rules are these in simple words. When they are not utilized properly, errors are produced.

Examine thoroughly. (the thing that you're currently perceiving -- Be sure to not let interference, which is usually related to emotion get in the way during the act of examination.)

Exclude assumptions. (Strongly held prejudices, Extraneous belief systems getting in the way, What you know to be true, etc.)

Expand your awareness. (What else is there out there that could be interrelated to the thing that you're currently perceiving? Or what else is happening in my environment that at this moment I'm currently not perceiving that could be affecting me in a way that I should be knowledgeable of at this moment in time?) 

And then above all, what they all represent as a whole. The singular participant that forms intelligence which is perception, which governs the three rules. Without perception you are in a way blind. You must first form a communication with the outside world in order to understand the information coming through your senses. And that's where the rules come into play.

Each rule is singularly represented as a further progression of differentiation, which constitutes the definition of intelligence.

Whether or not the above information is correct or not is debatable but for the one's who would like to at least think a little bit clearer -- it couldn't hurt to at least try. 

Hopefully I de-obfuscated what Brandon was trying to communicate.

[αrgvmziΩ]

Bravo, you pointed out the hinted-at unifying rule: perception (awareness). Nevertheless, what do such words really accomplish? Crystals do not imbue fluidity upon who collects such jewels, but are liable to burden and make heavy and restrict freedom.

I would rather that focus be directed upon the act of mining anew in the unknown rather than polishing the thoughts others have already found. In that vein, what I have suggested (a generalized form of n-back with elements of abstraction) seems to have genuine applicability here. Sadly (or happily?), I am more than aware that the prospect once implied by n-back (ca. 2008) and brain training is an idle dream. This is also more or less indicated by the direction this forum has taken in the past couple years with waning participants – discounting the abiding eternal September – in addition to what has always been obvious from decades of research.

We are all certainly better off doing what we enjoy most and feel we are best at. I accept that some here revel in mere words with no substantial impact or motivation beyond it, and perhaps that is all should be expected.

I will attempt to refrain from hinting that I have been aware of this all along.... with minimal success.

Beware the blabbertalky...

argumzio

On Jun 29, 2015 1:18 AM, "4d8d12d" <a19...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let me sum up the three errors (As they are not originally from him) that Brandon has been speaking about.

The three errors are these in simple words.

--

[Hi]

Your assumptions are only based on certain past research, research which shouldn't necessarily be assumed to include the most optimised way to improve intelligence through human to thought interaction (i.e. via a computer screen). 

Be logical not cynical.

[4d8d12d]

Words define accuracy. From that accuracy, the words supply a redirect of one's awareness to something of value rather than something that isn't. In the case of something of value, which would be the answer your looking for, you now know of a possible error check that will at least help you in discovering the possible errors that you've made. That's where I find the value of those three rules, to others they may not find value as they may know of something better. It's all upon the one perceiving whether or not they trust the accuracy of their perceptions or they do not. 

If you make a lot of errors, these words could help. If you don't, they aren't useful. 

As with all words, they are meaningless until used properly.

[αrgvmziΩ]

Yes, we apparently have another person here who thinks words present a real solution to life's problems. Thank goodness there are those who have moved beyond that in appreciation of a more pragmatic view of things. And no, "words define accuracy" is precisely to miss the point.

Further off-topic replies will not receive a response.

argumzio

[Hi]

Please stop talking argumzio, it obviously serves no point which means you're obviously not contributing anything here.

[Hi]

Lol, how could you say something so stupid? Fucking hilarious. Believe it or not, our world is run by the word and the dollar but guess what, they only exist in our mind, but that's enough for it to create the related neuronal effects and affect (for example, one of many responses in relation to money is the release of dopamine in the average subject).

Smart, smart pulls a dumb, dumb. Oh well, it happens. You are wasting your time though and everyone else's by not being sincere. Wasting potential.

[4d8d12d]

As this is related to answering the question correctly, I used those words in a way that solved the question that the website asked. The only off-topic portion your referring to is your own utter disregard for differences of opinion.

To refer to what I said in saying "Words define accuracy." An expansion of that, is basically this: When a string of words are put together to form a sentence, the response directs the listeners attention toward an accurate result. This is readily seen in comedy clubs when the comedian causes a reaction of laughter in the audience.

In the reference I was speaking about, those string of words direct your attention which forms a sort of accuracy towards the possibility of answering correctly.

'Accurate' could be supplemented with the word predictable and is probably more true as results can differ.

This will be my last thought on this. I only wanted to expand on what Brandon was speaking about and with that my job is done here.

[☉]

Since this is on-topic with regard to my last response, I will say it clearly: what you clarified (which was already clarified by the author) is in fact off-topic in all sensible measures with respect to what could reasonably be construed as on-topic in the context of brain-training, n-back, and intelligence. Most curious of all is my central idea in this thread has received zero replies so far.

I understand we've seen quite a few people here recently who've been getting very excited over mere words. I, however, need not be. You may like to disregard my difference of opinion (and I have had no disregard for difference of opinion, for I have responded to such nonsense up to this point so far) as off-topic, but the facts of the matter are quite the contrary as evidenced by what I've said and done here so far.

I suppose I can take your and Hi's responses as examples of what we should reasonably expect of this forum for the next years until everyone finds better things to do.

argumzio

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 10:08:44 AM UTC-5, 4d8d12d wrote:

As this is related to answering the question correctly, I used those words in a way that solved the question that the website asked. The only off-topic portion your referring to is your own utter disregard for differences of opinion.

[☉]

Quoted for posterity.

argumzio

[☉]

I have no assumptions here, only tentative conclusions. Feel free to point the way, O wise one.

What is "the most optimised way to improve intelligence"?

I am not going to accept B.S. about memorized categories on this, that, and the other thing, just so we're clear. I don't think my question could be any more clear, but feel free to engage in "human to thought interaction" and answer me (and not what you imagine to be me), if you feel so inclined.

By the way, Hi, you remind me of an old regular here who wrote very similarly to your recent posts. If you happen to be him, I would like to remind that engaging in trollish behavior, while not unfamiliar to him, in no way, shape or form, is going to lead humanity to heightened intelligence. I say this only because it seems possible that there are those who think such behavior will actually lead to anything of real significance, except the complete dissolution of this forum.

argumzio
Why I'm (not?) so serious six times before breakfast

[Hi]

Sorry argumzio, I don't even know you. You just make wild accusation after wild accusation without any practical and or logical basis. Likely a tactic rather than any meaningful intent but I could be wrong. When I first encountered you here a few days ago you seemed really switched on but I guess I should have been more hesitant in my observations. Obviously or at least by best indication there is some other stuff going on beneath the surface. Life's too short so I can't be bothered wasting my time talking with someone that wants to talk about how thinking about the rotation of triangles is no different to thinking about the Kardashian's (averagely), its beyond absurd (pun intended). Unless there's an apology there's no need to worry about me responding to or ever mentioning your name again, take care.

[Brandon Woodson]

4d8d12d, thank you for the summary.

I want to point out a few things:

1 & 2 are so identical that I combined them under one rule that pertains to "false" perception.

3 would be first under the previous scheme.

These, which to reiterate are (in reverse order) only the first two rules, are (mostly) perceptual in domain.

But then "sufficient differentiation", which further acts upon sensorial data as well as nearly without sensorial data, is excluded.

The laws of physics, to demonstrate, are abstract, and emergent but distinct from their material content. So are those of mathematics, and a ton of other fields.

So the root of the problem ultimately resides in the question "how do you define 'perception'"?

Maybe perception as mere "sensory perception"? Or do you define it in an (almost) all-inclusive way?

Surely the latter, for only that approach could permit *all* of perception -- without which inclusion, "perception" could not vie as candidate for the singularly inviolable rule of intelligent thinking.

But if all perception (pertaining and equivalent to intelligent thinking) is therein contained, how could we possibly discriminate anything outside of it which allows for discernment of *distinct levels of intelligence*?

More to the point, intelligence is not just "differentiation", but the "ability to differentiate".

Yes, it is sorely tempting to infer that the three rules sum to little more than correct perception, but *that* truly misses the point. It's a foolish proposition that only leads to intractable paradox.

But I don't know, maybe you can enlist the aid of a ML pragmatist to provide something more than hollow denouncement for "once", and instead offer something approximating genuine resolution to the unnecessary paradoxes created by such "muddled" thinking.

Let me sum up the three errors (As they are not originally from him) that Brandon has been speaking about.

The three errors are these in simple words.

--

[4d8d12d]

I'd like to respond to one the notion of mere words. These mere words are meant to be used practically and conscientiously. There are probably not a lot of studies done on a lot of different techniques out there, but in this case: The burden of proof lies with you.

Here's the thing, I understand that in argument this is a logical fallacy, however progress has to be made by taking a leap into the practical before usefulness is seen widespread.

What I'm also saying, is that I'm definitely not saying this is valid or true. I'm just saying it's a method worth trying, or not worth trying. 

[☉]

There was no "wild accusation". The fact of the matter was, and still is, that you remind me of a prior poster. But that isn't to the point. If you're only able to respond on this emotional level, then it is clear you are still in need of further "human to thought interaction" to resolve that problem.

In any case, with these insults, you've carved out your profile as have a few others here as well.

Good luck to gwern and those who really get it; quite a few attendees here now are quite the waste of time.

argumzio

[☉]

Reversal of the burden of proof is a red herring and a distraction. There is nothing for me to prove. Your reply is, sadly, very much off topic here.

argumzio

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 11:08:40 AM UTC-5, 4d8d12d wrote:

I'd like to respond to one the notion of mere words. These mere words are meant to be used practically and conscientiously. There are probably not a lot of studies done on a lot of different techniques out there, but in this case: The burden of proof lies with you.

[4d8d12d]

There has been no emotion on my part, if I were to glean something from your posts it's more a issue of believing I am when you are instead. 

If you're not into the practical, why are you browsing a group dedicated to brain training, which is usually filled to the brim with lack of studies and practicality on the part of the user? From my own opinion, when I look into something that has a probability of resulting in positive change within my life, I take a step into the practical first and see if there has been any difference. 

To me, the idea of proving change within one's own life is not a red herring here. Especially when I go to certain means to prove that there has been a change.

To each their own, however I respect your opinion.

[☉]

What would determine false perception? A true perception? But what determines a true perception?

Who is aware to perceive shall. There is no fundamental differentiation between perception and differentiation. You will either see that to be so or not. The practical effects of one's perception will clarify that. The fact that you think of this as muddled simply demonstrates that thinking in words with these words as you do will only lead to misunderstanding that without awareness, you will be unable to see awareness for what it is. Who is aware can verify awareness for what it is. Only who is lacking in awareness will fail to determine that the practical effects of one's interaction with one's awareness will differentiate the contents of awareness.

argumzio

Why I am awake six times before breakfast

[☉]

4d8d12d, I didn't write to you about emotion. I wrote to Hi about emotion.

At this stage, I have no further points to raise, except that practicality demonstrated by me is in a post above that you prefer to ignore, apparently, e.g., Wason N-back.

argumzio

[Hi]

This is not a response to he who shall not be named.

Anyone can see that I've made no logical error or over emotionality in my statements, quite the contrary on the level of impractical logic and emotionality, which is all I was addressing. If anyone else wishes to bring up anything I've stated I would love to discuss it with you on a logical level, the only reason why I will no longer speak with he who shall not be named is because at least on this matter, he's so far been as stated illogical and emotionally verbose about his illegitimacy. The only reason why I asked for an apology is merely a measure of correct conduct to avoid the encouragement of erroneous defamatory behavior, so in essence it is a social control.

Otherwise:

What happens when I ask you to think of "Dog"?
How about if I ask you to contemplate the meaning of life?

How about if I ask you to imagine "Ode to Joy" forwards, backwards and then with addition of your own contribution?

How about if I ask how you might steal money from your next door neighbour?

How about if I ask you to imagine rotating a triangle in your mind and then ask you to create two more sides to the triangle while continuing to rotate the object?

All in all, I wonder if you would agree with me if these different questions would elicit the activity of different regions of the brain and in so saying this, strengthen the structures that are associated with their individual comprehension.

:D

[☉]

Only the last question actually seems to point in the general direction of what I at least would consider somewhat worthwhile. But there is more to it than that. Merely visualizing something only gets you so far. It does not grant understanding of certain things, like the object's mathematical properties. However, having a very strong capacity for visualizing such things would make it potentially easier to understand those mathematical relationships. Luckily for us, spatial insight is the most trainable, the most sexually dimorphic ability, and has a fairly low g-load, so there is ample opportunity there. Unfortunately, spatial insight doesn't train reasoning ability and the aforementioned ability to understand certain high-level concepts. These high-level concepts are approachable in the social context, since humans are social animals before they were cognitive animals. What I tried to suggest with this thread is that there might be some kind of means to leverage the latent socio-cognitive powers - at least for those who rely on those most - in the direction of generalized cognitive applications, that is, for whom that poses a problem. I invite any who feel this may be so for themselves to at least contemplate that dispassionately and not socially...

argumzio

[Brandon Woodson]

> What would determine false perception? A true perception? But what determines a true perception?

A synthesis of logical distinction and perception, if we consider them apart. But how, should we consider them indistinguishable, does one *determine* anything if who is aware to perceive shall, and already does?

> "Who is aware to perceive shall. There is no fundamental differentiation between perception and differentiation."

Then to perceive at all would be to perceive the perceptible in its entirety. Are you yet omniscient? Or are you at least no longer perceiving?

>"You will either see that to be so or not."

This is practically an abuse of logic. "Will" implies future, in due course of process. Under such "thinking", you would either know or not know, eternally.

>"The practical effects of one's perception will clarify that."

Yes, if only something can be effected without change.

>"The fact that you think of this as muddled simply demonstrates that thinking in words with these words as you do will only lead to misunderstanding that without awareness, you will be unable to see awareness for what it is."

Anything of which you can be aware is (at least mostly) amenable to symbolization, theoretically speaking.

>"Who is aware can verify awareness for what it is. Only who is lacking in awareness will fail to determine that the practical effects of one's interaction with one's awareness will differentiate the contents of awareness"

And, wait for it...

--Brandon, theoretically less (but not much less) perceptive than you know :)

[Mercel]

"Anything of which you can be aware is (at least mostly) amenable to symbolization, theoretically speaking."

An example of saying too much so that nothing is said.

[Brandon Woodson]

No, it's relevant and par for the course given the nature of the topic, and what has already been said of it, and where I conceive it might go.

Though, I'll admit it's more anticipatory of what will likely follow (if what might follow follows and is on-topic and worthwhile) than anything since I've given at least the amount yet discussed a bit of cursory analysis in the past. I don't want to get sidetracked on irrelevant wording issues and the like.

"Anything of which you can be aware is (at least mostly) amenable to symbolization, theoretically speaking."

An example of saying too much so that nothing is said.

[☉]

"A synthesis of logical distinction and perception, if we consider them apart. But how, should we consider them indistinguishable, does one *determine* anything if who is aware to perceive shall, and already does?"

By awarely determining such. As if that weren't obvious. Or do you suggest that one can not be aware while maintaining a "logical distinction"? I doubt that would be the case.

"Then to perceive at all would be to perceive the perceptible in its entirety. Are you yet omniscient? Or are you at least no longer perceiving?"

No, that does not follow, Brandon. That would be an abuse of logic to say that awarely determining what you're aware of is "to perceive the perceptible in its entirety". Suggesting that that is what is indicated communicates a profound lack of understanding that I'm afraid I simply cannot address.

"This is practically an abuse of logic. "Will" implies future, in due course of process. Under such "thinking", you would either know or not know, eternally."

You will either see it to be so or (you will) not. C'mon, Brandon. How is a logical tautology of Av~A an "abuse of logic"?

"Yes, if only something can be effected without change."

Uh, what? Nothing can be "effected without change". You cannot step into the same loop twice.

"Anything of which you can be aware is (at least mostly) amenable to symbolization, theoretically speaking."

Uh, OK. Sure. And all married men are not bachelors.

"And, wait for it..."
Wait for what? Awareness comes in degrees. There can be no differentiation without awareness, but there is ample room for degrees of lack of profound awareness, particularly when the tasks become more demanding, like understanding awareness itself.

It's been really great of you, Brandon, continuing to carry on in this way in a thread where you've communicated absolutely nothing remotely pertinent to the thread itself. I'm afraid my patience has grown much too thin to continue to engage in further tit-for-tat idle banter with you. Goodness knows you'll need to have the last word, but don't expect a response, as your replies are bound to make little sense given what I've seen of your continued output since you've been here.

argumzio
Why I am a strange loop six times before breakfast

[Brandon Woodson]

Your reasoning is horribly flawed. Not only that, it's painfully obvious you got lost in the minutiae and didn't catch the point.

I'm not going to elaborate why since for the second time in a week you've:

a.) responded to posts not directly addressed to you

b.) deviated from the content of my posts, opting to make things personal

c.) not so much as contributed a single original, intelligent, or otherwise useful comment

d.) then fulminated and complained about your participation in a dialog that you initiated

The subjective utility of my dealings with you is decidedly negative, and this bores me.

If you should receive any more direct communication on this ML from me, consider it an undeserved favor.

--Brandon, done playing primitive zero-sum games with the primitive-minded

On Jun 29, 2015 4:57 PM, "☉" <argu...@protonmail.com> wrote:

"A synthesis of logical distinction and perception, if we consider them apart. But how, should we consider them indistinguishable, does one *determine* anything if who is aware to perceive shall, and already does?"

By awarely determining such. As if that weren't obvious. Or do you suggest that one can be aware while maintaining a "logical distinction"? I doubt that would be the case.

--

[☉]

Quoted for posterity.

argumzio

[Hi]

Emotional Contagion And Empathy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM_nmbpWMhs&feature=iv&src_vid=dd6hHfQuO5M&annotation_id=annotation_1348230557

[debrow...@gmail.com]

Brandon,


Why do you think the 3 rules r not perception? You only argued with other posters and, never saidd why you disagree...  Please explain. Thanks.

[Brandon Woodson]

Mark,

I "think" that the presumed fact that this notion even made it past the drawing board for some is something which is easily compared to a mercilessly bad group prank that I wish someone would finally let me in on. :)

Normally, I'd let sleeping dogs lie. But since you've asked, and I've technically only agreed not to further engage certain posters (but not to avoid discussion altogether), I'll answer your question.

To start, I didn't quite claim that they weren't perception. If we choose to define perception broadly enough, that is, it's pretty obvious that each action would appear within an instance of perception. If you'll look back to my post to 4d8d12d, I did claim, however, that that perception could not serve as a replacement for the three rules. Also, I did argue that perception and differentiation are fundamentally different.

The proposition, "the three rules of being right are sufficient inclusion of good data, sufficient exclusion of bad data, and sufficient differentiation on that data can be bundled into the single rule: perceive", means that there is no loss of rule function in that revision of the three rules into the single rule of perception. Or in other words, adherence to the three rules is functionally equivalent to adherence to the new and combined rule, ceteris paribus.

I'll give you a short list of problems, which is not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination.

Given what others have written about the rule, namely that its application covers all perception, period, then what would that new rule in practice exclude? I'll dispel the mystery without much suspense. Virtually nothing. It doesn't exclude a single positive act whatsoever. (Maybe the first solid clue that something is afield?)

According to this rule, there are no errors that can be consciously committed. Ever. Everyone is following it perfectly at all times!

Thus we have:

Error #1: The single rule for intelligent behavior has (virtually) no exclusionary power.

The last ditch attempt to salvage this apparently broken "rule" by then passing the obvious lack of exclusivity into the rectification of a new rule, "perceptiveness", is either an unnoticed error in analysis or an act of outright deception. Either way, it's wrong since they aren't identical rules either.

Thus we have:

Error #2: An equivocation on perception (i.e., an all-enveloping (external) qualitative property of all perceived instances of differentiation) and perceptiveness (i.e., an (internal) quantitative property of all perceived instances of differentiation).

While I'm on the above error, I'd be remiss not to point out an error that is mostly academic in the contention, "no differentiation exists outside of perception", which does not immediately follow from the mutually agreed contention, "all perceptions of differentiation are perceptions (a tautology)". I, personally, am skeptical it follows at all.

Let me bring to attention the famous words of one of the foremost 20th-century philosophers of language and mind, Ludwig Wittgenstein:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

That is to say, if the standing claim is there is no differentiation outside of perception, then it is an egregious error to claim to step outside of the thereby established perceptual boundaries and assert from induction that no differentiation exists where we claim we can't look.

Bringing us to:

Error #3: The induction that there is no "fundamental difference" between differentiation and perception by reason of their coincidental ubiquity is a modal scope fallacy.

Now, to be a good sport, let's lay aside the errors above and suppose they don't count. Let's instead focus on the particular nature of the three rules purportedly replaced by the one. Remember: we only need one significant difference to falsify any notion of selfsameness.

For this purpose, I'll involve us with a minimal level of analysis, and map out rule #1, rule #2, and rule #3 in contradistinction:

Rule #1: include all possible good (true) data | exclude all possible good (true) data

Rule #2: exclude all possible bad data (assumptions) | include all possible bad data (assumptions)

Rule #3: maximally differentiate (analyze) | minimally differentiate (synthesize)

Under the three rules, the positively stated aspect of each rule is allowed and its logical negation violates the rule. (Only 3/6 of above are allowed)

Under the single rule, both the rules and their logical counterparts are permitted -- save for Rule #1. (5/6 of above are allowed)

See the difference? :)

Even if we give a token concession that there is no meaningful difference between "true" and "false" perceptions -- only hypothetically give, of course, because I vehemently reject that notion -- there is a very clear distinction to be drawn between analysis and synthesis, which are both encouraged by the combined rule, not both encouraged by the three rules, and both embedded in perception.

Now one from here can easily switch the debate to the consistency of the rules or the general merit of training involving the rules, or even contend that perception is a more befitting rule by some other yet unspecified reason, or whatever. But since the going argument was over whether the rules could be reduced (without significant loss) due to their identicalness, these arguments would only be distractions, red herrings.

It's cruelly ironic that it is a form of misplaced synthesis (i.e., finding the commonalities (e.g. perception), then discarding the rest) that leads to the erroneous notion that we can dispense with a specific rule for differentiation (analysis)... Too ironic for my tastes.

And so, last but not least we have:

Error #4: Failure to sufficiently differentiate between the compared rules (possibly due to... well, even earlier failure to sufficiently differentiate between the compared rules)

There are plenty of other apparent holes too, but I relent. Their explanations are far more complicated and unnecessary to establish my point.

On a general note, if Error #4 happened to anyone, it only serves to strengthen that point.

--Brandon

[αrgvmziΩ]

TL;DR. Brandon says I have committed errors, because words can't enable him to understand the awareness he lacks.

Not flag, not wind, not mind that moves. All are one.

Much of this category obsession on display here reminds me of those differences between Western and Eastern cultures. I share stronger proclivities towards the East on philosophical matters, perhaps, but my synechistic bend simply will not abide by nominalists, no matter how much such a program has advanced Western thought.

In any case, I am soon to believe that concision is inversely proportional to veridicality judging from the thread here. The contention that those rules are irreducible has hitherto been argued at excessive length along this line: because they just are, and anyone who says otherwise is just wrong!

Give me a break. Philosophical janitors shouldn't even be annoying us with such hollow contrivances on this forum.

argumzio

[αrgvmziΩ]

I'll take a stab at emulating and developing what has so far been communicated. One might say that the three errors outline what might result in the process of any kind of inquiry (with a proviso that one as an individual is not regarded too closely, which I have hitherto taken as primary for this forum):

" a.) failure to perceive fully (before making a conclusion), b.) failure to exclude assumptions or other false perceptions, or c.) a failure to sufficiently differentiate, d.) a combination thereof"

a) This is equivalent to errors in observation.

b & c) These are equivalent to errors in conclusions.

(And d) is just a rehashing of those.)

But it would appear that a genuine third class of error is missing here: errors in method.

In the midst of this discussion, which could probably have been better served many posts ago without the hapless obfuscation on the part of one party, I would concur that in general, one should be able to mitigate the above-mentioned types of errors by employing the appropriate methodology, but this may mean that one must participate within some kind of community using that method as such in order to have any hope of that being a real possibility. It is to some degree arguable which method is best (to mitigate such errors). Ideally, you would need a particular method that can correct itself.

In the context of brain training and intelligence, we are capable of compressing these non-methodological errors into what are the apparent cognitive underpinnings thereof: since much evidence has arisen w.r.t. how the brain as a whole functions, it has become clear that observation is intimately tied to theory, such that all theory has its basis in what is an existential character acting within a particular environment beyond (for the most part) his or her control. (The Kantian bon mot is something like: observation without theory is blind and theory without observation is empty.) The self-reflexive character of our connectomes - absent any severely debilitating pathology - enables us to draw always upon and refer to our store of experience, even if that store is one of patterned abstraction (ultimately, higher-order observation disguised by its seemingly conclusive nature) suspended by a synaptic web. (While never before addressed, the third I mention would, arguably, arise out of observation of one's social environment, so that the defining character of error in that sense is dictated by the method thus employed. (For instance, if one takes some sort of authority as a source of information, then defiance of authority would be erroneous, which should be apparent individually. This wouldn't really work even provided that the authority isn't taken to account, but I'm getting a little too far ahead of myself.) I'll not address what I think would be the appropriate method to account for all errors, however, as I believe that would be off topic here.)

So in any case, when an error is made in regards to (external) observation, we all readily understand that. But when there is an error in conclusion (or preliminary observation/assumption), we must understand that the space of observation is internal, rather than external, or even a combination thereof. (Think about whenever it is you think. Is it not like observing/perceiving some kind of event? And is not a conclusion a kind of punctuation at then end of that internal observation? Are not assumptions, to some degree, like happenings that appear instantly to one's mind? It is not surprising, then, that when one exercises reflection in the process of thought that it may occur that what is externally apparent is obscured. E.g., imagining a triangle may obscure what is apparent to external observation, because you are observing internally that which you are internally generating for your observing. For those who have difficulty visualizing simple geometric objects, your kinds of internal observation might be verbal/auditory events that you readily engage like an audio clip, or even the physical sensation represented internally of what it "feels" like to draw/touch/etc a triangle.) A mere taxonomic interest in these errors, while helpful for some discussion, will not render it any less true that they are fundamentally one and the same kind of error. Even an error of logic is an error in observation, just as is concluding it is night outside even if your clock says "12:00". It thus becomes a question of how extensive one's observations become to mitigate these errors. (This was particularly apparent to me watching others in a classroom setting engage in logical proofs; it always boiled down to failure to observe the problem sufficiently or (both) to engage in observation of their internal mind-theater, where they should have the rules and their application carried out, and then displayed on the chalkboard.)

Perhaps the basic difference between individuals is that ability to imagine a universe and interact with it. If brain training has any hope of aiding at least some individuals, it would be in educating them in doing that to a large extent, I think. I still believe a Wason-style n-back has a good chance of forcing people to engage that internal mind-theater along with external observation for productive outcomes. Very little compares, in any case, to technologies we've already developed like handwriting, typing, and the like. Luckily we have the world as our canvas to show what it is we may imagine.

Whatever the case, it is fallacious to suppose that we will ever be truly free from the shackles of error.

argumzio

Why I am wrong six times before breakfast

[Brandon Woodson]

Oh, look. I found an undeserved favor.

>"TL;DR. Brandon says I have committed errors, because words can't enable him to understand the awareness he lacks."

Error #5: Sordid ad hominem.

In imitation: a word, but what is a word? To "perceive" the all is to perceive the many that it binds, and as I pointed out before, anything perceivable is amenable to symbolism, to word. Anywhere you choose to reject the notion of formalized logical categories (if you wish to so-call them, then "words"), then you unavoidably reject noetic perception.

(Why would someone who later goes on to label another as a "nominalist" think also that person uses "words" of the highest known generality (i.e., transcendent universals) anyway? Obviously, if s/he trusts in value of general transcendent properties s/he can't also be a nominalist...)

Error #6: Inaccuracies concealed in the sordid ad hominem.

> Not flag, not wind, not mind that moves. All are one.

Yes - flag, wind, and mind move as one, undeniably. But to move as a whole, they must move as parts, else they don't move at all.

Error #7: Failure to differentiate between the dual qualities of "all" and "every" inherent in every instance of noesis.

>"Much of this category obsession on display here reminds me of those differences between Western and Eastern cultures. I share stronger proclivities towards the East on philosophical matters, perhaps, but my synechistic bend simply will not abide by nominalists, no matter how much such a program has advanced Western thought."

While I too have strong proclivities toward Eastern philosophy -- apparently much stronger than you believe if you think this is the core of our disagreement -- I simply do not see the irreconcilable dualism you seem to suggest between synechism and nominalism.

If flag, wind, and flag move in unison, they also move apart as well. If you had done any appreciable thought streaming of your own, you would realize you can traverse from the one to the many AND the many to the one. There is no one without the many in any conceivable context. And funny how you're lecturing a guy on synechism that has to point out the congruence your one-sided, parochial argument shares with its other half.

This is more red herring from you. This issue isn't over synechism, and since you're smart enough that I'm sure you already know this, I can't help but to question your sincerity. The issue is that your rule is not *equivalent* to my rule; it *contains* it... as in, contains my rule and the opposite of my rule... And that's grossly oversimplifying the errors in your logic since there are plenty more which would be more difficult to explain.

None of what you said addresses my argument. argumzio, I'm sorry; you simply are not clever enough to misdirect my attention from the real issue. If you must, try this chicanery on someone far less "aware"...

Error #8: An implied unjustified and misleading assumption that I elect nominalism over synechism.

Error #9: Further predication on Error #7.

Error #10: More irrelevant red herring since none of this pertains to my argument anyway.

> "In any case, I am soon to believe that concision is inversely proportional to veridicality judging from the thread here."

The arguable prolixity of my argument doesn't detract from its veridicality at all. Your assertion just instead adds to your quickly climbing error count.

Error #11: Argument from fallacy.

>"The contention that those rules are irreducible"

I never contended that. In fact, I contended the very opposite; I admitted that they can be reduced... only not in the way you've described. If you had actually read the "TL;DR" argument of mine -- and not just read, but understood -- you would have already gotten that.

Error #12: Blatant dishonesty, or failure to include sufficient data and/or exclude assumptions regarding the actual nature of my argument in order to fully understand it, or both.

>"has hitherto been argued at excessive length along this line: because they just are, and anyone who says otherwise is just wrong!"

Nope, try again. I laid out precise refutations which you have yet to address, and in the post to which mine replies, you have only sidestepped the issue -- all the while proving how many error unrelated to my argument you can furtively jam in so few syllables.

Error #13: (More?) blatant dishonesty in misrepresenting a counter-argument that is claimed to be unread.

>"Give me a break. Philosophical janitors shouldn't even be annoying us with such hollow contrivances on this forum."

The only custodial work I've done is mop up the mess you've made in creating and maintaining these weak arguments of yours. I'll give you back the advice you so readily issue to others: point out where you are right in your position that perception is (bidirectionally) identical to the three rules as I have already done in mine that it isn't and stop tap dancing around the issue, or "man up" and take responsibility for your errors. Your juvenile refusal to address the points, and nothing but the points, is really getting old.



--Brandon

[Brandon Woodson]

"a) This is equivalent to errors in observation.

b & c) These are equivalent to errors in conclusions.

(And d) is just a rehashing of those.)

But it would appear that a genuine third class of error is missing here: errors in method."

Errors in method... is the error to sufficiently differentiate I've been describing all this time... Better late than never.


--Brandon

--

[αrgvmziΩ]

On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Brandon Woodson <bmwo...@gmail.com> wrote:

The only custodial work I've done is mop up the mess you've made in creating and maintaining these weak arguments of yours. I'll give you back the advice you so readily issue to others: point out where you are right in your position that perception is (bidirectionally) identical to the three rules as I have already done in mine that it isn't and stop tap dancing around the issue, or "man up" and take responsibility for your errors. Your juvenile refusal to address the points, and nothing but the points, is really getting old.

Yes, yes. We're well aware that you want to engage in needless argument because you're unable to write in clear and unambiguous terms or even give us the courtesy of being upfront about what you meant in the third post of this thread until much later, pretending you're some kind of fountain of inviolate authority and profound insight, guiding us along like we're all morons here.

I've had more than enough of your pretentious bullshit, so don't expect me to respond to your trumped up tally of errors.

The three class of errors I have described have been known for more than a century at least, and by more than one person. You did not, and do not, serve this "discussion" well.

argumzio 

[Brandon Woodson]

>"Yes, yes. We're well aware that you want to engage in needless argument because you're unable to write in clear and unambiguous terms or even give us the courtesy of being upfront about what you meant in the third post of this thread until much later, pretending you're some kind of fountain of inviolate authority and profound insight, guiding us along like we're all morons here."

Here we go again... Why do you continually presume to be a mind reader? Or to intimately know me? When did I ever suggest that I *want* to engage in any argument? If you insist on spilling your emotions about, at least have the decency to own your projections. 

And please note that when you first raised a similar personal and off topic issue, I asked you earnestly and with genuine concern why you believed you were being talked down to.

Yes, I occasionally write in clear and unambiguous terms, which is why I prefer calm, dispassionate discussion rather than heated argument where I can field for questions. I've explained before this is a personal weakness, which I accept as resultant of cognitive style. I did, and do, take full responsibility for any miscommunication that results from my (apparent) deficiency in communication skill.

I'll reiterate that I don't care much for measuring intelligence against others. IT IS UNPRODUCTIVE. My only aspiration is improving humanity's intelligence (if possible), in part so that such meaningless squabbling over intellectual rank can be left behind us. This simply should not have to be a zero-sum game.

>"I've had more than enough of your pretentious bullshit"

While I don't set out to alienate others, I think the whole concept of pretentiousness is what is bullshit... It's all about civility, rules to promote harmonious social relationships, but not inherently wrong. The usual reasons for the public antipathy toward pretentiousness are blind obedience to social protocol and self-interest. I don't care about the former and look to the sentiments of Voltaire on the latter:

"Men hate the individual whom they call avaricious only because nothing can be gained from him."

I think the latter is a despised only because it is an "avariciousness of some form of interpersonal/social currency". There's a fair bit of hypocrisy in calling someone else pretentious, since everyone who plays games in which such social currency is sought, is essentially fighting for the same thing. I care about unnecessarily affronting others as a general rule, but I cannot bring myself to care about specific arbitrary sensibilities (such as petty grievances over how much importance others place on themselves in their own minds). It is only for the fact that it usually promotes violation of the second rule that I even care about, and try to avoid, it outside of emotional reasons at all.

And it is hard to imagine anything more "pretentious" than the continual use of obscure phrases and words like "bon mot" and "Weltanschauung" and "synechistic" -- which are unfamiliar to most people of average intelligence -- in addresses ostensibly intended for the general public. Is your purpose to veil your thoughts from them? Why do you do this?

You should seriously sort out your stance on this issue if you haven't already...

>"so don't expect me to respond to your trumped up tally of errors."

Your prerogative, I truly don't care what you respond to.

>"The three class of errors I have described have been known for more than a century at least, and by more than one person."

While I am tempted to challenge your claim since I did discover minor differences and improvements (in the rules I suggested earlier) upon further review, I cannot imagine any reason why that information would be relevant to anyone in this context.

Are you insinuating that my drawing attention to this area of discussion had no bearing on the topic? Probably why you spent more words than I did in my last post in yours expounding on it and extolling its relevant virtues, huh? Is that what you would really have anyone believe?

And if I did bite, so what? Are you battling with another assumption of yours? I don't, have never, claimed to have invented the wheel here. I mean, since when did most ideas need to be novel to be useful?

>"You did not, and do not, serve this "discussion" well."

And again, in the general tone of this post, speak for yourself.



--Brandon

--

[αrgvmziΩ]

Yet another wall of text, I see. Well, have fun. I've seen enough of this forum with you in it to tell me all there is I need to know: I want no part in it.

argumzio

[Intergalactic war hero]

The secret of empathy: Stress from the presence of strangers prevents empathy, in both mice and humans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150115122005.htm

January 15, 2015

Empathy represses analytic thought, and vice versa: Brain physiology limits simultaneous use of both networks

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.htm

October 30, 2012

Altruism is simpler than we thought

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150715130826.htm

July 15, 2015

Are your emotional responses normal or abnormal?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150625080932.htm

June 25, 2015

[jotaro]

On the side note i know a person who is sort of a friend, who is very similar to argumzio when he argues.

lol. but do not fret its not argumzio, .

but certainly he takes pride in his debate and logic powers, and clean "mess" of others.

he similarly tries to shot down people when they disagree and tries to make it look in a light of logic.

on the other hand i do not know any person who is similar to brandon.

who is more rare then? of course you should claim i am irrelevent.

[Tolbert]

why are there so many intergalactic a-holes in this thread? argumzio brought up some interesting stuff and then Brandon totally derailed it with what was a distracting game of guess and ye shall be saved because he was afraid of plagiarizing commonplace ideas lmao

and how in the hell are errors that argumzio mentioned the "rules" Brandon brought up? totally off the wall idiotic

overvaluation of empathy is pretty common for people who pride emotional intelligence (a fabrication) when they are incapable of presenting things reasoned

it's not like you aren't biased since you attacked argumzio anyway with emotional diatribes

this list is crap now that so many smart people are gone

At least rename this group to Dumb-N-Jack, Circlejerk Training & Empathetic Stupidity or something lol

[Hi]

I made the message I did for practical and purposes relating to humor.

argumzio does find this thread at least slightly humorous, trust me.

For those taking life too seriously go take a walk in nature and come back with "sooooo hummmmm" ;) .

[Brandon Woodson]

Thanks for your sharp criticism, new guy to the ML who hasn't posted once in the over five years I've frequented this ML, who claims to have witnessed a time already past when all of the smart people were here, whose syntax looks awfully familiar, who has "confused" posters with different names (i.e., Hi and Intergalactic war hero) as the same person argumzio just earlier openly suspected of using an alt account, making a first appearance to call him/her/them out in the stead of a person who just stormed off. Your input is much appreciated.

I, personally, wouldn't entertain any argum-entative newcomers, Hi. ;)


--Brandon

[Intergalactic war hero]

I'm building a program called *Consequence (among other features of inference which the name otherwise might not directly infer) which makes these sorts of social deductions very simple thus hopefully increasing the sophistication of some of the posters replies here. Given conduct of late I'm aware that an antidote to this bacterial social infection that we can see on display here jumping from host to host is becoming more and more pressing, so no need to nudge the command ship, duly noted.

[Arnold Sicily]

I don't think the argument was particularly a difficult one to understand.
Yes, when changing the meaning of words there is the potential for confusion or inconsistency, but it is not absolute. It seems that had Brandon been clearer about his definitions, then things would have seemed less of a riddle.

On a further note, there is a fundamental distinction between perceiving & differentiation that I don't believe Brandon articulated well.

Differentiation is the 'resolution' of perception.
Perception is the application of differentiation to a particular thing.

For example, if I look at an apple, I may see the shape, the bumps on the skin, the red & green hues. What I see with this application of differentiation are apples & the features of the apple. Then, if I were to move my perception to the tree from which the apple hangs, I apply my differentiation to the tree & it's features.

The goal of perception & differentiation together is 'awareness'. To simplify scope, depth & "purity" (to not assume), is 'awareness' - but it is a necessary & sufficient division. If I only apply scope, but the detail that differentiates the objects is in the details, I will not achieve 'awareness'.
These 3 rules ultimately correspond to inward movement of attention, outward movement of attention & the removal of obstacles to attention. Accordingly, it covers the entirety of potential awareness.