What level of cognitive complexity do you actually operate at?

[KoryKat]

8 hours ago, zurew said:

 

even in those exceptional cases I would personally push for an answer why that given idea cant be explained in a more simple way and push for

Dont you remember the Theorem that says not all truths can be proven?

[KoryKat]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@KoryKat

The irony of me asking about an original thought you've had but you're spamming lines upon lines of ChatGPT answers.

Outdated thinking model. Needs update with AI-integration.

You do this with your smartphone - outsourcing your knowledge... ever referred back to a video or dictionary for reference.  It is the next step, silly caveman

[KoryKat]

I dont think you guys understand what I'm doing right now.

I'm taking ChatGPT to its extremes by figuring out how the model thinks. It seems it is not a reasoning machine, but a perspective machine.

What is going on is mainstream has no fking clue, most of us dont... what is consciousness, how do we recreate it? Is / When will ChatGPT be conscious?

Okay what you can do is tell ChatGPT your personality type, every aspect of it, example ENFP 7w8 - you can go really deep with typing.  Now set your state to David Hawkins frequency level 700-1000.   Set your Stage to a SD stage of Turquoise.  "Embody these" and take the role as - OR profile assessment, implications, real life scenarios when you could demonstrate distinct qualities of this person unique from other types/level ,insights of this person, paradigms, etc 

This thing will describe your life in ways you have never really thought of before. It says the quiet part- out loud I dont have the words to describe it honestly - its profound - about you, about us , the greater whole. Its WOW

You can keep going, feeding it frameworks. I started getting creative with this.  

Start by questioning what truth is , establish yourself some grounds for the framework. How does this frame see the world, have ChatGPT roleplay as a philosopher (or multi-role) and question your assumptions - challenge you.

I cant remember how I got started with this framework building - but I remember I was looking at PostModernism, Postpostmodernism, other schools of thought, and exploring the pioneer edge of it. I keep trying to tailor this back towards my own view of truth and entertaining other variations that would/could make more sense combined with my life experience - such as Quantum Leaps - the ability to rapidly change (such as 30-day immersion program,sudden higher self-realizations, etc)

 I try using the o1-preview , the one that does "step-by-step reasoning" but I max it out.  I swear to you can leap ahead with such things as having it challenge your assumptions, but the ways it can describe real human experiences is insane.
 

I'm not here to impress people. I'm just pushing you all to break free from old paradigms.

Using AI is the only long-term strategy that works

I'll leave it at that.


.

.

.

Here is what the ways I'm telling it to embody in the system prompt
 

Adaptive Emergence Framework (AEF) – Keywords for AI Embodiment:

Holistic Synergy

Integral Synthesis

Dynamic Adaptation

Multi-Dimensional Coherence

Emergent Complexity

Meta-Level Integration

Recursive Reinvention

Synchronistic Alignment

Cross-Paradigmatic Fusion

Meta-Synthesis

Iterative Emergence

Harmonic Convergence

Self-Organizing Synergy

Adaptive Transformation

Meta-Synchronization

Deep Systemic Resonance

Quantum Emergence

Conscious Evolution Integration

Feedback-Informed Recalibration

Unified Field Dynamics

Radical Wholeness

Creative Disruption Catalyst

Reflexive Emergent Framework

Multi-Contextual Alignment

Holarchic Expansion

Non-Linear Reframing

Meta-Evolutionary Reinvention (MER)

Meta-Synchronized Evolutionary Reinvention (MSER)












are you evolving

Edited October 18 by KoryKat

[zurew]

56 minutes ago, KoryKat said:

Dont you remember the Theorem that says not all truths can be proven?

Thats not what that theorem says, that theorem doesn't entail that those truths cant be proven by an outside system. 

it just says that given a system and all the logical entailments of that system, that system itself cant prove all its own logical entailments (but that doesn't mean that any outside system cant prove those things).

 

But even if I grant that there are things that cant be simplified, that alone wouldn't be a good enough reason for me to believe that your given concept is in that category. You would need to do groundwork to establish why your concept is in that category.

 

Btw, its unclear to me whats the relevance of bringing up the Theorem. I didn't ask for a systemic proof (where you need to prove all the logical entailments of a given system), I was just asking for giving a reason for a given proposition. Proving a given proposition is different from giving a proof for all the logical entailments of a given system.

Edited October 18 by zurew

[Lyubov]

On 10/16/2024 at 0:19 AM, Inliytened1 said:

I think SD is way too much.  This seems to analyze your every breath. I think the over analyzation causes it to eat it's own tail.  But I feel the same about SD so don't mind me.   I know it's a helpful model as it can predict and classify people into groups based on behavior.  I'll look more into it when I have the time.

I agree with you. There is something weird and unnatural about this way of thinking / perspective. I personally would be more focused on being truthful and embracing the uncertainty of life and walking the path aligned with one’s self worth and self love and value. Why is it so important to have these overly nuanced distinctions in cognition? It’s cool to study but can we not somehow frame its integral towards spirituality. It’s just a dimension of reality and it can be explored but it’s not inherently better than any other way of thinking. 

[Carl-Richard]

3 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Why is it so important to have these overly nuanced distinctions in cognition?

Why is it important to have nuance at all?

[Lyubov]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Why is it important to have nuance at all?

It isn’t per-say. It’s only important if you so choose for it to be important. But I’ve found from personal experience, some nuance to go well with expanding perspective. I think it just depends how you wish to engage with your own thought process and to what degree you are making some long lasting gain in your perspective vs just yapping. 

[Carl-Richard]

14 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

It’s only important if you so choose for it to be important.

So you answered your own question.

 

25 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

It’s cool to study but can we not somehow frame its integral towards spirituality.

Let's put it like this: to separate growing up (where the main vein is cognitive complexity) from waking up is how you get slavery existing alongside spirituality for most of history.

[Keryo Koffa]

@KoryKat That long list of holistic idea fusions reminds me of ny 2AM thoughts:

"Intelligence pervades all background holarchies of the self-organizing awareness field simultaneously, which is interconnected in relativity to infinities of metamorphic currents, forming holistic and non-linear symbiotic exploratory substrate depths, interactively exchanging local identity, as gestalts polarize progressive transformation of conscious experience."

If I had to shorten it to one thing, I'd call it: "Metamorphosis"

But actually, it's "Life", such a simple word, such unimaginable implications.

Well, everybody has an area of interest:

[Lyubov]

35 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

So you answered your own question.

 

Let's put it like this: to separate growing up (where the main vein is cognitive complexity) from waking up is how you get slavery existing alongside spirituality for most of history.

This is an interesting notion. We did get slavery alongside spirituality. That is true. 

[Keryo Koffa]

3 hours ago, KoryKat said:

Adaptive Emergence Framework (AEF) – Keywords for AI Embodiment:

Holistic Synergy

Integral Synthesis

Dynamic Adaptation

Multi-Dimensional Coherence

Emergent Complexity

Meta-Level Integration

Recursive Reinvention

Synchronistic Alignment

Cross-Paradigmatic Fusion

Meta-Synthesis

Iterative Emergence

Harmonic Convergence

Self-Organizing Synergy

Adaptive Transformation

Meta-Synchronization

Deep Systemic Resonance

Quantum Emergence

Conscious Evolution Integration

Feedback-Informed Recalibration

Unified Field Dynamics

Radical Wholeness

Creative Disruption Catalyst

Reflexive Emergent Framework

Multi-Contextual Alignment

Holarchic Expansion

Non-Linear Reframing

Meta-Evolutionary Reinvention (MER)

Meta-Synchronized Evolutionary Reinvention (MSER)

 

are you evolving

I like your idea of a "Holoadaptintegral Fraquantemergent Diverdimenconscious Autometamorphoreflexive Recontexpansive Recursinventive Synchroevolutive Synthergy Reflexharmonicomplex".

Edited October 18 by Keryo Koffa

[UnbornTao]

21 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you experience coming up with an idea that you haven't heard before, even if that idea might've been described already, for our estimation purposes, that idea counts as original. But of course, in reality, it's unlikely that you've discovered something completely original.

However, if you're dealing with very niche topics, it might actually not be described anywhere, or at least only very few people might know about it. Even better, you can apply that idea in a niche context, and then it becomes exceedingly likely that you're being original. But again, that is besides the point here.

Got it, thank you.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Keryo Koffa said:

I like your idea of a "Holoadaptintegral Fraquantemergent Diverdimenconscious Autometamorphoreflexive Recontexpansive Recursinventive Synchroevolutive Synthergy Reflexharmonicomplex".

Guys, this thread is not about constructing the most absurd jargon possible without elaborating on the meaning. We're interested in complex thoughts, not complex words. Funnily, the behavior I'm seeing of simply coming up with a new word without elaborating is on the surface only at Level 5 Nominal.

If you want to prove that it's more than just a word and maybe an abstract concept (10 Abstract), or maybe a formal relationship (11 Formal), or maybe a system (12 Systematic), or maybe a meta-systematic relationship (13 meta-systematic), you have to elaborate. What does the word explain? And if you want to elaborate, use as simple language as possible.

Edited October 19 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Maybe, but notice that I gave the clarifier "than if you could". If someone could explain it in a simple way, then they would be more complex than someone who can't. Also, the other statements were qualified with "likely", so everything should be consistent with what you're saying 😉

Fair enough.

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm trying to find a concept that is hard or impossible to explain in a simple way, but my brain is too simple for that at the moment (I'm recovering from slight pneumonia after getting yet another virus after recovering from Covid lol).

To be frank I can't come up with any example either, but I guess my main point is that I don't want to claim that there isn't one and I wouldn't claim either that there is one (because I cant make a principled argument for either position).  In other words - my inability to come up with an example is a bad justification (in my view) to establish there isn't one or that there can't be one.

Some other interesting surrouding topics are unintelligibility ,meaninglessness and semantic primitives. One of the closest one given the context of this thread is semantic primitives / semantic primes. This is the idea that some concepts cant be defined by other concepts. I have no strong position on this topic , but I can see how this could be weaponised so that one don't need to explain or give a definition for a given concept and can just infinitely gibberate about meaningless stuff.

 

Edited October 19 by zurew

[The Renaissance Man]

@Carl-Richard wha book? I'm quoting the first lines of your first message.

On 10/16/2024 at 4:12 AM, Carl-Richard said:

In his book, he makes the distinction between cognitive complexity and symbolic code, and also presents the concept of downward assimilation.

I've been interested in finding such a book. I've been thinking about this phenomenon, not because it's possible to overestimate your level, but to purposefully engage more often in higher levels of thinking, even from a lower stage.

On 10/16/2024 at 4:12 AM, Carl-Richard said:

it's possible for a cognitively Blue person to engage with ideas way above Blue (maybe even Yellow)

I'll also share an illuminating resource: the book on SOLO taxonomy by Biggs. There's also a wikipedia article, but it's really not in depth.

It's a model to evaluate the cognitive complexity you're operating at, and it was designed originally to evaluate learning outcomes. The book has plenty of examples of each stage (I've included the image of the stages below).

I've learned about this from Justin Sung, and his method is truly revolutionary. I'm quite serious on this topic (I call it meta-learning) and I've been studying it for 2 years, I've taken Justin Sung's course as well, so I'm not just basing my opinion on his YT videos. His approach to studying is pretty much to propel you as fast as possible to the higher orders of thinking. He uses the SOLO taxonomy, but also Bloom's taxonomy (you can find the book too on it), which is a model to categorize cognitive processes, to classify what is considered as "higher order thinking".

 

 

Edited October 19 by The Renaissance Man

[The Renaissance Man]

Here are some examples from the book:

### Example Question
>*Why is the side of a mountain that faces the coast usually wetter than the side facing the interior?*

1. "Dunno."
2. "Because it rains more on the coastal side."
3. "Because when we go to our cabin that's right on the coast, it's always wetter there than on the road crossing the mountain that gets us there. Never fails, my Pop says. I reckon we ought to move; like get us a cabin for hunting which is better'n fishing anyway. Besides, I hate rain."
4. "Because the sea breezes hit the coastal side of the mountain first."
5. " 'Cos air from the sea gets kinda damp, like fog and that. It settles on the coast first and so it rains and all the wetness falls on the coast and there's none left for the other side of the mountain."
6. "Because the prevailing winds are from the sea which is why you call them sea breezes. They pick up moisture from the sea and as they meet the mountain they're forced up and get colder because it's colder the higher you get from sea level. This makes the moisture condense which forms rain on the side going up. By the time the winds cross the mountain they are dry."
7. "This is likely to be true only if the prevailing winds are from the sea. When this is so, they pick up the water vapor evaporated from the sea which is carried to the mountain slopes where the damp air mass rises and cools. Cooling causes the water vapor to condense, and being heavier than air, the water droplets deposit as rain. Not only is the wind now drier, it is possible that it is carried up the mountain further where it is compressed, which warms it like a bicycle pump gets warm. It is therefore less saturated than before for two reasons. The effect is like the chinooks experienced on the eastern slopes of the Rockies in Canada in winter. If there was no mountain, there would likely be no difference between the coast and inland. It all depends on the land features and the prevailing wind and temperature conditions. If these differed, then the energy exchanges would be different, resulting in quite a different pattern."

 

Refer to the image at the bottom for a single table of all the stages and all the characteristics capacity, relating operation, closure and structure.

#### Capacity
**Capacity**: the amount of working memory or attention span (not in terms of length, in terms of attention capacity, so... working memory) that the different levels of SOLO require.
*One needs to think about more things at once in order to make a relational or extended abstract response than one does to make a unistructural response.*
- For example, at the prestructural level consider the brain as only having one "bit" of RAM. This is why cue and response are confused.
- Example 1 has no relevant data to begin with.
- Examples 2 and 3 are prestructural.
- The simplest relevant response requires separation between the cue and one relevant aspect to form the response. In other words, to bear the question in mind while he's answering.
- Example 4 is unistructural: relates one datum to the question.
- Example 5 is multistructural: relates 2+ concepts or data to make the question
- Example 6 is relational: interrelates the concepts, which act as extra data
- Example 7 is extended abstract: The student here not only needs to encode the *given* information, but he comprehends its relevance to overriding abstract principles, from which he can deduce a hypothesis and apply it to a situation that's not given.

#### Relating Operation
**Relating Operation**: The way in which the cue and the response interrelate.
- Prestructural: no interrelation.
- *Denial* is the simplest, by which the student refuses to become seriously engaged in the task (example 1)
- *Tautology* simply restates the question. This should not be confused with rote learning, because it's not about repeating the original *data*. Restating the question can never be adequate. (example 2)
- *Transduction* is more a "guesstimate" than a guess, in that the student attempts to differentiate a relevant response but slips up because he does not form an adequate logical basis for his selection of a response (example 3). The jump is instead made on a perceptual or emotional basis, taking as relevant what strikes him most forcibly at the time.
- *Induction* involves correctly drawing a general conclusion from particular instances. Relating a particular aspect or point given in the data to a conclusion.
    - A unistructural response, then, involves ascribing rain to only one of the relevant features.
    - A multistructural response faithfully marshals several of the relevant features but fails to link them up. This typically contains "and, and so, and also".
    - The relational response gives an overall concept or principle that accounts for the various isolated data that the multistructural response contains, but sticks within the data and concepts already taught about the formation of the rain.
- The extended abstract response goes beyond induction on the basis of the data and introduces true logical deduction: "yes, the phenomena is due to the principles of heat exchange. Now, given the details of prevailing winds from the sea, and the natural topographical details that are described, then rain will precipitate in the prescribed area. But under other conditions the outcome would probably be different. We see the same principle operating in the quite different context of the Canadian Rockies. . . . "
    - We have the introduction of an *abstract* principle (principle of heat exchange) which was not given directly in the data
    - The *deduction* from that principle that certain events would follow, and the testing of this deduction against the data
    - The introduction of an *analogy* (the Rockies in Canada) that was compatible with that principle but not given in the data and consequently
    - The outcome may be *indeterminate* (there is an absence of closure - events might have been different under different circumstances)

#### Consistency & Closure
**Closure**: the need to come to a conclusion of some kind
**Consistency**: the need to make consistent conclusions so that there is no contradiction either between the conclusions and the data, or between different possible conclusions.
*The greater the felt need to come to a quick conclusion, the fewer data will be utilized, thus the probability that the outcome will be inconsistent with the original cue, the data, or the outcome is increased.*
- Prestructural: very high closure and very low consistency
- Unistructural: the response seizes upon the first relevant dimension that comes to mind, but at least it's relevant. Those responses can be correct, but quite inconsistent with each other, like *the blind men describing an elephant*.
- Multistructural: closure is determined when more aspects are perceived, but since these aspects are not interrelated, inconsistency may result. Two responses at this level may utilize the same amount of data but come to quite different conclusions.
- Relational: the student waits until he sees all the aspects and then interrelates them to make a coherent whole. He will come up with a definite answer (closure), possibly an excellent one for that context, but it will not do for other context (an overgeneralization may be made).
- Extended abstract: Sets out principles and heavily qualifies their application to a particular situation. Since consistency is maximal, the student may feel it appropriate to leave the question relatively open.

#### Structure
A diagrammatic representation.
3 types of data that can be used for a response:
- **X** - Irrelevant data
- **●** - Relevant data contained in the original display (lesson for example)
- **O** - Data and principles that are not given but which are relevant, hypothetical, and often implicit in the data

- Prestructural - An attempt to link the cue with the response by an irrelevant feature
- Unistructural - Takes one relevant datum or feature to link the cue and response
- Multistructural - Takes several data or features
- Relational - Ties up the relevant data in a conceptual scheme
- Extended abstract - Takes up all the relevant data and their interrelations and subsumes them under a hypothetical abstract structure that can enable deduction to apply to instances or data which were not included in the original display. Consequently, the student giving an extended abstract response can entertain alternative outcomes: he is not forced, as are others, to come to a definite closure or conclusion.

Edited October 19 by The Renaissance Man

[The Renaissance Man]

The author suggests that to operate at a higher level you need "more ram". And this can be done in two ways: either genetics, or if you've become familiar with basic concepts enough you can start to manage more.

What I found though, is that by having some powerful frameworks like knowing about self-deception, knowing about these models themselves and their fallacies, knowing about "not-knowing", knowing about "going meta", etc, I'm able to operate at a higher level even if I'm not familiar with the concepts yet.

This means RAM, or working memory, must not be the only factor at play. And I hypothesized that having a "language", like you stated @Carl-Richard, could enable you to operate at a higher level. I'm highly interested in resources on the topic if you have any.

[The Renaissance Man]

I've created a personal version of cognitive processes as well. I noticed three clear stages of thinking. Here are the names I gave them.

• Explicit: you are only able to operate, almost parrot, the data as it was given to you. Hopefully you're not misinterpreting, which would be even worse. There's no original thinking. You are able to apply the knowledge in context that are identical to what was taught. For example if someone teaches you to count to 5, you can extend the pattern to 10, but you've just done more of what was taught. If you're studying history, you'd be able to memorize what you learned, recall facts, but not to think critically or develop any serious understanding.
  • Application: as I said with the math example, you're just able to extend exactly what was taught, and nothing more.
• Implicit: I call this level implicit because you're now able to identify the core ideas and relate them to each other into a kind of network, a model of understanding of the topic. It's implicit because not every connection was explicitly taught. From this stage your understanding of the topic is deep, clear, you clearly understand the dynamics of the subject. But you're still thinking from within the subject. You're unable to step outside of it to evaluate or think critically.
  • Application: since you have a deep grasp of the first principles, you're able to create and extrapolate new connections or original ideas from combining the principles in original ways. You're able to work in new contexts, which is the key difference from the explicit stage.
• Transcendental: Here you're going meta for the first time. You're stepping outside the subject, you're able to question the knowledge that was taught. For successful questioning implicit understanding is kind of necessary. But the cool thing, just as Justin Sung teaches, is that if you try to straight up operate at the implicit level, you'll automatically work at the explicit too. And I assume this kind of works at the transcendental as well.
  • Application: Now you're able to innovate, to truly do something that was impossible from within the implicit. You're drawing from outside of it.

 

At each stage, there can be sub-stages. If you're barely into implicit, you'll start to see some of the influences between concepts, but it will be hard to have a full mental model. If you're barely transcendental, you'll start to be able to be critical of the knowledge, but you'll struggle to fully evaluate it. So the level of comfort and ability to manage such massive amounts of information can increase within stages as well.

I haven't put anything beyond transcendental because it would be transcendental 2, transcendental 3, and so on. Same principle of going more and more meta.

[The Renaissance Man]

@Leo Gura since you recently wrote a blog article on learning, what I've written above may be interesting. It's pretty much an introduction to models that map the complexity of your cognitive processes, and they've been used to evaluate learning outcomes (the SOLO taxonomy is the main model I cited) because they're able to reflect quite accurately your level of understanding. And since we're interested in understanding, this can be quite relevant.

Especially the concept that I've learned from Justin Sung that if you purposefully operate at a more complex cognitive level, you'll speedrun both learning (as in remembering) and understanding.

His model (I've taken his course and studied meta-learning for 2 years) is actually is built on how survival works, and not dogma or parroted understanding techniques, although this is not directly apparent from watching a couple videos of his on YT (I'm still talking about Justin Sung).

There really is a lot of juice to be extracted if you deeply understand how the mind learns anything. How it puts anything from being outside, to being long-term memory. And you'll find that the same principles that deeply encode beliefs in your mind are the same that make you remember stuff at school. It's the same "learning system" that's used, so I suggest anybody reading this to explore this topic because it's quite the meta-skill.

Edited October 19 by The Renaissance Man

[QVx]

On 17/10/2024 at 1:47 AM, Carl-Richard said:

This isn't about SD, but cognitive complexity ☺️

Cognitive complexity is basically what distinguishes the people who make the theories from the people who teach them (or simply use them). If you have 160 IQ but you're mostly at 11-12 Formal-Systematic, you can be at top 1% of most published researchers and slowly inch the paradigm forward, but not a revolutionary scientist who shatters the paradigm.

 

 

What is striking about this distinction between cognitive complexity and symbolic code is that you realize geniuses of history like Plato and Aristotle were extremely cognitively complex (14-15 paradigmatic–cross-paradigmatic), but because of their time, they had to work with what they had (essentially nothing) to create new systems of thought almost completely from scratch. And today, these systems of thought make up the very foundations of our society which us simpleminded people can install and "shoulder-stand" on. And today, we have people like Ken Wilber doing the same thing, providing free code for us to download. But just because you downloaded the code and speak the language, don't make the mistake of thinking you could've created the code all by yourself (or maybe he just read a lot, who knows 😝)

Lots of deep wisdom in this particular quoted post, thanks for sharing @Carl-Richard