Mind - Knowledge -- Knowledge - Mind

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

@Meno_

To recap I need to recycly previously essential stuff that does not flow naturally into itself:

Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Profile
Sat May 01, 2021 7:35 pm Post
Meno_ wrote
But not necessarily. Right?
Only inductively at it’s fringes

Is the brain not just a system of inference?

You already know that I will happily consider what you are saying - in fact, I already am.
…I still have to work through each line of thought and distill the complete result
Reply with quote
Re: Mind - Knowledge – Knowledge - Mind
Offline encode_decode
Philosopher
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Profile
Mon May 03, 2021 9:57 am Post
I am always looking for holes in the networks of thoughts. Dead nodes, weak connections…etc.

encode_decode wrote
Is the brain not just a system of inference?

You already know that I will happily consider what you are saying - in fact, I already am.
…I still have to work through each line of thought and distill the complete result

You have me questioning myself Meno and this is a good thing. Luckily I am only side-tracking minorly.

I have discussed with you concepts of narrow thought versus more broad thought bleeding from the brain into the mind. The characterization by the inference that comes from generalization should not be removed unless it is useful to do so from the more narrow field of inference that comes from discrimination produced from particular instances(be they an object in the environment or a synthesized thought(a type of relation to an internal environment)). We assume that the brain does analyze and synthesize in order to determine whether there are correlational influences in the environment. This is a product of more broad bleeding thoughts mixed with narrow bleeding thoughts encapsulated by the concept of inference. Do you see what I mean?

When the attempt to consider all factors emanating from the mind associated with the mind or even the brain is made to wrap the mind up into a simpler concept it is easier to consider each facet individually and look for similarities so that things can be grouped in such a way to create a hierarchy in which the discussion can be performed at the top level or any level underneath. Just so long as the vastness of the mind leads back to the concept of mind then we are on the right track.

If we refer to fringes - physical fringes only come into account minorly but temporal fringes come into account majorly - providing of course we are thinking about the end result of diffusion.
Reply with quote
Re: Mind - Knowledge – Knowledge - Mind
Offline encode_decode
Philosopher
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Profile
Mon May 03, 2021 1:03 pm Post
Also Meno…

Something I just wrote:

An individual’s complete knowledge is only partial knowledge of all possible knowledge.

Bringing us back to unknowns as a form of knowledge. Also, that mind depends on knowledge.

An example of a word - When coming across a new word for the first time we discover an unknown, an unknown is a form of knowledge; a new word…and learn a partial knowledge of this word through context and on further reading of the same word in different situations that partial knowledge increases given different contexts. This is not quite the same as being given the definition of the word prior to seeing the word used, however by being given the definition of the word I suggest that only partial knowledge of the word is gained nonetheless.

I have discussed this before - but I can not remember if it was with you. Also, the process of diffusion assures that we only ever have partial knowledge of the word.
Reply with quote
Re: Mind - Knowledge – Knowledge - Mind
Offline encode_decode
Philosopher
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Profile
Tue May 04, 2021 11:42 am Post
Meno_ wrote
Can the question be asked which is primary and which secondary in derivation?

I believe this depends on how we look at it. This depends on what angle we take. Many angles are plausible and possibly arguable at the same time. Are we looking at this as a quandary of causality? Much the same as the chicken or the egg? Or is there possibly another way to look at this? Leaving aside cause and effect we can still easily see both as we would applying causality’s principle. At this point in time, I am working the mind clearly depends on knowledge angle. Sidetracking, it becomes intuitive that mind and knowledge are circular dependencies of each other but to what point? Mind and knowledge without anything else just sit there as concepts. Questions arise, one, for example, being: How do mind and knowledge work together?

Establishing the connection between knowledge and mind is only necessary when contemplating a workable system involving knowledge and mind. Since the brain produces the mind and the brain is made up of many components and knowledge is also made up of many components perhaps we should be asking what is representative of knowledge. There seems to be something missing here. The mind is the representation of the brain so we should think that we need to fill in the gap of what represents knowledge. Does the mind also represent knowledge? Or does the mind only recognize knowledge via the brain? Since we have established that the mind and knowledge alone do nothing then maybe knowledge comes from outside the mind and the brain.

This brings us back to: An unknown is a form of knowledge. I should perhaps demonstrate this using a workable system. We can briefly explore what such a system does with an unresolved entity(in this case an unknown) by introducing the system to an unknown. Is it possible that the system will have any concept involving this unresolved entity? I am confident. We can also explore the difference between that which has been discriminated against and that which has not while we are at it. I will have to get things set up for this but more to come…
Reply with quote
Re: Mind - Knowledge – Knowledge - Mind
Offline encode_decode
Philosopher
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Posts: 1422
Profile
Thu May 06, 2021 9:31 pm Post
The following example is produced from an unknown with no discriminative filter applied…

Workable system wrote
this type of mental process is characterized by the combination of good or bad information and evil information

I may as well call this the insanity test. You can probably guess at the information that it is feeding on.

Time for me to rest a while…

There is a great deal i feel need to be filled here.
Just a reminder, to reconnect with the interweening later…

[encode_decode]

Thank you, Meno.

@Meno_

To recap I need to recycle previously essential stuff that does not flow naturally into itself:

I will go through it and see where I went wrong.

The four main problems that I imagine would be stumbling blocks are as follows:

1. unknown
2. known
3. brain
4. mind

I will not just look at these.

First I will analyze the flow of information as you suggest…
…and then I will look for any ambiguity of terms…
…and finally, look for broken logic that might not fit in with the principles I am following(want to follow).

@Meno_

There is a great deal i feel need to be filled here.
Just a reminder, to reconnect with the interweening later…

This result indicates a problem on my side Meno. Just working on the connection between knowledge and mind has me sidetracking a lot.
I will spend a bit more time focusing on this rather than getting over sidetracked on other topics.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Ill take partial credit for the problem to my delayed correspondence, so as to minimize Your responsibnsibility for error. Thanks

[encode_decode]

Curiosity is a side topic and is off-topic for the purpose of this discussion…however…

If I may offer a few short thoughts on curiosity before I fix the prior confusion. I will requote myself and make two quotes from websites.
I am feeling particularly lazy today. Note that I have edited my quote to help clarify my thoughts. Also, note that the way I define the social and self in regards to curiosity is more complicated than what is mentioned following my self-quote here but the underlying principles of what I have quoted are fundamentally the same.

@encode_decode

I have been toying with curiosity for a number of years - it seems in a model of connected neurons that this network is unconsciously curious and curiosity bleeds into the mind - curiosity is a form of seeking…like a kind of general prediction that there must be something else there.

When I refer to curiosity - I am making sequential connections between social curiosity, self-curiosity, and neuronal curiosity - in this order.

Social curiosity has been defined as the desire to acquire new information about other people that leads to exploratory behavior and was conceptualized as a motive-behavior system…

We are social creatures and we are curious about one another and I believe that curiosity goes deeper than this.

The construct of self-curiosity is defined as one’s tendency and interest in exploring their inner functioning.

We spend a good portion of time not only thinking about ourselves but also thinking about others when we are alone, and again I believe curiosity goes deeper than this. This gets a little hazier the further we progress in the sequence but does still seem reasonable.

Biological explanations for curiosity are poorly understood but from what I can tell: prediction and curiosity work together. Curiosity is one driver prompting us to get more information. I believe that curiosity is one of the central mechanisms for resolving unknown information about any given thing. From a neuronal perspective, there are many redundant systems doing the same thing of course which in turn gives rise to reward chemicals and reinforcement. Redundant neuronal systems do curiosity and furthermore, curiosity is not a strongly isolated function.

Information leads to knowledge, specifically relevant and accurate information leads to knowledge, and knowledge acquisition for the sake of this discussion is driven in this case by curiosity. Hopefully, I have usefully passed on my thoughts regarding how I think about curiosity and reduced some of the uncertainty that I have created. It is not necessary to include the topic of curiosity in a discussion about mind and knowledge - if I do mention curiosity again, it is only intended as a device/tool for elaboration.

Another quick read that is related to this discussion if it interests you: Mind Reading - Social Cognition

[encode_decode]

What I have written is clear to me. There are only minor inconsistencies and minimal contradiction.

I am using my own terminology with meaning that I am applying to it. It is hard to get over the concept of the unknown for instance.

The unknown is something that I considered a long time ago when considering how knowledge acquisition works soon after birth if I recall correctly.

I have notes from years ago but they are focused on language.

To re-reiterate:

@encode_decode

I can not begin such a conversation without traversing some sort of thought spectrum that contains inconsistencies and contradictions - no perceived progress would be made without removing such inconveniences and following a more narrow field/spectrum of thought. This narrow pathway could lead off in the wrong direction. Then again all roads may lead to Rome - but who knows?

And here is the problem with conscious discrimination - following the wrong path.

Long ago I worked with the idea of pattern recognition, which prompted me to pay some consideration to pattern formation - kind of a weird order that I am fully aware of. Patterns must be formed before they can be recognized. The patterns must come from outside that which recognizes it. This is a seemingly paradoxical depth for some. I am in a way controversially suggesting that knowledge comes from outside the mind and that we place way too much emphasis on the brain as a memory device and what the brain is doing is performing recognition over memory formation. Prediction is a driver to recognition - the brain/mind pair are always piecing together missing information to perform recognition.

I am edging toward the unknown here…

…current tools are insufficient to give us a full explanation of what is actually happening and understanding this is more a process of recognition through prediction than relying on what we already know.

Essentially the underlying idea is bringing the past and the future together to result in some configuration of the present - redefining the present as we move forward through the continuum of time.

I will keep moving forward to see how this affects knowledge.

[Fixed_Cross]

@encode_decode

1. unknown
2. known
3. brain
4. mind

Small notion, might be useful;

The idea proposed by Aldous Huxley that the brain is like a receiver-filter, rather than a constructor of awareness.

Id say its probably both.

[encode_decode]

@Fixed Cross

Small notion, might be useful;

The idea proposed by Aldous Huxley that the brain is like a receiver-filter, rather than a constructor of awareness.

Id say its probably both.

Let me sneak this in…About five years ago, I had an induced mind splitting experience - two minds at once - two different conscious instances - weird. I will not go into any further detail.

Huxley’s take is interesting, to say the least. The filter is an extremely accurate way to think about it. I have a lot more to say about this but I will leave it here for now.

[Meno2 (Meno_)]

Encode says:

“Let me sneak this in…About five years ago, I had an induced mind splitting experience - two minds at once - two different conscious instances - weird. I will not go into any further detail.”

…

[encode_decode]

@Meno_

Encode says:

“Let me sneak this in…About five years ago, I had an induced mind splitting experience - two minds at once - two different conscious instances - weird. I will not go into any further detail.”

…

Weird things happen Meno. I do my best to keep my head out of these clouds - if I was meant to hover around up there then I am only left with the assumption that I would have spent a lot more time in these clouds. Down here I still get to see that we are connected to more than what our immediate experience allows us to always see - I am happy with this - weird things still happen but if we were to place them on a scale then weird things happen in varying degrees. Let us refresh the idea of weird for prosperity: adjective > suggesting something supernatural; uncanny. A person’s destiny(ARCHAIC•SCOTTISH). Induce a sense of disbelief or alienation in someone(INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN) - these are the main definitions that Google provides us. Most people won’t acknowledge anything weird…a lot of them think they have acceptable explanations but what they forget is that their explanation came from somebody else - this is not their own formulation…what does this say about the experience of the masses? Perhaps this even hints at Psychic Epidemics, the mass delusion…