“—what if the mind is not so impossibly complex, intractably mysterious, commonly broken, nor unknowably divine – after all” 1. “f-@# magic” 2. “f-@# apathy” 3. “f-@# redundant complexity” 4. “f-@# institutional gaslight” 1 —What if we had a manual? ↩︎
minimal-viability: “prefer the simplest explanation, but for territory” interpretation “the basis of cognition is interpretation” Biology, senses, and cognition, evolved. “we distinguish phenomena to survive – to distinguish, we must detect difference” Senses evolved to detect patterns (relative arrangement) of stimuli; patterns become persistable, then recognisable. Persisted, recognisable patterns help identify external phenomena, to improve the circumstances of survival. Mis-identification of external circumstances often worsen the circumstances of survival. “foundations of cognition include ‘distinguishing well’”...
minimal-viability: “prefer the simplest explanation, but for territory” evolution Biology, senses, and cognition, evolved. “we distinguish phenomena to survive – to distinguish, we must detect difference” Senses evolved to detect patterns (relative arrangement) of stimuli; patterns become persistable, then recognisable. Persisted, recognisable patterns help identify external phenomena, to improve the circumstances of survival. Mis-identification of external circumstances often worsen the circumstances of survival. “foundations of cognition include ‘distinguishing well’” discernment Consider that discernment is optimised by:...
Consider a specific kind of new idea: one which illuminates an unnoticed relationship between two familiar concepts, for the first time. Humans refer to this as lateral thinking; and humans pride themselves on the ability to think laterally. Consider that the simplest explanation for this kind of “ability” is as a side-effect of neuronal mechanisms which really must have appeared very early on in the evolution of cognition – in order to distinguish and recognise external phenomena, with minimal evolutionary and operational footprint 1....
where ought we go with our testable theories? Emphatically – just because any researcher happens to exist online does not mean that they are-or-ought-to-be obligated to any correspondence with ‘randoms’ (like myself), in any way whatsoever. Emphatically. —where though for legitimate questions? —where ought we go to synchronise language and concepts, sufficient to solicit feedback on clear, testable, observables?