In Search of ideas for how to Illustrate, Observe, Share, Study, and Maybe Possibly Improve the Human Thought Process.

That's interesting. But aren't strategies largely shaped by experiences? For example it is common for a person to have Liberal/Democrat values and then have Conservative/GOP values when older.
Great question and on the right path. Thinking begins with an emotional message from the limbic system that goes up to the prefrontal cortex. Thats how we change our minds learn etc. The LS only understands experiences and converts them to memory which is organized by the emotion at the time of the experience. The PFC sets goals and actions.

Democrats always use highly emotional ads and speech. When they lose its the children will starve, the earth will get warm and kill all life, blah blah blah. Look at the quotes from democrats in the news. Trump is Hitler a fascist end of democracy. They know emotion motivates people.

The biggest change from liberal to conservative just happened after we experienced 4 years of Biden.
 
More Bullshit and still not in line with the idea put forth in the OP.

Your letting emotion take over your thoughts
1755372522104.webp
 
My emotions are fixated on the mother ******* OP, which you are still trying to derail.

I already granted that some people let their emotions affect (determine?) what they know.

You put it out there as a ******* absolute and it's NOT an absolute fact.

1755374258975.webp



You will be put on ignore now, because obviously, your emotional attachment to a point you poorly presented and really never sold is nothing more than a derailment of what I was looking for in the OP.

Buh bye now.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, given the advancements and availability of AI technologies (Grok, Copilot, ChatGPT, etc.) I'm reminded of an idea I had a long time before AI was really being pushed as it is, everywhere today.

I've always been interested in mapping or illustrating my own "Thought Process" and then the processes of others. Basically, to see where the similarities and differences are. To compare, for example, the thought process on a specific issue between a Conservative and a Liberal.

The closest site that I have found, years ago, is DebateGraph "https://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=61932&vt=ngraph&dc=focus"

View attachment 1149954

It seemed promising and I tried getting started with it, but today, after looking at it so many years later, it's not as easy to follow and navigate as I would like to use.

It's very easy to imagine a "Blank page" as the starting point for any illustration of a thought process. If you second guess your thoughts as much as I do, it gets a whole lot more difficult to express my own thought process from there.

The brain is a fascinating thing.

Constructive suggestions appreciated.
I'm not sure of what you are asking. Is it about the internal structure and functioning of human brain, or how individuals go about solving problems? If the former, our brains are sophisticated computers which process external stimuli in a manner consistent with self preservation. (Emotion is a physical reaction to these stimuli.)

If the latter, individuals go about solving problems as a means of achieving desired outcomes. These outcomes may be physical or mental well-being. Physical well-being involves strategies to minimize threats and maximize future benefits. This usually requires an immediate decision of some sort.

Mental well-being involves validation of one's thoughts or feelings. This can come from external and/or internal sources. External sources can range from individual interactions to group affiliations. Internal sources can range from meditation to the satisfaction of resolving challenging problems.

Thus, the thought processes of an individual can vary according the situation presented. There is no right or wrong way to think, as long as one is aware of his/her motivations.
 
Hafar1014
I'm not sure of what you are asking. Is it about the internal structure and functioning of human brain, or how individuals go about solving problems? If the former, our brains are sophisticated computers which process external stimuli in a manner consistent with self preservation. (Emotion is a physical reaction to these stimuli.)

If the latter, individuals go about solving problems as a means of achieving desired outcomes. These outcomes may be physical or mental well-being. Physical well-being involves strategies to minimize threats and maximize future benefits. This usually requires an immediate decision of some sort.

Mental well-being involves validation of one's thoughts or feelings. This can come from external and/or internal sources. External sources can range from individual interactions to group affiliations. Internal sources can range from meditation to the satisfaction of resolving challenging problems.

Thus, the thought processes of an individual can vary according the situation presented. There is no right or wrong way to think, as long as one is aware of his/her motivations.
I gave an example of what I am looking for in the OP (DebateGraph) and also post #5 (flow charts.)

It looks like nobody cared to actually read it.
 
More Bullshit and still not in line with the idea put forth in the OP.

Value runs the show.

For instance - let's say you're trying to build a guitar amp. Why are you building it? Because... adulation, maybe you think you'll get chicks that way - or money, maybe you're a pro and you "need" an amp, or maybe like Hafar says you just enjoy doing it. Each of these are examples of "value".

So then, let's say you start building the amp but run into a snag and have to check schematics. You do that because finishing the amp has value. Or maybe you finish it and after listening to it you decide it needs more grit, and in that case grit has value.

And interesting example is social interactions. For most of us, friendships have value. For the psychopath, not so much. When you're in conversation, how do you choose what to say? Some people will say whatever they think the other person wants to hear, and the presumed value is the "liking" of the speech and by extension the person

You've heard of value "system", which implies an organized navigation of value, like maybe a hierarchy. To discover the system you can ask what a person would give up to get something else. The "conflict of rights" question in politics is value based,

When you're born you don't yet know what's valuable. You know you have to eat but there isn't necessarily a value attached to it, it's a primitive and visceral reflex at first. Then you learn what tastes good, and "good" generalizes from candy to spaghetti and sandwiches.

You avoid the the things that infringe on value. You ground your amp to avoid shock, not getting shocked has value. Value is context sensitive, you want shock for an electric fence but not for a guitar. Addictive drugs bypass context sensitivity, they give you value by directly stimulating the brain. You study in school because you want the degree, but that goes out the window with cocaine or a new girlfriend. Sometimes you assign value to abstractions, like the sense of "fairness". Thoughts themselves sometimes have value, and negative thoughts or feelings sometimes the opposite.

You will learn to navigate a maze to get to the reward, if it has value. Sometimes exploration is value enough. Sometimes rest is more valuable, and sometimes the reward loses its value if you get enough of it. There is interesting brain behavior involved in anticipating a reward, or waiting for a reward. You get anxious waiting for your paycheck to arrive, especially if it's a day late. An addiction can make you anxious. Your child's report card can make you anxious. A loud clean amp is perfectly fine until you get on stage in front of an audience that wants grit, then you get anxious if you can't provide it. Your "strategy" at that point can either be walking off stage or trying to bend ears with your jazz chops, whichever has more value. Beer has value except when it's sitting on top of your amp. :p

Value is "generative", it's an AI that likes to talk. Yak yak yak. Your brain runs through "what if" scenarios because you're searching for something, even if it's only mastery of guitar amps. Your brain sometimes locks onto a particular value, it becomes "obsessive" and "compulsive". A certain amount of that is called perfectionism, and when it's totally lacking you're called lazy or careless.

Memories are stored with their value. Sometimes they bring a smile to your face, other times a frown. The brain has to figure out what's valuable and how to extract value from a situation. A bad memory can become valuable if a lesson is learned. Any way you slice it, value is king and it runs the show. There is not a single "value center" in the brain, there are many. Social value has its own area in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, when damaged or improperly connected the result may be sociopathic - insofar as other value centers are still intact.
 
Emotions determine what you think you know, Thats where the answer is
Not so simple.

However emotions are very key.

I appreciate that someone is trying to penetrate some of the thought processes associated with sorting out facts/fiction and reaching a conclusion.

BTW: What emotions drive both sides of the AGW "debate"?
 
So many platitudes when the OP was very specific in what is being sought.

As an exercise, mustering all of the objectivity you can, imagine starting with a blank page. Someone presents an issue. Doesn't matter what the issue is. Starting with that blank page, what is the first step in your thought process?

Is it to gather the opinions of others? Is it to find definitions? Is it to see what the Bible or Quaran or Hebrew Text says?

Then what is the 2nd Step?

Etc.

No idea why this is such a hard concept to grasp.
 
Hafar1014

I gave an example of what I am looking for in the OP (DebateGraph) and also post #5 (flow charts.)

It looks like nobody cared to actually read it.
These are learned strategies for obtain value. For some people they're intuitive, for others they're explicit.

There's a fellow at UCLA named Judea Pearl who's come up with a system he calls the "do-calculus". It has a lot to do with causality, and discovering the reasons for things. In AI they call it the "credit assignment" problem. If you encounter a reward at the end of a maze, which particular turns got you there?

Your brain has a very sophisticated mechanism for credit assignment. Neuroscience hasn't figured it out yet, neither has AI. In both cases "systems of action" may substitute for full understanding. You learn the procedure and get the results, without necessarily understanding "why" it works. We have varying degrees of comfort with trust, some people have trust issues and others trust blindly. Both types can become successful mathematicians.
 
These are learned strategies for obtain value. For some people they're intuitive, for others they're explicit.

There's a fellow at UCLA named Judea Pearl who's come up with a system he calls the "do-calculus". It has a lot to do with causality, and discovering the reasons for things. In AI they call it the "credit assignment" problem. If you encounter a reward at the end of a maze, which particular turns got you there?

Your brain has a very sophisticated mechanism for credit assignment. Neuroscience hasn't figured it out yet, neither has AI. In both cases "systems of action" may substitute for full understanding. You learn the procedure and get the results, without necessarily understanding "why" it works. We have varying degrees of comfort with trust, some people have trust issues and others trust blindly. Both types can become successful mathematicians.
Do you get that I'm trying to find a way to illustrate thought processes so that they can be compared, improved, understood better, etc?

Here is one example.

In my thought process, things are defined by the observable characteristics they have.

For others, it seems to me that they define things by the characteristics the thing (even if only temporarily) lacks.

We are not all the same.
 
So many platitudes when the OP was very specific in what is being sought.

As an exercise, mustering all of the objectivity you can, imagine starting with a blank page. Someone presents an issue. Doesn't matter what the issue is. Starting with that blank page, what is the first step in your thought process?

Generally, I think to myself, "what good is this".

If I see value in it, I might pay attention and think some more.

If not, I might laugh (or frown) and walk away.

Is it to gather the opinions of others? Is it to find definitions? Is it to see what the Bible or Quaran or Hebrew Text says?

Wikipedia is go-to first step for a lot of people

Then what is the 2nd Step?

Master's degree? :p

Etc.

No idea why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

It's a broad topic. Is there a particular reason you're asking this question?
 
It's a broad topic. Is there a particular reason you're asking this question?
One reason is for having a different type of AI. One that is built on the actual thought processes of human beings. Instead of "machine learning."
 
Last edited:
One reason is for having a different type of AI, that is built on the actual though processes of human beings. Instead of "machine learning."
Well, lots of people have tried to flowchart thought processes. In some cases they're proscriptive rather than descriptive. (Here's an example, almost no one I know thinks this way: https://www.civilservice.louisiana.gov/files/divisions/Training/Job Aid/Critical_Thinking/Critical Thinking Process Flowchart.pdf )

Humans as well as AI "learn" thought processes. In both cases learning starts with statistics (correlation, mostly). The coincidence of a deep desire and a bad experience can shape thought processes for life. I know an amazing studio musician who can't perform live, he gets stage fright because he says his parents pushed him into a public recital before he was ready. He is "stunted" that way, so he simply avoids the situation. It affects a lot more of his thought process than just music.
 
Well, lots of people have tried to flowchart thought processes. In some cases they're proscriptive rather than descriptive. (Here's an example, almost no one I know thinks this way: https://www.civilservice.louisiana.gov/files/divisions/Training/Job Aid/Critical_Thinking/Critical Thinking Process Flowchart.pdf )

Humans as well as AI "learn" thought processes. In both cases learning starts with statistics (correlation, mostly). The coincidence of a deep desire and a bad experience can shape thought processes for life. I know an amazing studio musician who can't perform live, he gets stage fright because he says his parents pushed him into a public recital before he was ready. He is "stunted" that way, so he simply avoids the situation. It affects a lot more of his thought process than just music.
That is more like it. I agree, nobody at least consciously thinks like that flowchart. But it is a starting point for what I'm imagining. Thanks.
 
That is more like it. I agree, nobody at least consciously thinks like that flowchart. But it is a starting point for what I'm imagining. Thanks.
You may find this interesting:


As an experimental scientist, when I hear a presentation or read a paper, I start by asking two questions:

1. What part of this is real, and
2. What part(s) can I use

I've been studying "reference frames" in the brain. Every brain area has more than one function, depending on the network it makes itself part of. The same area that aligns reference frames geometrically, is also involved in math understanding, counting and solving math problems.

A lot of what we know comes from disorders and diseases. For instance, there is a math equivalent of dyslexia, it's called dyscalculia. There is no equivalent in AI, because AI doesn't break up the incoming information the same way our brains do. in the transformer technology that drives most of today's AI, words are encoded by likelihood, in other words there is data science that precedes machine training. (Some would call it the "algorithm" that AI's use). The result of this encoding is a measure of "distance between words" that has to do with meaning, and has nothing to do with Euclidean distance.

You may enjoy this also:

 
15th post
You may find this interesting:


As an experimental scientist, when I hear a presentation or read a paper, I start by asking two questions:

1. What part of this is real, and
2. What part(s) can I use

I've been studying "reference frames" in the brain. Every brain area has more than one function, depending on the network it makes itself part of. The same area that aligns reference frames geometrically, is also involved in math understanding, counting and solving math problems.

A lot of what we know comes from disorders and diseases. For instance, there is a math equivalent of dyslexia, it's called dyscalculia. There is no equivalent in AI, because AI doesn't break up the incoming information the same way our brains do. in the transformer technology that drives most of today's AI, words are encoded by likelihood, in other words there is data science that precedes machine training. (Some would call it the "algorithm" that AI's use). The result of this encoding is a measure of "distance between words" that has to do with meaning, and has nothing to do with Euclidean distance.

You may enjoy this also:


I'm still plugging away at debategraph and not having much luck. There is only a limited number of ways to "map" things in the manner and sequence that I wish.

If I can get a solid start on it, I will share the link here in this thread.
 
Our brain architecture is very revealing of our "thought process". What you see here is an fMRI image of the Default Mode Network. The red area in back is called the "posterior cingulate cortex".

How it works, is like this: all of our sense feed into the inferior temporal cortex, which recognizes, identifies, and names objects. Once an object has been identified, two additional calculations take place, "where" is it, and what "value" does it have. The value is context sensitive, the same object can have different values in different situations. Then these three elements get combined in the posterior cingulate cortex, where they get formatted into an "episodic memory".

The part that calculates value is the part in front in the image, it's the prefrontal cortex. "How" this information gets separated and then recombined is a fascinating story. Basically though, the value determining part of the circuitry runs the show. Humans use "strategies" for thought processes, and which strategy is in use is determined by what value it has. When a strategy being used has no further value, it's discarded in favor of another.

The map of strategies is a "graph neural network", if you've studied computer science you know a lot about graphs. There are algorithms for finding paths through graphs (basically like navigating a maze), algorithms for calculating the optimal path based on cost or expected reward or situational constraints, algorithms for partitioning graphs (like graph coloring problems and max-cut), and so on. A GNN can do all this and more, it becomes aware of the topology of graphs as it learns, so for instance if you have symmetries in your strategies the GNN will find them and make them available to you.
That implies no difference in IQ, which is all that matters
 
Emotions determine how intelligence is applied. He who concentrates the longest is wasting time, has trouble thinking, and doesnt know what to do
Submissive Slavishness Is the Worst Mental Obstruction

If blind obedience is not considered an "emotion," you have to add "personality defect" as a determinant of mental independence. And it comes from those who set themselves above us; it is not innate.
 
it is common for a person to have Liberal/Democrat values and then have Conservative/GOP values when older.
Imaginary Memes

That switcheroo is exclusive to one birth-class, which arrogantly preaches that it is the model for human nature. For example, the spoiled and silly problems of preppy Holden Caulfield are presented as a typical teenage characteristic. That deception was exposed in John Fowles's The Collector.
 
Back
Top Bottom