In relation to meta-cognition or meta-learning, developing models of cognition and learning is a prerequisite.
Let's assume an agent has access to data, information, and knowledge where data is generated from direct experience in absence of the interpretation or report of another agent; information is generated from another agent reporting their data; and knowledge is generated by many agents interpreting information or data equivalently.
Also assume cognition is the process of interpreting information or reporting data and validating such interpretations/reports with other agents; and learning is the process of assimilating knowledge. Then meta-cognition could be the process of interpreting interpretations and validating validations; and meta-learning could be the process of assimilating assimilations.
Interpreting interpretations
Say an interpretation/reporting has an associated agent diagram. Such a diagram would have a primary frame along with peripheral frames, meso-elements, and possibly micro-elements. Meta-cognition requires simulating how multiple agent diagrams would draw an agent diagram of some underlying information generated from some underlying data-set. In other words, how would different types of people type the person talking in some context about something.
Validating validations
How would different types of people validate multiple types of people validating their interpretations of information generated from different underlying data-sets.
Assimilating assimilations
How does an agent meta-cognate about how their agent diagram develops with respect to how they assimilate knowledge from validated populations of agents interpreting information from different underlying data-sets.
Anyway, just a thought, but what if a model of frames can be coupled to a note-taking algorithm designed to re-wire any brain to use any frame. Assuming, of course that agents with different frames can choose [or be coerced] to modify their current frame in a non-deterministic fashion.
I am also wondering if knot theory can be applied to neuroscience since neurons must get tangled. I am a bit obsessed with category theory, algebraic topology, knot theory, and graph theory currently. Here are some more associations.
Squares ~ containers ~ differential topology, categories, sets
Triangles ~ crystals ~ representation theory, graphs, symmetry groups, crystallography
Circles ~ circuits ~ cycles, harmonic analysis, causality
Interceptions ~ crosses ~ knots, braids, links, linear algebra, optimization, operations research
Fun fact: Did you know there exist a whole area of mathematics that studies braids (yes, like of hair..) and that it serves as the foundation for a 'topological quantum computer' which is hypothetical but would be much more stable than current particle designs?
Updated Cognitive Function Model
Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model
Micro-associations are ignored because they are precisely what can be imitated. Memes or 'units of imitation' as Dawkins called them are strongly tied to activities such as cleaning, cooking, spirituality, hunting, farming, finance and other such widespread activities necessary for sustaining 'gene machines' into their fertile period.
Some meme complexes such as the 'cooking complex' has a high fidelity due to its association with several primary senses. Replicating a recipe can also be a self-correcting process because the reward is optimal flavor. Messages requiring pre-existing complexes to be interpreted and messages with a low fidelity are likely to be less successful in spreading across a population.
The exact relationship or co-evolution between genes and memes is fascinating and has been elaborated upon with a number of disguises.
Jung
The unconscious is the source of memetic diffusion shaped by our embodied state of existence. Roughly, the personal unconscious is less susceptible to cultural or meme-driven coercion (F-like). The collective unconscious has archetypal elements or meme complexes with a high fitness as demonstrated by persistence across time and populations (T-like).
Evolutionary Biology
From Darwin to Dawkins to Gould to Weinstien, the question of how and why humans are apparently different from other gene-machines has been forefront. From culture to memes to adaptive heuristics, some gene vessels apparently gain fitness from peer assistance.
Chomsky and Generative Grammar
To what degree is grammar innate? How can meme complexes be described in terms of 'generators' that can be triggered into developing micro-associative networks? How much demonstration and imitation is required to trigger and develop these complexes?
Evolutionary Linguistics
How did/do imitations or shared semantics become associated with symbols arranged according to syntactical rules? To what extent is language constructed or discovered? To what extent is language deliberate?
Bateson
Talks of a unity of 'mind and nature'. How can the 'patterns that connect' or synergy between meme complexes work with evolutionary path-dependence to steer it in a preferable direction?
Mathematics
An ongoing experiment in how to maximize fidelity while maintaining a strict dependency structure.
Some meme complexes such as the 'cooking complex' has a high fidelity due to its association with several primary senses. Replicating a recipe can also be a self-correcting process because the reward is optimal flavor. Messages requiring pre-existing complexes to be interpreted and messages with a low fidelity are likely to be less successful in spreading across a population.
The exact relationship or co-evolution between genes and memes is fascinating and has been elaborated upon with a number of disguises.
Jung
The unconscious is the source of memetic diffusion shaped by our embodied state of existence. Roughly, the personal unconscious is less susceptible to cultural or meme-driven coercion (F-like). The collective unconscious has archetypal elements or meme complexes with a high fitness as demonstrated by persistence across time and populations (T-like).
Evolutionary Biology
From Darwin to Dawkins to Gould to Weinstien, the question of how and why humans are apparently different from other gene-machines has been forefront. From culture to memes to adaptive heuristics, some gene vessels apparently gain fitness from peer assistance.
Chomsky and Generative Grammar
To what degree is grammar innate? How can meme complexes be described in terms of 'generators' that can be triggered into developing micro-associative networks? How much demonstration and imitation is required to trigger and develop these complexes?
Evolutionary Linguistics
How did/do imitations or shared semantics become associated with symbols arranged according to syntactical rules? To what extent is language constructed or discovered? To what extent is language deliberate?
Bateson
Talks of a unity of 'mind and nature'. How can the 'patterns that connect' or synergy between meme complexes work with evolutionary path-dependence to steer it in a preferable direction?
Mathematics
An ongoing experiment in how to maximize fidelity while maintaining a strict dependency structure.
Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model
Monism ~ existence ~ point
Dualism ~ mind and body ~ finite line segment
Trialism ~ mind, body, and sensation ~ triangle
--------------------
I was thinking recently of three approaches to understanding the whole of existence.
Part 1: Scale and Measurement (union of constructivism and naturalism)
Part 2: Systems and Processes (constructivism and naturalism are mutually exclusive)
Part 3: Learning and Teaching (development and discovery)
--------------------
Developments are centered on the [Human], and Discoveries are centered on [Earth]. The former assumes the existence of an observer and the latter does not. Naturalism can be a monism (no absolute exclusions exist), or a dualism (absolute exclusions exist). Constructivism is a trialism (exclusions exist along with an observer or agent to construct/control them).
--------------------
With this in mind, I was thinking that the written format for Part 1 could serve as a short introduction to science (..or absolutely agreed upon literature) with scales for light-years and meters (for distance), years and seconds (for time), temperature, EM wavelength, etc. all in scientific notation. This would give a broad context into which systems and processes can be introduced (at various different scales). Covers everything from universe, observable universe, galaxy, solar system, planet, city, organism, molecule, atom, to particle.
--------------------
The two major clusters of systemic categorizations in Part 2 could be [Earth] and [Human] where Naturalism and Constructivism are focused respectively.
Earth: geology, ecology, zoology, geography, oceanography, meteorology, climatology, economics, political science, engineering, technology, medicine, biology, physiology, chemistry, physics etc.
Human: psychology, linguistics, mathematics, philosophy, law, pathology, history, etc.
--------------------
Part 3 covers heuristics across all scales and systems. Here, complexity and information are the major themes. Naturalism targets the known and unknown, and constructivism targets the consistent and complete.
Dualism ~ mind and body ~ finite line segment
Trialism ~ mind, body, and sensation ~ triangle
--------------------
I was thinking recently of three approaches to understanding the whole of existence.
Part 1: Scale and Measurement (union of constructivism and naturalism)
Part 2: Systems and Processes (constructivism and naturalism are mutually exclusive)
Part 3: Learning and Teaching (development and discovery)
--------------------
Developments are centered on the [Human], and Discoveries are centered on [Earth]. The former assumes the existence of an observer and the latter does not. Naturalism can be a monism (no absolute exclusions exist), or a dualism (absolute exclusions exist). Constructivism is a trialism (exclusions exist along with an observer or agent to construct/control them).
--------------------
With this in mind, I was thinking that the written format for Part 1 could serve as a short introduction to science (..or absolutely agreed upon literature) with scales for light-years and meters (for distance), years and seconds (for time), temperature, EM wavelength, etc. all in scientific notation. This would give a broad context into which systems and processes can be introduced (at various different scales). Covers everything from universe, observable universe, galaxy, solar system, planet, city, organism, molecule, atom, to particle.
--------------------
The two major clusters of systemic categorizations in Part 2 could be [Earth] and [Human] where Naturalism and Constructivism are focused respectively.
Earth: geology, ecology, zoology, geography, oceanography, meteorology, climatology, economics, political science, engineering, technology, medicine, biology, physiology, chemistry, physics etc.
Human: psychology, linguistics, mathematics, philosophy, law, pathology, history, etc.
--------------------
Part 3 covers heuristics across all scales and systems. Here, complexity and information are the major themes. Naturalism targets the known and unknown, and constructivism targets the consistent and complete.
Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model
will understanding of this topic make me better in everyday life?
content seems heavy and recently I focused "failing" (but this time getting up stronger...) on my own in real life.
content seems heavy and recently I focused "failing" (but this time getting up stronger...) on my own in real life.
Re: Updated Cognitive Function Model
Perhaps not in the form presented here. It may need to be translated into a model that makes sense to you (with the right amount of complexity). I will keep this in mind when writing on this topic in the future to see if I can rephrase insights for a wider audience.