Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Where are you and where are you going?
daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Attentional Orders

..because there are not enough labels being thrown around for this confusing subject already. Just so happens to be one of those topics where you must reinvent it in your own flavor to fully grasp its universality, paradoxically... but not really.... but if I point you in any direction... then that pointer will have come from somewhere.... so... ;)

Included in this aggregate: Russell's Logical Types($), Bateson's Learning levels(*), Yudkowsky's Inference Levels(#), and Jacob's own spin(&)

See Kegan for a more social flavor: viewtopic.php?p=168588#p168588

($) Mathematical Logic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica ... I have not read.
(*) Cybernetics: https://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/1198/1/fulltext.pdf ... Great read.
(#) Decision Theory: https://www.amazon.com/Map-Territory-Ra ... 1939311233 ... Cannot find what I am looking for... he really should have made an index.
(&) Cybernetics: viewtopic.php?p=178280#p178280 ... An ex-physicist reminding a young philosopher reality is a thing.

0:
  • Bateson: …is characterized by specificity of response, which - right or wrong - is not subject to correction.
  • Jacob: Being able to respond.
Attention0 or A0: Attention is memory-less. From an external perspective, the agent appears to be responding yet from an internal perspective the agent cannot tell if focus is any different from its surroundings.

-> A0 ->

1:
  • Bateson: …is change in specificity of response by correction of errors of choice within a set of alternatives.
  • Jacob: Being able to modify response (acting on feedback)
A1: Attention to attention. A0 is now an object coupled to background attention. A1 forms subjective associations to A0. These associations allow A1 to anticipate alternative A0 paths but it cannot yet understand how it selected a particular path (it just can).

From an external perspective this can appear in operant conditioning and is strongly associated with behaviorism:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism

A1 -> A0

2:
  • Bateson: …is change in the process of Learning I, e.g. a corrective change in the set of alternatives from which choice is made, or it is a change in how the sequence of experience is punctuated.
  • Jacob: Being able to modify the feedback based on response (this is called training)
A2: Attention to attention to attention. A1 is now an object coupled to background attention. The path A1 chooses for A0 is now understood by A2. A2 is able to select how A1 selects A0 paths without understanding how it does this.

Can be observed in a curricular or corporate setting whereby there are hidden rules to success. There may be a syllabus that encodes these rules, but the expectation of the setting is that you must derive your own [A1] conditions for success. Associated with most of cognitive psychology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology

A2 -> (A1 -> A0)

3:
  • Bateson: …is change in the process of Learning II, e.g. a corrective change in the system of sets of alternatives from which choice is made.
  • Jacob: Being able to modify training based on feedback (this is called learning)
A3: Attention to attention to attention to attention. A2 is now an object coupled to background attention. The path A2 allows A1 to choose for A0 is now understood by A3. A3 is able to select how A2 selects how A1 selects A0 paths without understanding how it does this.

This can be found in PhD programs or within an entrepreneurial setting where the curriculum is dropped and students are simultaneously expected to do research and to be teachers of their own curriculum. The implications of teaching are not fully comprehended and research is not truly original. Roughly associated with metacognition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition

A3 -> (A2 -> (A1 -> A0))

4:
  • Bateson: …would be change in Learning III, but probably does not occur in any adult living organism on this earth.
  • Jacob: Being able to modify learning based on feedback (this doesn't really have a name, but is usually referred to as paradigm-shifting, mind blowing, meta-cognition, ...)
A4: Attention to attention to attention to attention to attention. A3 is now an object coupled to background attention. The path A3 allows A2 to allow A1 to choose for A0 is now understood by A4. A4 is able to select how A3 selects how A2 selects how A1 selects A0 paths without understanding how it does this.

Teaching is now fully objective and the implications are comprehended. Not only can A4 optimize their curriculum but they can do so for the purpose of creating a paradigm-shifting context. Not only transforming their students but themselves in the process. Capable of truly original research. See paradigm shifts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

A4 -> (A3 -> (A2 -> (A1 -> A0)))

5:
  • Jacob: Being able to modify that based on feedback (this doesn't even have a reference; we can call it meta squared, but that doesn't really tell us anything).
A5: Attention to attention to attention to attention to attention to attention: A4 is now an object coupled to background attention. The path A4 allows A3 to allow A2 to allow A1 to choose for A0 is now understood by A5. A5 is able to select how A4 selects how A3 selects how A2 selects how A1 selects A0 paths without understanding how it does this.

What would this mean? All such paradigms would be objects, and the subject could choose where and when to establish a particular paradigm. For what purpose would be incomprehensible. Time would be completely non-linear: cycles upon cycles upon cycles..

A5 -> (A4 -> (A3 -> (A2 -> (A1 -> A0))))


As you can see, at 4, Bateson believed this level unlikely in humans whereas Jacob associated it with a few [uncommon] labels. It appears metacognition in the literature tends to reference 3, whereas references to 4 are rare. Anyway, I encourage you find your own system and/or help describe existing systems.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Some interesting developments being made with cognitive diagrams. To see how these compare with my initial constructions see this thread: viewtopic.php?p=186850#p186850

Resources in this new interpretation are just replicators of the zeroth order (R0)(%). Existing externally to any agent (not in C0). As the orders increase, replicators become more and more repressed into an agent's unconscious. R1 corresponds to replicators within an agent's consciousness whereas R2 corresponds to replicators within one level of activity(*) and so forth for R3, R4, ...

(%) Or replace all R's with P's to be consistent with a post I made previously. R's and P's will be exchangeable from now on.

(*) An activity is driven by at least one unconscious replicator.

Resources/replicators are represented by points and are attended to via sensation and intuition. Activities/judgements are represented by non-agent circles (i.e. C1, C2, ..) and are conducive of attention via thinking and feeling. One thing to keep in mind is an apparent superposition of interpretation whereby a C1 instance is brought outside of C0; this could either mean that C1 is a new agent from an objective standpoint (i.e. to the artist) or that C1 is an apparent agent from the perspective of C0 instances. Either way this is fine given that two agents may exchange (i.e. teach/learn) activities/judgements via formal systems that may as well be modeled as agents so long as the ethical implications are not taken out of hand.

If you look at just the first two functions of each type and ignore direction, then you can see that NT's, NF's, ST's and SF's all share the same diagram. Interestingly, I showed these to my ESFP mom and without describing what they meant she could intuitively point out which fictional characters matched to each diagram accurately. Especially after I cleared up a few misconceptions (e.g. NF's are not necessarily narcissistic even though their focus is primarily within).

The grid like diagram with a single occupied square appears to be decoupled from the other diagrams though there is another diagram which provides a connection. The squares in this master grid represent all the major cities and each city can be slit into games or organizational partitions where agents interact according to their internal strategy (i.e. activity/judgement/goal webs).

There also exist an interesting connection with cognitive-developmental theories whereby R0's and R1's are slowly converted into higher-order replicators by encapsulating clusters of them into activities thereby transitioning them into unconscious action (i.e. the subject assimilates objects until the subject itself become a single object at the next order - such that previous objects are now hidden behind an activity/judgement barrier). Lining up with Kegan's diagrams in "In Over Our Heads".

I would like to look more into how these diagrams can be used to set up interesting game theoretic scenarios of incomplete information. I suspect that these developments will help agents form a visually intuitive backbone to this subject.
Last edited by daylen on Sun Oct 18, 2020 6:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

I suspect there may be some interesting cross-fertilization between the cell level and the city level with their similar aggregate structure in some circumstances. In an attempt to establish this link I am reading/reviewing parts of "Images of Organization", "On Growth and Form", and "Scale": corresponding to organizations, cells/organisms, and organizations/cities. For the species levels I have been working my way through "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" for quite some time (almost 1500 pages and dense). That has been quite interesting and helps me establish a geological-time pivot (species level) in the center for peripheral levels to cycle around.
Last edited by daylen on Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Let's just go ahead and do for R and C what we did for P. Convert: R = rectangular holarchy into E = event holarchy; and C = circle holarchy into A = attention holarchy (retaining all that was said about attentional orders above). The direction of increasing order is different for each: A increases and E decreases in order as you go into the diagram. Like in this first example..

Image

Therefore a diagram with a in E0, b in A0, and c in R0 would simply be a rectangle containing a point outside of a circle or [(c outside b) inside a]. This simplification should lead to more elegant algebra in the future.

The second diagram represents the intuition behind attentional orders being linked to circles/activities/judgements/goals. Being consistent with my earlier work, the edge of the circles are conscious (i.e. the origins of attention), therefore a cognitive diagram attempts to capture what multiple attentional origins of varying orders might "see". A particular A0 can "see" E0, R0's, A0's, and only their own A1's and R1's; a particular A0 cannot however attend to higher-order structures and can only infer the existence of these structures by shifting to higher-order A's within and project that structure onto other agents back at A0. This must be done with the judgement functions (introverted into and extroverted out of) and any points brought along the way must be deconstructed from one of these higher-order structures. So an agent must literally deconstruct parts of themselves in order to share those parts with other agents. Yet reconstruction is likely to follow after the point is made. Another important note is that an agent cannot be at multiple orders of A simultaneously (a function must be executed in transition and this takes time).

Lower-order events conscerning games or organizational partitions can be contained within higher-order events with a cognitive diagram. Such higher-order events could be city-wide or even planet-wide yet an agent within a lower-order event cannot "see" these higher-order events unless a model is brought along with them.
Last edited by daylen on Sun Oct 18, 2020 10:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Given that attentional orders are now meshed into cognitive diagrams. Keep in mind that an agent can have repressed orders within them that are rarely if at all accessed (or nothing can be brought back). Hence an onion layered mind does not necessarily correspond to high-order attention given that the agent may only have reliable access a couple of orders deep. To be able to go deep, deconstruct, communicate, then reconstruct requires a kind of structural stability likely to be found only with complexity/maturity. It is a bit like finding your way in, out, then back into a maze multiple layers deep(*).

(*) Somewhat interesting parallel can be found in westworld season one. Artistic/Fictional constructions often align with a truth (i.e. if that truth can be found).

daylen
Posts: 1678
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: Daylen's Instinctual Dump

Post by daylen »

Image

So long as A figures are without sharp corners and E figures are polygons, get creative with topological equivalence and color!

Post Reply