Math4Wisdom

Explore

Questions

KU: to what extent is the planetary biosphere considered a Markov Blanket in Active Inference studies?

⁠

KU: how to best document cognitive frameworks?

Many seem to come with diagrams, WW no exception.

Should we expect

Knowledge Graphs⁠

I’ve learned about some online graph-making tools, and come up with such as this one:

⁠

Here’s a knowledge graph from the math4wisdom Wiki.

Does it diagram the WW cognitive framework?

⁠

AK: Hi Kirby, thank you for your letter and your questions. By framework I mean something entirely different. I wonder how to explain it to you. First of all, it is a well defined, finite set of concepts that is taken to be necessarily, intrinsically complete. I will make a list of examples here:

https://www.math4wisdom.com/wiki/Exposition/FrameworkTables⁠

⁠

Conceptual Framework —

Cognitive Frameworks — Languages of Wisdom, is not about document cognitive systems like computing architectures.

This is a narrow

Difference between Conceptual (list of concepts, not implying anything) and Cognitive Framework (implies that it is in the mind it has a status as state of mind). It is a definitive state of mind. It grounds experience — it may not be experienced. It defines the choices. Not necessarily an operational/causal role. — All of this depends on the framework in consideration.

Set of concepts (conceptual) — granted to have a real status in the mind.

We have limited time, what are we trying to achieve and how?

Purpose is to document the limits of the imagination.

When you see lists of concepts that are intrinsically complete (Gestalt) — that is dictating something about imagination/cognition.

What is the category that is defined?

Is it well-defined choice of concepts? It has to be an integer expression of concepts.

There can be different version.

Holistic.

There is different what is on the table, than e.g. “everything”.

Slices Id/Superego/Ego — that’s the human mind, which is big enough.

Formal

Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis

Minimal

Necessary

Sufficient

⁠

KU: I wonder if I’m correct that we find CFs both inside WW (indigenous) and outside WW (exogenous). “Taking a stand → follow through → reflection” would be indigenous, yet we see it maps to John Boyd’s exogenous

OODA loop⁠

in terms of the role it plays in one’s personal psychology.

If I am correct, then I think it would be most beneficial to categorize the CFs of WW in one place somewhere, and I wouldn’t be surprised if AK has done this already in the Wiki. AK’s response:

see Vocabulary⁠

In other words: lets isolate the discuss the indigenous CFs of WW before we venture on some encyclopedic effort to survey all the CFs we might encounter in the wild, where we’d likely find an endless supply of apt examples. Wouldn’t that be too distracting?

Regarding “taking a stand → follow through → reflection” in particular, AK was indicating today in our meeting that follow-though includes “how it feels” to be taking such action, based on one’s stand. I would concur: where one individual is involved, so are his or her feelings. However I’m wondering to what extent this vision of a tri-cycle scales to a group, company, church or even to a national level. For example, how do

Quakers⁠

do it?

“Who are the queens in The District and how do they influence the hive mind?” might be a question for

the bioinformatics crowd⁠

When I think in terms of

BE → DO → HAVE⁠

for example, another related cycle, the DO-ing might involve hundreds of people (or more), as when we’re undertaking a large construction project, war or battle, choreographed theatrical production, concert or festival.

Project management patterns do tend to filter in at this point:

When to stockpile inventory?

When to make ads?

When to make a YouTube, and about what etc? — assuming that’s a group (colony level) decision.

Do the indigenous heuristics (cognitive frameworks) of Wondrous Wisdom scale to a group level? Maybe that’s what the current experiment is all about.

Per

this post to the listserv⁠

: can “the subject” of a cognitive framework (the entity using it) be organizational as well as individual?

This is where studying ants might prove helpful, to take a pattern we usually associate with an individual, and to make that “individual” be instead a colony, a collective, a hive mind.

⁠

KU: a question for me regarding WW is whether the primary goal is to accept and apply its signature cognitive frameworks, or to learn from WW as an example, to come up with cognitive frameworks for oneself, as stepping stones to greater wisdom and comprehensivity?

Use WW for inspiration, in other words, but as a means more than an end.

I think WW aspires to be an end more than a means. That doesn’t keep it from being useful in both ways, to those with ends of their own.

My advice is: if your way of thinking happens to sync with WW as is, then why reinvent the wheel? Adopt its concepts and take it to another level in that case, why not?

However if you have significantly divergent intuitons or tastes, you might still take away the lesson that inter-operable cognitive frameworks are useful and a hallmark of structured thought, where “structured thought” is innately a potential positive.

So let WW prove itself exemplary in this sense.

⁠

Load content from www.math4wisdom.com?

Loading external content may reveal information to 3rd parties. Learn more

Allow

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.