Mintys.InformacijosIntegravimas istorija
Rodyti nežymius pakeitimus - Rodyti galutinio teksto pakeitimus
2019 gruodžio 14 d., 18:44
atliko -
Pakeistos 1-36 eilutės iš
[[https://www.iitfm.eu | IIT&FM Research Center]]
[[https://iitfm2019.univ-perp.fr/en/iit-fm-conference-2019-90749.kjsp | 2019 konferencija Prancūzijoje]]
Norman H. Anderson
* [[https://www.iitfm.eu/frontpage.pdf | Moral Science]]
'''Relating Information Integration Theory with Systems 1 and 2'''
I will sketch out a theory of consciousness that I think may relate your theory with that of Kahnemann and Tversky. In my theory, there are three levels of reflection:
* stepping-in
* stepping-out
* a state of deciding between the two - this is consciousness
In Kahnemann and Tversky's theory, the first two refer to their System 1 and System 2. I would say that:
* System 1 is the mind that unconsciously "knows", gives one answer, is associative, semantic, intuitive.
* System 2 is the mind that consciously "does not know", asks a question that may require several different answers, is dissasociative, syntactic, rational.
In my thinking, this yields a duality of knowledge where we try to consciously model what we unconsciously know. Our unconscious speaks to our conscious with emotions, and our conscious imposes cognition on our unconscious. Neurologically, this duality is championed by the two hemispheres - typically the right hemisphere is the advocate for System 1 and the left hemisphere is the advocate for System 2. In society, similarly we have gender roles where the female role favors System 1 and the male role favors System 2.
The upshot is that we can, through consciousness, balance these two very different perspectives. This duality is also the basis for logic, as with the logical square, where we can have a dialogue between what we know and what we don't know.
Your theory has demonstrated after many experiments that there are three models that the mind implements: Averaging, Adding and Multiplying. Why these three models? My idea is that:
* System 1 is based on Averaging. Thus our knowledge builds like a neural network.
* System 2 instead breaks that apart into Adding and Multiplying.
Then Consciousness compares what we get relating these two outlooks.
At some point, what I think I should do is go through your books, Unified Social Cognition and A Functional Theory of Cognition, and simply make a list of the experiments where the different models arise. Then I could see if my idea is tenable.
I am curious if there is anyone who is compiling lists of experiments related to your theory, and more generally, if there is anything online. I couldn't find anything.
'''Išraiška smegenyse'''
* [[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780125587044500128 | Information Integration Approach to Emotions and Their Measurement]]
*
[[https://iitfm2019.univ-perp.fr/en/iit-fm-conference-2019-90749.kjsp | 2019 konferencija Prancūzijoje]]
Norman H. Anderson
* [[https://www.iitfm.eu/frontpage.pdf | Moral Science]]
'''Relating Information Integration Theory with Systems 1 and 2'''
I will sketch out a theory of consciousness that I think may relate your theory with that of Kahnemann and Tversky. In my theory, there are three levels of reflection:
* stepping-in
* stepping-out
* a state of deciding between the two - this is consciousness
In Kahnemann and Tversky's theory, the first two refer to their System 1 and System 2. I would say that:
* System 1 is the mind that unconsciously "knows", gives one answer, is associative, semantic, intuitive.
* System 2 is the mind that consciously "does not know", asks a question that may require several different answers, is dissasociative, syntactic, rational.
In my thinking, this yields a duality of knowledge where we try to consciously model what we unconsciously know. Our unconscious speaks to our conscious with emotions, and our conscious imposes cognition on our unconscious. Neurologically, this duality is championed by the two hemispheres - typically the right hemisphere is the advocate for System 1 and the left hemisphere is the advocate for System 2. In society, similarly we have gender roles where the female role favors System 1 and the male role favors System 2.
The upshot is that we can, through consciousness, balance these two very different perspectives. This duality is also the basis for logic, as with the logical square, where we can have a dialogue between what we know and what we don't know.
Your theory has demonstrated after many experiments that there are three models that the mind implements: Averaging, Adding and Multiplying. Why these three models? My idea is that:
* System 1 is based on Averaging. Thus our knowledge builds like a neural network.
* System 2 instead breaks that apart into Adding and Multiplying.
Then Consciousness compares what we get relating these two outlooks.
At some point, what I think I should do is go through your books, Unified Social Cognition and A Functional Theory of Cognition, and simply make a list of the experiments where the different models arise. Then I could see if my idea is tenable.
I am curious if there is anyone who is compiling lists of experiments related to your theory, and more generally, if there is anything online. I couldn't find anything.
'''Išraiška smegenyse'''
* [[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780125587044500128 | Information Integration Approach to Emotions and Their Measurement]]
*
į:
[[Book/InformationIntegrationTheory | Information Integration Theory]]
2019 spalio 21 d., 15:45
atliko -
Pridėtos 32-36 eilutės:
'''Išraiška smegenyse'''
* [[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780125587044500128 | Information Integration Approach to Emotions and Their Measurement]]
*
2019 spalio 21 d., 15:26
atliko -
Pakeistos 6-32 eilutės iš
* [[https://www.iitfm.eu/frontpage.pdf | Moral Science]]
į:
* [[https://www.iitfm.eu/frontpage.pdf | Moral Science]]
'''Relating Information Integration Theory with Systems 1 and 2'''
I will sketch out a theory of consciousness that I think may relate your theory with that of Kahnemann and Tversky. In my theory, there are three levels of reflection:
* stepping-in
* stepping-out
* a state of deciding between the two - this is consciousness
In Kahnemann and Tversky's theory, the first two refer to their System 1 and System 2. I would say that:
* System 1 is the mind that unconsciously "knows", gives one answer, is associative, semantic, intuitive.
* System 2 is the mind that consciously "does not know", asks a question that may require several different answers, is dissasociative, syntactic, rational.
In my thinking, this yields a duality of knowledge where we try to consciously model what we unconsciously know. Our unconscious speaks to our conscious with emotions, and our conscious imposes cognition on our unconscious. Neurologically, this duality is championed by the two hemispheres - typically the right hemisphere is the advocate for System 1 and the left hemisphere is the advocate for System 2. In society, similarly we have gender roles where the female role favors System 1 and the male role favors System 2.
The upshot is that we can, through consciousness, balance these two very different perspectives. This duality is also the basis for logic, as with the logical square, where we can have a dialogue between what we know and what we don't know.
Your theory has demonstrated after many experiments that there are three models that the mind implements: Averaging, Adding and Multiplying. Why these three models? My idea is that:
* System 1 is based on Averaging. Thus our knowledge builds like a neural network.
* System 2 instead breaks that apart into Adding and Multiplying.
Then Consciousness compares what we get relating these two outlooks.
At some point, what I think I should do is go through your books, Unified Social Cognition and A Functional Theory of Cognition, and simply make a list of the experiments where the different models arise. Then I could see if my idea is tenable.
I am curious if there is anyone who is compiling lists of experiments related to your theory, and more generally, if there is anything online. I couldn't find anything.
'''Relating Information Integration Theory with Systems 1 and 2'''
I will sketch out a theory of consciousness that I think may relate your theory with that of Kahnemann and Tversky. In my theory, there are three levels of reflection:
* stepping-in
* stepping-out
* a state of deciding between the two - this is consciousness
In Kahnemann and Tversky's theory, the first two refer to their System 1 and System 2. I would say that:
* System 1 is the mind that unconsciously "knows", gives one answer, is associative, semantic, intuitive.
* System 2 is the mind that consciously "does not know", asks a question that may require several different answers, is dissasociative, syntactic, rational.
In my thinking, this yields a duality of knowledge where we try to consciously model what we unconsciously know. Our unconscious speaks to our conscious with emotions, and our conscious imposes cognition on our unconscious. Neurologically, this duality is championed by the two hemispheres - typically the right hemisphere is the advocate for System 1 and the left hemisphere is the advocate for System 2. In society, similarly we have gender roles where the female role favors System 1 and the male role favors System 2.
The upshot is that we can, through consciousness, balance these two very different perspectives. This duality is also the basis for logic, as with the logical square, where we can have a dialogue between what we know and what we don't know.
Your theory has demonstrated after many experiments that there are three models that the mind implements: Averaging, Adding and Multiplying. Why these three models? My idea is that:
* System 1 is based on Averaging. Thus our knowledge builds like a neural network.
* System 2 instead breaks that apart into Adding and Multiplying.
Then Consciousness compares what we get relating these two outlooks.
At some point, what I think I should do is go through your books, Unified Social Cognition and A Functional Theory of Cognition, and simply make a list of the experiments where the different models arise. Then I could see if my idea is tenable.
I am curious if there is anyone who is compiling lists of experiments related to your theory, and more generally, if there is anything online. I couldn't find anything.
2019 birželio 27 d., 09:45
atliko -
Pridėtos 2-3 eilutės:
[[https://iitfm2019.univ-perp.fr/en/iit-fm-conference-2019-90749.kjsp | 2019 konferencija Prancūzijoje]]
2019 birželio 27 d., 09:42
atliko -
Pridėtos 1-4 eilutės:
[[https://www.iitfm.eu | IIT&FM Research Center]]
Norman H. Anderson
* [[https://www.iitfm.eu/frontpage.pdf | Moral Science]]
Norman H. Anderson
* [[https://www.iitfm.eu/frontpage.pdf | Moral Science]]
InformacijosIntegravimas
Naujausi pakeitimai
网站
Įvadas #E9F5FC
Klausimai #FFFFC0
Teiginiai #FFFFFF
Kitų mintys #EFCFE1
Dievas man #FFECC0
Iš ankščiau #CCFFCC
Mieli skaitytojai, visa mano kūryba ir kartu visi šie puslapiai yra visuomenės turtas, kuriuo visi kviečiami laisvai naudotis, dalintis, visaip perkurti. - Andrius