1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
|
I'm trying to relearn how to solve puzzles.
My brain has a learning state where it explores what I am calling metarelevence to see if it works.
In this state my brain can do new things but stores how it is figuring them out very weakly.
I've found my intelligence inhibition is associated with metarelevence and learning states like this.
In processing it, it seemed to me there were many layers of metarelevence. Each being patterns and habits
to aid in forming, finding, choosing, and combining the lower layers effectively.
Learning in deeper layers makes for much stronger intelligence.
I was working on a puzzle described by '> > > # < < <'. The goal is to move all the '>' to replace all the '<' on the
right. Each may move only in the direction it is pointing, only by 1 or 2 spaces, and only by swapping places with
the '#'.
I was unable to get more than 1 '>' over there by exploration except for once. That one time I can call a childlike-
learning experience. I was unable to repeat it, so by writing I iterated all options, and found it again. When I
found it again, in my exploration to understand, I engaged another childlike-learning state where I solved the whole
puzzle by accident. I could tell I had not learned how to repeat the success generally, so I reset the puzzle.
It seemed to me in the childlike-learning state I was exploring possible metarelevence towards finding puzzle
solutions. I was thinking of it as 'layer 2 metarelevence'. But I was not strongly storing some information,
possibly the layer 3 information, so as to efficiently repeat the experience. That seemed an attribute of the
childlike learning state. I'm pretty sure when I was younger I stored this kind of metarelevence much better.
The state of mind feels familiar to me, of solving a puzzle with a certain feeling of storing the way to do it,
that does not reach verbal description.
I cast the second childlike learning experience as similar to the first, and again do not feel able to repeat it.
Thinking over the puzzle solution itself, it seems there is active inhibition growing around certain kinds of
metarelevence development. Like a pattern that happens to limit my intelligence.
In summary it sounded like there is some of what I am calling metarelevence (a few layers deep) that ends up being
specifically inhibited for me. As I describe this, I am trying to form a new structure matching this metarelevence:
the inhibition finds it and inhibits associated behaviors. Maybe a part of my brain that knows to handle such
learning is overtaxed.
The problematic metarelevence appears related to the construction of new forms of quality relevence.
That is, it seems like I am allergic to certain patterns of pattern-matching... ehhh it is hard to think about.
When I have a goal, I need things to meet it.
I need to know which things to pick first, and which things might be useful with other things.
In meeting my goal, given A, what is useful to combine with A to help form structures that meet the goal?
When thinking of what is useful to combine with an idea towards a goal, we use and build certain habits.
Some of these habits seem inhibited.
If I want to go to the store, is a rabbit helpful? no.
Is a car helpful? Yes, cars are a tool for travel, travel is a tool for going to the store.
Given this, if I am in the hay loft, how do I take the car to the store?
I will need to use the ladder down from the hay loft, after putting down my hay, to get
towards the kitchen where I keep my keys for the car.
I have put down my hay before and know I will be without hay as I leave my task.
We found ladder and keys. These are near the car and store for us, now.
We did not iterate all possible tools. We used relevence to find the ladder and keys.
What about our situation might have linked ladder, keys, being-in-hayloft, and drive-to-store?
Ladder is near hayloft in ways-to-enter-and-leave.
Keys are near car in needed-to-use.
Kitchen is near keys in where-are. Where is found from need-to-have-to-use.
Ladder and Kitchen form a path of active travel to meet needs of drive-to-store.
We craft a path of active travel as we work towards meeting our goal.
Our body looks for the most helpful places to go and goes there.
Different parts of cognition influence our relevence when we look for ways to meet our goal.
Things have states that depict what can happen. These states are summaries of their limiting attributes. These states develop associated with what something is doing, where it is, or other attributes of context.
i-need-to-have-my-keys-to-use-them
keys must be in my-posession state, for me-to-use them.
keys must be in usable-by-X state. Are not for X=me unless I am in kitchen.
use-Y must be possible
please make: A=me, B=store, A-in-B
note: me-in-hayloft, me-holding-hay
when: make A-in-B, A is adult (me is STRONGLY KNOWN to be adult), B is far-away (store is MEDIUM KNOWN to be far away),
then A-in-car is relevent to making A-in-B
using STRONGLY and MEDIUM KNOWING, stem from habits of metarelevence for brainstorming
things that are STRONGLY known seem to have their full expansion handled by specialized active habits, that are built when needed to sustain the strong knowing i.e. full expansion.
this makes habits that e.g. relate to brainstorming: quickly producing implications, sidestepping a brainstorm
I seemed to have an issue with building strongly known metarelevence.
When Karl tries to solve the puzzle, he tries to come up with patterns that would solve other, similar puzzles,
and those are the ones he looks for to store. This habit may help his brain learn to be smart again, because general
relevence is much more useful in the mind, for other situations, than specific relevence.
He looks for what general structures are in play in the situation.
The puzzle itself is a combination of relevent general structures. A good solution approach would be
habits that handle interconnected general structures in a general way, that is then used for the
specific puzzle. In each puzzle he attempts, Karl looks to learn habits that in their extreme would be
collecting together a general solution to all puzzles.
Karl's thoughts imply he believes there are kind of idealized pattern structures, and that a good, well-learned
general habit can apply to a completely unrelated domain, via understanding of general structures of patterns.
The solution to the puzzle is a ping-ponging pattern of jumping forward through alternating arrows.
It evolved slowly, first from finding a starting set of steps that made more than 1 arrow go to the opposite side,
then through realizing the danger of paired arrows pointing the same direection which trap the ones they are
pointing at, and recognizing the value of more jumping over something rather than moving a single step (which
first started as a do-this-always, and then regressed back to do-this-usually briefly before settling on do-this-
except-in-these-special-cases), noting the pattern at the end of jumping many in succession across the board,
and finally eventually explaining the starting moves in terms of a detailed expression of that repeating pattern.
The general pattern of when to jump rather than move a single step did not end up getting expanded.
There are also many whys that did not end up getting expanded. I guess whys would be simply more general patterns.
The ping-ponging pattern is a repeated experience of jumping over something to fill a hole. Because of how the
arows work, this travels in one direction until it hits the edge of the board. The repetition was an indication
of a general pattern being in play. The solution was found by engaging in altering the board such that the repetition
could occur more, partly found by using some existing habits for making space for pieces on a board to arrive.
|
