/sci/ - Science & Math

Go away schizo

>>10719950
Why would you think I'm a schizo?

>>10719950
Why does /sci/ always think I'm a scihzophrenic? It just seems like they are missing out on great ideas like this one. Also all of the ideas contained in what I said have a rather deep history in my experience and I may expand upon them later but they are more than just loose associations

>>10720102
Don't listen to these assholes, I think your idea has some potential. Executive function is a bitch to get under control if it doesn't come naturally. The closest I've came to it is the GTD system but it's a lot of work to really do it right. Your idea seems a bit more laissez faire, just writing to yourself as you go along, nudging. I'd like to hear more.

>>10720178
I'm glad that you'd like to hear more, and well what can I tell you, but you should know that besides just writing along as you're doing something, as I said you have to find a way to be interested in it so that it feels authentic, and that mostly comes from my investigations into the game legend of zelda: breadth of the wild. My intention was to reliably produce a feeling of awe when I looked at it's beautiful sceneries, and I came up with a strategy that was pretty useful that involved creeating a mental model of what one is observing, and if one notices that there are certain aspects that one doesn't understand or that one is unsure then one returns back to the game and observe if the model actually represents the sceneries of the game, and in that sense you expand your awareness and when you're able to either predict it better than expected or when you're unable but the fact that it's not what you imagined gives you a new perspective, then this leads to those feelings of awe. In the same way one has a conversation with oneself in other things, such that this conversation leads to certain gaps in one's model as if the frontier of ignorance was expanding as you investigate more the topic. And thus it makes sense to try to express those thngs in your own words, to be active in relation to whatever you're doing and hence to make it more personal much as if you were trying to understand someone by looking in your experiences to find how it is that you actually have experienced something like that which the other person has or something pretty similar. So that when you're trying to make something interesting, you need to think of how it is anchored in you, in the things that are familiar to you and that gives fluency to these novel ideas that you're trying to understand -- to express them in your own vocabulary. And from this notion, one can find an intrinsic motivation for the subject at hand rather than something ulterior as it happens with goals.

>>10719938
>>10720019
>>10720271
>claims to be productive
Can't even get to the point.

>>10720278
Well being unproductive would not producing things :P
But well I'm not using the method at the moment, I just took some time away from this method to mention these ideas and honestly in my natural form I'm rather horribly unproductive and unable to do anything I want to do but procrastinate on other things, so that I'm basically a slave to my every whim

>>10719938
Based and schizopilled.

>>10720288
If your system worked you wouldn't be here shitting up /sci/.

just boof some adderall lol

>>10720294
Well I just created my method so I was very excited to talk about it! :D And if you doubt it why don't you test it, it's not that hard to apply, as I said it's a very simple method which makes it extremely convenient
Also I want to add that I just thought that one could think of not just one metalanguage but other metametalanguages that controls the first-order metalanugage though perhaps write all of these things in the same notebook say as annotations on what you're writing or in another tab

>>10720271
Thanks for the update. It almost sounds like your system works almost as a side effect. The writing exposes your consciousness to the gaps in your perception of your task progression thereby motivating you out of natural desire to fill those gaps. I'll try it OP.

>>10720313
Well precisely but not entirely because that's the part of the generation of productivity, but there are also things that might work against that productivity, which are the distractors, and in other to deal with distractors one has to write them down in the file that works as your executive functions: giving your distractions an outlet, but say perhaps in another format as the rest of your "executive thoughts", perhaps write them as "==> It's interesting that people who know about certain things have certain ideas, so perhaps influence is kind of like a network, I would like to explore more about this later", or if you have an enormous desire to explore that at that exact moment, as I said, it would be convenient to delineate the limits of how much you want to procrastinate, because otherwise the distractions will keep arriving, will keep beseiging you, for you'll develop an interest in those distractions more than on whatever is that you want to do, so that when you return back to the thing you were doing, you want to make sure to write all the distractions that were generated because of this small freedom you gave yourself to procrastinate. And if you know that you should best not procrastinate, you can always try to argue yourself out of the procrastination in the same notebook where you're doing all the "executive thinking", so that you can find where it is that your desire to do such thing comes from, and that you realize that what you're doing is far more important by your reminding yourself of why you want to do what you're trying to do.

But all in all, what's most essential is to realize that you cannot force yourself to do things, that you must treat yourself as you would treat another person! And thus to first of all try to learn about you more than try to impose things on yourself.

>>10720357
..almost like an executive function prosthesis?

>>10719938
The irony is all this extreme detail you've thought up and written out is EXACTLY the problem.
You don't get rid of distracting thoughts by thinking even more about how to get rid of them. Instead of switching from walking in that direction to sprinting in that direction, stop and head in the opposite direction, towards less thinking.
Less thinking, more doing.

>>10720379
Yes exactly, I think I was inspired by one of the comments in lesswrong:

"You can also increase your effective fluid intelligence in many useful situations by using external tools. Working memory is consistently one of the worst bottlenecks in human cognition. Write things down when thinking. Draw diagrams. Take pictures." from here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TecrFfBthSDEzdT2i/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-knowing-your, but I believe there was an article I read that said something similar but it'll be tricky to find it :P
But yes it's as a prosthesis or perhaps "embodied cognition" too..

>>10720388
That is indeed true, though that doesn't go against the spirit of the method, the point is to learn more about oneself better, and thus sure it makes sense to think less and perhaps when you're having a distracting thought that is very influential then you can think mostly about the other thing that you're doing, and try to justify why is it that you're doing such thing more than trying to dissuade yourself from the distracting thought. But either way it is important to write down the distracting thoughts that you have for that'll give you peace of mind, in the sense that perhaps eventually you'll think about those thoughts but not at the moment because there are things that are more important

>>10720393
I thought it was harder to find but here:
From this article: https://www.creativitypost.com/article/working_memory_and_fluid_reasoning_same_or_different

It leads to these sources:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ujoNZNZrZcoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA410&dq=Nickerson+Teaching+Reasoning&ots=ZKzesz-_AI&sig=FPu0sxn9iTl118AbFBtPqV7Uh9E&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Nickerson%20Teaching%20Reasoning&f=false
http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/papers/1980mmcogsci.pdf
and of course where the theory comes from:
https://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Explorations-Instructional-Performance-Technologies/dp/144198125X/ref=sr_sp-atf_title_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390344586&sr=1-3&keywords=john+sweller

ignore the hate OP, this is fucking based.

I'd love to hear more on this idea.

>>10720442
Well one thing I could say is that it's convenient to be specific with your instructions to yourself, so that the more concrete you are the easier to accomplish those instructions, and thus if you give yourself low demand, then you're likelier to do more, which is the point of the idea of treating yourself as a person and thus being realistic about what you can do, and as I said if you don't find any interest then you have to work on making yourself interested. Moreover, I think it's fascinating how it's connected to this idea of stoicism (from what I learned from the Enchidrion by Epitectus) of being aware and caring of that which you can control, and knowing those things that you can't control, so that in a taoistic way, you go with the flow but in a doing-not-doing sense rather than plain passivity (acting without expecting as the tao te ching describes it). And thus the essence of this idea is to learn to navigate the currents of flow instead of fighting against them.

Bumping op, I'm interested as well

>>10720470
Both arrive at flow coherence. Many paths to truth exist.

You're literally talking like you think you've invented something humans have been doing for thousands of years: keeping a fucking journal.

>>10720641
You mean that stoicism and taoism both arrive at flow coherence? In that case I can definitely agree with you, though taoism has stronger associations with "going with the flow", whereas stoicism has stronger associations with "what one can control".

>>10720666
You're oversimplifying it, though in a way it is kind of like keeping a journal, just that not for just observations and it's rather adviced that you use another journal for the observations related to the contents. However this journal is more related to the self than what you're observing, more as in metacognition and less as in any kind of thinking. In addition, such a journal would be used not just in a field but at whatever you're doing. Though you know I like the word journal better than file or notebook, so if you want just call it metacognitive journal.

>>10720102
Its because you wrote a long run-on of text. Just use reddit spacing more, 4chan is terrible for long paragraphs because it stretches to fullscreen on a desktop monitor

>>10720690
Oh I googled reddit spacing, I might try doing that.

And indeed in this desktop the lines look pretty large (in contrast to how they look in my laptop)

>>10719938
I laffed.
You've basically myself on a meth bender but instead of my cock it's a notebook in hand, and instead of ponybooru it's Wikipedia on stupid amounts of tabs.

However you're not without some actual credence with this method. It's some what identified the basis of my intellect profile that made my score for logic and common sense tests score stupidly high.

Anecdotally it amounts to:
Spelling and grammer are modern day conventions designed to limit ones own understanding and comprehension.
By makeing these rules, and restricting to them hampens learning the ablity to decypher information.
Those that have succumbed to this subversive control measure against problem solveing targeted to impressionalbe minds, are often incapable to decern any meaning in a sentance that contains even one error. Despite the wealth of clues and the contextual information available to fill in this blank. Let alone if the error of text was a simple typo, or phonetic spelling.
It has aldo given arize to the phenomenon of 'Grammer Nazis'.
That will hunt down violaters, and claim that due to an 'error' in formating, renders all subsenquent information as incorrect. An institution synonymous with discrediting people for the whole of their work sue to an unrelated error, or later disproven theroy in past.
It's an deliberate act to stifle the advancement of knowledge and learning. Not a testiment of it.


So that said. For meaningful advancement in personal capacity for not just learning but having knowledge beyond experience. You must be aware constantly of how seemingly unrelated subjects may apply to one another. And be deductive of a new concept before the known information is made available to your self. Even if you find your predictions to be incorrect, or not even the same subject matter at all. The more you practice this the better you'll become at logical reasoning, educated guesses, and finding new relations to objects and concepts that are valuable.

>>10720271
Just a heads up. You're starting to delve into fucking with neural plasticity. My >>10720783 own experiments into which I'd like to advise of safety perimeters to follow. But rules are no fun unless you know why they're not to be broken. So in my reckless implementations I had caused one count of recurring auditory hallucination deliberately. Sleep based seizures that are happening somewhere either in REM or between the space of than and consciousness. Evident in muscle spasm of the cranium and one instance where I caught my feet at action.
And finally the contributing factor to the seizures. to which I may have approached a critical point where life functions controlled by the brain were near overridden. And protection measures activated as result.

The auditory experiment was as a for the lulz attempt in seeing if right meditative patterns that a new signal could be unearthed and understood with auditory processing. It was a broad signal idea that I thought may be real(ayy's comunicaeys). But also aware the likelihood of more than a short circuit of subconscious to conscious was ever to happen. I got to the point of near discernible voice and aborted for fear of permanence.

>>10720926
>>10720271

The next was a Visualization exercise with the idea of operating a 3D kaleidoscope. The goal was to come to a sudden knowledge of the 4th as where do the overlapped parts go to a kaleidoscope existing in 3D?

Well this was a potential for disaster that only captain hindsight could have prevented.
Wat it turns out I was doing was causing a cascade in computation demand. Not just my scope of visualization grew at a rate. But I had set up midset so well for the calculation of what is a exponential equation it would run-on in an instant. So that the brain capacity demands were such high priority that it would enter limited access zones yet still request more access without a checksum for exiting the command if the question was solved before moving on. So this master piece of biology executes a physical intervention to abort the run-on cascade. A massive dose of Adrenalin. I of course being young and fearless executed this several more times. With a linear pattern to attempts and increase of Adrenalin dumped to knock the system out of gear.

>>10720271
Now you're not at that level of experiment yet. But you're beginning the steps to be on that sort of capability.
You're starting with mood and visual perception augmentation. Even though you may not be aware it's a placidity function.
You should be cautious in what you decide to augment. As they may have unforeseen effects. And lasting, or recurring ones.

Connecting such augments with emotions is inadvisable. For what I hope is obvious that emotional responses can become triggers. And all sorts of mentality loops can screw deletion of a induced function or even the possibility to do so altogether. Hence my abortion of the auditory experiment as minor concern mixed with elements of fear came about with the hearing of an element. If you're not feeling strong of mind and lacking confidence in the ability to correct a placidity that's more then enough reason to discontinue. And never feel as If you have to challenge this capability against another persons. Especially thoes to have claimed inducement of Tulpas.

>>10720933
>If you're not feeling strong of mind
Even if you are "feeling strong of mind", then you are incorrect and should still discontinue any practice of self-induced neural loops. There's a reason that the evolutionarily-devised brain does its best to prevent such things.

>>10720951
Yeah. I miss term on my part. Should have been sound of mind.

>>10720953
This is good stuff, OP. Thanks for the effortposting

>>10720955
I don't think he's OP. Pretty sure he's >>10720783
.

>>10719938
This >>10720955 meant for you, OP

Not science or math

>>10720973
I know you are you said you are, but what am I?

>>10721009

>>10720953
How do those things differ to you? My point is that the current state of the human mind can only allow for so many of these loops before the overall process fucks itself. Natural selection has corrected for this by selecting for brains that prevent these processes as efficiently as possible. Attempting to willfully induce them is lunacy and indicates a deeper issue within the individual's neural processes as whole.

>>10721040
"Issue" is, of course, defined as that which negatively impacts an individual's chances of reproduction. Moral objectivity is useless.

>>10721040
Well the outcome that I encountered wasn't a intentional discovery. And my additional attempts and their results had after later reflection given meaning to what has happening in that experiment.
The reasonable steeping up of the boot out measure being a Adrenalin kick, and rather instantaneous one at that. Note* This may be another chemical release because of that onset strength and intensity. But not nervous signaling I don't believe. As a chemical measure would be more fitting to the duration and subsidence curve I had.

Now I'd say that you're suspicion of editing cycles/remapping being limited to the times conducted may be true. If I was in fact near breaching a hard limit neural pathing, that wasn't limited in the corrective response. That with cool down between incursions. The system should have reseated to a normal mapping. But escalation was happening in a ratio of response having exponentialism would indicate 'damage' had occurred.

As for looking as the system via biological Darwinism. There's actually segregation of critical life supports in the pulmonary and cardio vascular system.
So the system breach that was being prevent may have been just the wider barrier separating consciousness and subconscious. It's honestly hard to make a determination without a scan of the instance.
>Attempting to willfully induce them is lunacy and indicates a deeper issue within the individual's neural processes as whole
I do these stunts so you don't have to.
But seriously. This was a thing from boredom that wasn't thought through at all. And when I had realized the potential fuck up I was near to have. I have abstained from any mental process like it. The close to it I get is the overdrive headache from overactive thought.

>>10721097
>intentional discovery
This further proves my point. If you had the information required to make an "intentional discovery" concerning this topic, you would immediately know that attempting to force this discovery in this manner is not only dangerous, but useless. It would be more effective to focus one's energy on discovering ways to enhance the human mind so as to one day be able to process these loops in a way that increases humanity's understanding of the physical universe.
>what has happening in that experiment
What do you believe that was, exactly?
>instantaneous
In regards to what? What precise thought was instantaneous with the sensation of adrenaline release?
>This may be another chemical release
Which chemicals do you believe could also have been released in this response?
>But not nervous signaling I don't believe. As a chemical measure would be more fitting to the duration and subsidence curve I had.
Not to sound like a dick, but what potentially reproducible evidence are you basing this supposition upon?
>escalation was happening in a ratio of response having exponentialism would indicate 'damage' had occurred
Do you believe, then, that neural loops potentially cause damage to the system as a whole and shouldn't be chased after until we improve our neural capacity?
>There's actually segregation of critical life supports in the pulmonary and cardio vascular system.
Are you claiming that you've been able to circumvent enough neural activity from the entire system into the brain that it hampered your body's ability to control its own necessary survival functions?

>>10721097
>the system breach that was being prevent may have been just the wider barrier separating consciousness and subconscious
Do you then believe that, without this separation of "necessary" and "useful" operations, that the body reverts to ensuring your own physical survival over ability to reproduce? I don't mean to demean your beliefs. I believe that it's genuinely interesting to observe the various points at which the body shifts from group-survival to individual-survival.
>It's honestly hard to make a determination without a scan of the instance.
I'd honestly love it if a home-safe fMRI magically made it to the market. Unfortunately, we have to logically determine which brain-processes are most-important to study and focus on them.
>I do these stunts so you don't have to.
But what logical reason do you have to attempt it at all? It seems to me that even a cursory glance at Evolutionary Theory shows that this is pointless and dangerous at our current understanding of neural architecture.
>The close to it I get is the overdrive headache from overactive thought.
This should indicate to you that the thought-processes that lead to you desiring to further these ideas is also overloading your mind, causing these headaches through increased bloodflow to parts of the brain that just aren't designed for those things. Sure, you could be right, and these thoughts lead to enlightenment. You still don't know if your brain can handle these thoughts in the first place. Focus on increasing your mental capacity through any means available, and forget about shortcuts.

>>10721135
>Focus on increasing your mental capacity through any means available, and forget about shortcuts.
That is to say that it's more effective to labor towards increasing the brain's capacity to reason out it's own beliefs by manually increasing its ability to reason at all than it is to sit yourself in a loop and watch the pretty lights go by. Stick silicon in your brain before you slip goggles over your eyes. Making sure that your brain produces reproducible examples in the real world is more important than seeing what it does in any number of perceived realities.

>>10721133
>Attempting to force this discovery in this manner is not only dangerous, but useless.
Can't really argue with that. But detailing such an account is not invaluable.
>more effective to focus one's energy on discovering ways to enhance the human mind so as to one day be able to process these loops in a way that increases humanity's understanding of the physical universe.
Actually in the Kaleidoscopes idea was to try and reach an understanding if a 4th dimension can exist in a solid 3D environment in a traditional understanding of a 4th. I'd have to say it's inconclusive. But I'm still favoring a personal grasp of time dilation being the 4th. Yes I'm probably wildly wrong on that but that's my current thought process and I'm going to explore it.
>What do you believe that was, exactly?
Some times people do things with unexpected outcomes. In my lack of knowledge to the forces I was engaging with. It was several days till it clicked as to why I was getting booted. My fist thoughts were like as if the learning of the 4th in the 3rd to be known would be detrimental in itself. Sort of forbidden knowledge. Hence why I continued attempts to by pass this obstacle without regard for re-evaluation to risk parameters. As It was still thought to be limited to visual processing.
>In regards to what?
Well I'm no stranger to thrill seeking. So the comparison between normal release via physical/real life causes for Adrenalin to be felt. To the event I had had via the though process. The thought process had a large dump of the chemical. As compared to life induction, being of lower beginning with gradual build up.
It's enough difference I'd feel that they may be different in total composition. Or It could just be dosage parameters.
>evidence are you basing this supposition
Nah you're right. It's plausible for eltro to act as if chemical. Sure this is all conjecture. But with the exhaustive feeling felt after settling. It's highly akin to the drain after thrills. (1/2)

>>10721133
>t neural loops potentially cause damage to the system as a whole and shouldn't be chased after until we improve our neural capacity?
Now I'd like to to define this loop you're mentioning?
However I do believe there is significant risk in general application of placidity for thought application processing of complex concepts. Not to be mistaken with saying 'bro don't attempt to solve this function, it wont end well'.
Are you suggesting a thought processing loop perhaps? That is a 'manufactured' segment built with thought mapping to create a segment within out brains that is dedicated to accepting input of greater computational needs. They by running it in this loop it maintains containment and is able to have full run time access to neurons in it's path? Because I think you've just given me a hard on if that's why you're getting at. I was in need of a HUD excuse.
>what logical reason do you have to attempt it at all?
I like to explore a study path to it extreme. Because I don't hold preconceptions to if that had any benefit at all. So long as I find it interesting to consume my idol time with.
I do have a destructive element. I've destroyed my body to make a point to ethics in a certain field of medicine. Not just because. But because they had destroyed what little I had for such a disgusting reasoning. I can't go further, it's like 5 years to disambiguate.
>indicate to you that the thought-processes that lead to you desiring to further these ideas is also overloading your mind
Yeah I've got concerns about that. But they're as result of secondary condition I allowed to go to an extreme degree. after realization of medical stuff.

>shortcuts
Heh? Only ones to that I'm taking I'm aware of is mass media consumption. Than the somewhat preferable academic journal.

Functional but I don't see how this is revolutionary.
It's more or less just a way to convince yourself that you just aren't lazy anymore, and although it is simple and useful I would not call this revolutionary.

>>10720783
OP here
All of that which you posted sounds interesting, but I yet have to process it

But before that, I want to make my theory a bit more explicit.

There are distractors, generators of productivity, and the evaluation (the implementation intention)
Now, I noticed before going to sleep, that distractors could be considered as costs, and generators as benefits, and hence related to the behavioral influence theory. However, invocation to theory is unnecessary because one can just say that it has some specific value, and that this value is in some way quantitative. And in this sense, there is only one kind, that can be defined in terms of its value in relation to the refence goal. However, it is true that sometimes there might be good reasons to give importance to the distractors or that one is unable to stay away from the temptation. For this reason, one can not simply reduce things to the cost that one assigns to things, but one has to imagine this as more dynamic such that distractors or generators of productivity (henceforth called "possible avenues") have certain starting value, and through either a negotation with the self (as when you convince yourself to not engage in the distractor), or through exploration (when one broadens the knowledge to find gaps), the initial value may change. However, this analysis gives the idea that there are two kinds of values, the actual value, and the desired value in relation to the goal, so that when there is a conflict between the desired value and the actual value, one might engage in either an exploration (bottom-up dialogue) or a negotiation with the self (top-down dialogue). And finally we come to the evaluation aspect, such that sure you might limit your actions, explorations, and perhaps even negotiations in the "metacognitive journal" all for the sake of the goal but keeping in mind your own whims and impulses. So that there is in some way a big picture orientation and a go with the flow attitude.

>>10720783
I read it, and I concur with you completely with thits, yes I do believe that through making predictions of your own you'll be able to become better at different forms of reasoning (abudctive, inductive, deductive) and at the formation of analogies, especially because there exists the precedent and one can integrate that knowledge so that one can profit from it at a later time. I understand that too, that spelling and grammar can sometimes make some people think the whole idea is wrong instead of actually trying to deal with the heart of the matter or something of the idea that could be useful, they rather seek to criticize or judge.

>>10720926
Hehe thank you, your experiment into the signals and meditative patterns sounds interesting though I'm not sure how would one go trying to achieve that. Personally, I'm kind of a psychonaut, so if there was a way to make myself hallucinate aurally, I would definitely try it. Though I've achieved that a few times while on the car with the windows open and after some stimulation from a conversation.

>>10720930
I can't relate to that, but I love how you find relations between these concepts about computers and your own mind, it reminds me of the years I spent on archlinux, which I still use on my laptop. However, I'd love to know more about what your experiment involved, all of the things you were trying to accomplish and how you achieved the increase in visualization scope.

>>10720933
Well I've gone through many many experiments throughout my whole life of many kinds not sure if it makes sense to make a "no true scotman argument"
And no I'm not aware it's a "plasticity function" except perhaps if what you mean by that is something that you can change, and in that sense, yes I've explored many things that one can change about the brain.
>As they may have unforeseen effects. And lasting, or recurring ones
Not sure if that's true, it would affect you like that on the visual novel "rewrite", but in reality?

>>10719938

Can confirm that this works, with some caveats. Some tips:

1. Write it in mode (https://orgmode.org/).). With org-capture / org-protocol, you can dump URL's and text from your web browser directly. You can also paste images/screenshots inline into org-mode, reference local files, make hyperlinks, etc.

2. Make a habit of consolidating your ideas about what you're working on by TALKING out loud about them. You run in circles forever if you don't do this. If you feel awkward doing this without a person listening, record yourself to trick your brain into thinking someone is listening so that you take yourself seriously while doing it.

3. Eventually you will need to get feedback on your work. Try something beyond your present confidence level, and ask for the most brutal feedback you can ask for. Go to IRC if you are writing code, or try a forum or stackexchange site if you are doing something else.

4. If you can afford it, try to read physical books, and also keep a physical notebook. I prefer 0.5mm 2B lead and unruled B5 Muji notebooks.

>>10720933
Well I don't really think it's that difficult to delete some plasticity. Not sure what you mean about the thing related to people who claim to have induced Tulpas, but on tulpas, I think they're pretty interesting, personally I'm working on some similar project.

>>10720955
You're welcome

>>10721030
lmao!

>>10721040
I think it's strange to be feel fear about what those loops can do to the mind. What's more difficult as I mentioned is to keep those loops functioning, though I have some ideas on how to integrate all loops and make myself an integrated self from all of my discoveries

>>10721097
You've mostly talked vaguely about your experiments, I would like it if you could be more specific about how everything happened exaclty. Not sure what you mean by exponentialism, what do you mean?

I'll read the rest later :P But sounds like you had company while I was gone, and that they understood you, in the concrete sense, much better than me

>>10722271

One more thing: if you haven't sat through a few upper division math classes at a research university and attempted the homework, you don't know what you're missing. A good upper division class to get you started is combinatorics.

>>10720442

Agreed. (I'm No.10722271)

What he's described is almost identical to how I do mathematics. What you need to be careful about in the end is to rejoin with your peers, so that you get feedback. The danger of fueling creativity is that you might be propagating assumptions that could have been vastly improved with the right feedback.

Last year I paid a visit to an old professor after having been out of undergrad for a year, and it was only then that I remembered how stupid I am.

>>10722271
Oh yes in fact my original idea was using emacs (spacemacs actually) but it's been long since I used it, and it's always a big deal reinstalling emacs because every time I update ubuntu it overrides the newest version. But yes I think it's a great idea to make it in org mode

I'm not sure I understand your second point, I usually do pace around the room while having new ideas, and sometimes I talk about them a little bit louder when no one's around, but I don't see how one would run in circles if one doesn't do that.. what do you think?

Well in relation to the third point, I guess it does makes sense that sometimes it's important to get feedback from others, though sometimes I feel it's more like one just feels this desire to get feedback from others but if you work on it enough you'll find that you may no longer need that feedback, has happened to me with some posts I've made on 4chan or even stackexchange that people don't respond to what I'm doing so that their feedback is rather useless.

Regarding the fourth point, well I don''t think I can afford the physical books especially because there are just too many books I read, so I just download them illegally :P, but it makes I feel a lot of curiosity about Muji notebooks

>>10722299
Oh that's definitely true, but on the other hand, it's possible to be more actively open minded, and not fall into the common assumptions and biases, so that the internal voices can act as other people, but it's not that trivial to implement, you could search more on google about being "actively open minded", it's quite fascinating in all honesty

>>10722275
Maybe, though I have spent a lot of time doing maths on my own, about many kinds, though especially abstract algebra ^w^, and some kinds of mathematics that I tend to invent every now and again to solve certain problems: it's one of my favorite hobbies -- to invent new maths and new notations.

>>10722306

>Oh yes in fact my original idea was using emacs (spacemacs actually) but it's been long
>since I used it, and it's always a big deal reinstalling emacs because every time I update
>ubuntu it overrides the newest version. But yes I think it's a great idea to make it in org
>mode

Ah, so you know it's out there. Yeah it's a pain to set up (org-capture is even more of a pain), but at least for me it represents a quantum leap in productivity for free-association and stream-of-conscious organization of ideas. What I found particularly beneficial is that you can use it to write prose with everything else like links and images mixed in. There seems to be something about writing down your ideas in language that makes things click really well.

Anyway, you don't need org-mode, but for me there was no turning back once I really got into it.


>I'm not sure I understand your second point, I usually do pace around the room while >having new ideas, and sometimes I talk about them a little bit louder when no one's >around, but I don't see how one would run in circles if one doesn't do that.. what do you > think?

Whatever works, of course! What I have noticed is that after thinking about something for long enough, your brain tends to percolate to a new equilibrium point internally before you are consciously aware of it... and you don't realize this until you start speaking out loud. There is something about speech that pushes these subconscious connections over the edge, and very often I've found that I have ideas in me that I didn't know were there once I started talking about it as if to an audience. A big part of this is having a dynamic range of emotions, literally like you are some kind of erudite professor giving a lecture to an audience.

On that note, you can kind of do this in your head if you are doing something physically engaging like exercising or showering even.

>>10722306

(continued from No.10722331)

>Well in relation to the third point, I guess it does makes sense that sometimes it's important to get feedback from others, though sometimes I feel it's more like one just feels this desire to get feedback from others but if you work on it enough you'll find that you may no longer need that feedback, has happened to me with some posts I've made on 4chan or even stackexchange that people don't respond to what I'm doing so that their feedback is rather useless.

I guess you just need to find the right peer to get the feedback from. If your research is original enough, it may take a very long time before you understand who this might even be. It's good to base your ideas on existing literate as much as possible, of course, since this will make it more likely your ideas will eventually rejoin the mainstream, BUT personally, for my own part, I've found that it can take months to years to truly understand your own idea well enough to even understand it well enough to make it mutually intelligible to an outside expert. If you're really serious, you could try to turn it into a PhD thesis, and this would mean bringing your idea to partial fruition while you seek out a potential advisor. If you haven't done undergrad by now, this would be a good time to do in parallel.

>Regarding the fourth point, well I don''t think I can afford the physical books especially because there are just too many books I read, so I just download them illegally :P, but it makes I feel a lot of curiosity about Muji notebooks

libgen all the way. As for the Muji notebooks, don't buy them online, but I was able to find local stores in the bay area that sold them for $1.50 each. They have nice paper and no lines, which make them perfect for a research notebook.

>>10722331
Well yes, I guess when you write things down or give lectures (which I do a lot with strangers on anonymous chat websites), you find that you are able to intermingle all your ideas, and arrive at a deeper understanding, since after all your ideas are no longer compartmentalized but collapsing against each other in "shared spaces", so that you become a more integrated self. Though I'm not so sure about the dynamic range of emotions, I've mostly been aware about the aesthetic feelings when it comes to ideas not so much about other class of feelings, and there doesn't seem to be that much variability in aesthetic feelings (like awe, wonder, being touched, catharsis, perhaps melancholy, etc.). What I've mostly noticed is that the ideas spring into existence when there is silence in the mind, but that those ideas cause emotions, but in spite of the loss of silence, these emotions create more ideas, so that there is some sort of momentum, and sure there is some volubility in all that momentum that correlates with emotions but I'm not so sure about how dynamic the range is.

>>10722322

>Maybe, though I have spent a lot of time doing maths on my own, about many kinds, though especially abstract algebra ^w^, and some kinds of mathematics that I tend to invent every now and again to solve certain problems: it's one of my favorite hobbies -- to invent new maths and new notations.

That's great! I actually think university experiences can vary wildly. There have been plenty of classes I took that were taught basically by NPCs, who were just dialing in and frankly killing my enthusiasm for the subject.

But at better universities, you start to find fantastic professors whose enthusiasm for the subject can be a life changing experience. It's really hard to describe this unless you've experienced it, because your perspective on the subject is basically changed forever. I say this as someone who was originally a physics major and thought that all math professors were as boring and pedantic as my lower division calculus profs. Then I basically failed my first upper division physics course and decided to switch to math. I took combinatorics, error-correcting codes, and convex geometry that quarter, and my mind was completely blown.

>>10722352

About the emotions thing: I didn't mean range in kind but in degree. I basically go from being extremely stuck or confused to being extremely excited or surprised. My theory is that the brain remembers things better during these moments of excitement, which I've found to be a powerful tool for making important insights more memorable.

>>10722347
I've had that sort of situations where it's kind of difficult to transmit your idea so that you need to use the literature to make them easier to communicate to others but what idea are we talking about though, for I don't think the idea on productivity is that notable to be the subject of a dissertation, and while it's very useful it's not an idea I would like to dedicate a few years studying, and regarding the undergrad what can I tell you, I've been learning things on my own and experimenting on my own, though not necessarily in the most productive ways, so it's mostly interesting inside my own world though not so much from an "objective perspective", I just really enjoy discovering things sometimes even if they have already been discovered, so I'm in that sense more of a hedonist more than someone searching to change the world, but either way I'm not really against the idea of doing an undergraduate degree, though on the other hand I have lots of interests that I would like to give equal importance to :P

>>10722368

Ah, I see. You don't need to become an academic then, you just need to write your ideas in a book and publish it directly.

>>10720278
/thread

"Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement, et les mots pour le dire viennent aisément" = "What's well understood is expressed clearly, and words for it flow easily."
(Boileau)

>>10722368

And yeah, it might not be the best idea to invest years of your life in school without a clear goal, unless you are escaping something worse. In my case I escaped having to go to work by doing the most insanely impractical and theoretical degree I could imagine... :P

>>10722358
Well take feynman for instance or classic books like sicp or "the art of computer programming", these very well known examples show a lot of enthusiasm for the subject matter, they're able to see the grand implications of what they're trying to teach and how things are related between one another and definitely inspires enthusiasm in those who study it.

btw, error-correcting codes sounds like a very interesting subject that I'd like to know more about, I have some vague notions about it, but not too much. It's great that you were completely blown by it!

>>10722361
Oh that makes more sense, of course I do have similar experiences where being extremely surprised or excited does lead to knowledge that is better learned, though on the other hand I've had few experiences when I don't feel excited or surprised (when interacting with knowledge because sure I can be sad or anxious or what have you when dealing with value-related things rather than information-related things), though sure I do sometimes get stuck.

>>10722373
I don't know, I do have a desire to be an academic in part
>>10722382
well it's not exactly a lack of clear goal, it's just a goal that might be unfeasible. You know, I've always wanted to be a polymath, and that desire has not changed in the slightest since I was young, though sure I do believe that philosophy despite it being in a sense, more like language games that overgeneralize and equivocate is the center of the rest of disciplines (in my point of view). Therefore, there are lots of subjects that are important to me, and I want to do research and breakthroughs in all of them even if it might sound rather delusional.

>>10722382
hehe, are you speaking about maths?

>>10722375
It would be true in other circumstances, but the reason why I don't get to a point, it's because I have lots and lots of ideas that are connected to it, and I just have a great excitement to speak about them all

>>10722409

>hehe, are you speaking about maths?

Yep!

"Of all escapes from reality, mathematics is the most successful ever. It is a fantasy that becomes all the more addictive because it works back to improve the same reality we are trying to evade. All other escapes—sex, drugs, hobbies, whatever—are ephemeral by comparison. . . . The mathematician becomes totally committed, a monster, like Nabokov’s chess player who eventually sees all life as subordinate to the game of chess." -G.C. Rota

>>10722436
That's such a great quote, mathematics as a non-compartmentalized escpae..

I wonder if Nabokov's novel might be as philosophical as it looks like in the quote, I'll look forward to it

>>10722395

> btw, error-correcting codes sounds like a very interesting subject that I'd like to know more about, I have some vague notions about it, but not too much. It's great that you were completely blown by it!

The kernel of the entire subject is contained in the trick to solving this puzzle:

A group of prisoners are standing in line. Each prisoner is wearing either a red or a blue hat. Beginning from the back of the line, the prison guard will ask the prisoner what the color of his own hat is (which he cannot see, although he can see the colors of all the hats in front of him). If he guesses correctly, he is free to go. If he guesses incorrectly, he is executed.

If the prisoners are allowed to meet beforehand to discuss what they will do, what is the optimal strategy for them to agree upon, so that the maximum number of them will go free?

>>10722451

Anyway, the rest of the subject is a fascinating generalization of the solution of this puzzle, and is a fun mixture of elementary linear algebra, modular arithmetic, "Manhattan metric" measurements of distance, and has fascinating connections to circle packing and group theory.

In fact, John Horton Conway has written a big `ol book on the subject at the graduate level.

>>10722451
You know what, you're amazing, I'm grateful to you for not telling me what is "error-correcting codes" but giving me a puzzle instead! :D I'd love to solve that puzzle and create the theory on my own! >:)
>>10722464
I'll keep that in mind!

>>10722484

> You know what, you're amazing, I'm grateful to you for not telling me what is "error-correcting codes" but giving me a puzzle instead! :D I'd love to solve that puzzle and create the theory on my own! >:)

This is what I got in my own undergrad in the math program! It's a sublime experience to be given everything you need to create a mini little theory that subsumes the problem you are asked to solve. It's just that almost no professors really know how to do this well, which is why I didn't experience it until upper division (and then only with certain professors).

>>10722493
I couldn't agree more, it's indeed a sublime experience (when the imagination is turning its gears and filling the vague white misty parts as in the paintings of Kandinsky to build those little theories :P) that I would love to reexperience again coming up with a theory to solve this problem. Do you know other puzzles related to other math branches that give just what's needed to come up with their theories? Anything is fine

>>10722527

Sure!

First off, I highly recommend you check out the field of combinatorics. Because much of the subject is so intuitive, there are very few prerequisites to get started. At my university, we used Laslo Lovász: the first half of the course was about counting, the second half was about graph theory. In the counting portion of the course, you get to translate intuitively worded problems that are secretly about finite sets. The two basic principles in counting problems are the "sum" and "product" principles. If there are A ways of doing something and also B ways of doing it, and A and B are disjoint sets, then there are A+B total ways of doing the thing (this is the "sum principle"). On the other hand, if there are A ways of doing something, and B ways of doing something ELSE, then there are A*B ways of doing all the possible combinations of A and B.

Counting problems then mostly boil down to using these principles in various ways, and making sure you don't ever count the same thing twice. It can be very tricky and satisfying to work this out, and Lovász' book has lots of problems.

But to more directly answer your question, graph theory makes things even more interesting (and is the topic of chapter 7 of Lovász' book).

The classic motivating problem of the topic of graph theory is the problem that Euler solved to invent the subject! Pic related: Given the layout of the town, with the blue representing rivers and the green representing bridges, is it possible to walk in a path down each bridge but never the same one twice? With some basic graph theory, this becomes a trivial problem! But before Euler invented graph theory, it was considered non-trivial.

>>10722691
Thanks a lot
I'll check Lovasz's book, though I do know the basics of combinatorics and some rather intermediate concepts (I mean, I read a guided discovery approach book to combinatorics once and read the beginning of some complex book though for some reason I left it), though it's been a long time since I've tried it, but it's definitely a fun subject

Oh I've seen that problem of graph theory before, my solution usually involves thinking in terms of graph + something like enters vs exits but perhaps combined with some of my other investigations into graph theory (for I haven't really learned much of graph theory in a book-wise sense), I could think of a better solution perhaps.

A project I'd like to engage on, is to reinvent Lagrangian mechanics, I have some ideas about how I could do that (the tautochrone problem). (and then perhaps Hamiltonian) Though who knows I'm more into discrete maths and abstract maths than the continuous kind but I'll try hehe

>>10722691

I should point out here that one of the most important things you need to learn now is how to prove theorems by induction. Induction is particularly important in graph theory!

Later on you can use graph theory for fancy things, like proving that the fact that the board game of Hex (see wikipedia) cannot end in a draw implies a fixed point theorem in topology due to Brouwer. So you're using a fact about a board game in a mathematical proof of an important fact in topology!

I don't think I can clearly explain the proof that "Hex implies Brouwer", but I can relay a tidbit from the paper that does, in which the author of the paper reveals that the entire theorem hinges on a very basic lemma in graph theory... which you CAN expect to prove yourself:

Graph Lemma: A finite graph whose vertices have degree at most two is the union of disjoint subgraphs, each of which is either (i) an isolated vertex (ii) a simple cycle (iii) a simple path.

(If these terms don't yet sound familiar, try to spend some more time with Lovász, or at least look them up on Wikipedia. Graph theory terminology is actually sometimes inconsistent between authors, which is unfortunate, but in this case I think it will be clear.)

Btw, I highly recommend also checking out the book "Mathematics and Logic" by Mark Kac and Stan Ulam. It's an amazingly lucid tour of these kind of basic, playful ideas, up to the most fancy parts of mathematics. I've been studying this stuff for a while and I have yet to come across something as clear and direct.

>>10722730

And here's the paper that shows "Hex implies Brouwer": https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/22/Ford/DavidGale.pdf

I should mention as well some neat interconnections: first of all, the Kac and Ulam book I just mentioned (which, btw, is available as a dirt cheap Dover paperback) contains an early chapter that shows the Sperner Lemma from combinatorial topology, which is actually related to the Brouwer fixed-point theorem.

Second, if you look in the second to last chapter of Lovasz, you'll find a discussion on the "Fano Plane", and finite projective geometry, which can actually be used to model error-correcting codes. This connection strikes me as somewhat amazing, because the two topics it relates seem to have nothing to do with each other, but there it is.

>>10722078
The biggest hurdle I'm seeing to the implementation of your system, is file keeping.
However I've just sorted that for you fully. (maybe).
Emacing would be horrendous to any idea of making this a boarder used method.

File system tagger with a file rating system that can be given a custom range.
https://hydrusnetwork.github.io/hydrus/

Only one possible hurdle. You may have to foot up arse to the project editors to implement .txt file compatibility. But it could just be blind sight to mention that compatibility. As it's intended for image media.
And yes it does have parent:child like tagging implementation. Why does that matter you ask?
Good question my boy.
You can now give value to all data that you enter into a 'scratch pad'.
The only variable in your data sets is now your personal efficacy in research.
I'll personally will be implementing this. However my set up time before a effective build version will take some time. I'll be micro/macro tagging and breaking down scratch pads into integral components. And tagging of their potential relationships. and thoughts.
>Hehe thank you, your experiment into the signals and meditative patterns sounds interesting
It was a lest a week of meditative practice before a result was had. Maybe two.
I may be more inclined than the average bear to this 'skill'. As a child I had developed the ability to drum my ears. Yes manipulation of the inner ear bones.
All I know is the why it developed. I don't know why I have never googled as to how that works.
>find relations between these concepts about computers and your own mind
Yeah. It's an easy to explain a concept when biology is behind. Or unknown to me. And probably not far from the Truth as to core operation.
I'm currently assume that data retention is done like a random access file system with card cataloging elements. I's going to be how I treat this 'scratch pad' system you've prescribed. Am anticipating great results in a few months. (cont)

>>10722730
I'm rather familiar with the terminology, I once made a thread on /sci/ about the simplest description of some piece of abstract art, and motivated a lot of theorizing on graphs that led to forms that I eventually decided to consult the literature to think of more standard names.

Regarding the board game of hex, that sounds very interesting and I would love to try to prove that the game doesn't end.

I'll check the book by Kac and Ulam, you described it in a way that causes me a lot of interest, so I'll definitely try it!

Speaking about induction, I do know how to use it, it's one of the first things I learned about proofs while engaging in some course of "Mathematics for Computer Science" from mit ocw

>>10722755

Ah, OK. It sounds like you're already pretty far along then. For me, understanding and applying induction to pretty much everything I could was a huge revelation for me (especially in combinatorics).

>>10722755
>Regarding the board game of hex, that sounds very interesting and I would love to try to prove that the game doesn't end.

Btw, just to be clear, the key property of Hex is that it doesn't end in a draw. If the players keep putting pieces down, eventually one of them wins.

>>10722746
Thank you, I'll check the paper. I think I've hard about Brouwer fixed-point theorem but I don't remember what it was about, do you know how could one come up with the theorem say as from a puzzle, maybe relating the hex problem to topology xP.

>you'll find a discussion on the "Fano Plane", and finite projective geometry, which can actually be used to model error-correcting codes.
Hehe such different kinds, sounds quite curious that projective geometry and error-correcting codes are connected, who would've said that they were, I'll look into!

You know, I really love the fact that you're amazed by the connections that you find as sometimes I do too (though who knows how we compare)

>>10722747
I'm so glad that you were that influenced by my system :D
I like how you think but I feel a bit confused without enough background.
I know that file keeping might be necessary, but I'm rather too disorganized so I'm not entirely sure about your motivation behind file keeping though I'd like to know more, I'll look into the hydrus project.

Are you saying that one can give value to the data that one enters into the scratchpad in the sense of the idea that distractors are less valuable in relation to the reference goal, and generators or more valuable like what I described? Or something else?

And btw what do you mean by integral components?

>It was a lest a week of meditative practice before a result was had. Maybe two.
I might try the meditative practice for a week or two and see how it goes

It does make senes that it wold be like a random access file system, I'm not sure about the card cataloging, especially because of some elements taking priority in recall, but perhaps if one thinks of vectors in NLP or perhaps prototype theory, then it doesn't sound that unlikely.

I really hope the system works for you!

>>10722763
I see it doesn't end in a draw, reminds me of some other game though I don't remember its name
I just rememered though that topology and graph theory are in some sense related, I remember reading a paper that someone here published about their computer science thesis that related some things about topology and graph theory using graphs that are used a lot in optimization problems, I think, though I don't remember the names

>>10722197
see >>10722747

> I'd love to know more about what your experiment involved, the things trying to accomplish and how you achieved the increase in visualization scope.
Methodology was be away from internet access after mass digestion of theoretical concepts. Particularly holographic Universe. Then just essentially bruit force a Kaleidoscope in the visual thought scape to move as if its colored parts were to move but without intersection or deletion.
A possibly more simple methodology may be to imagine different colored components, packed in to a impenetrable glass container. But these shapes have some force that it attempting to rotate them. However it could be a thought path block. As such a thing in relation to real world is impossible to have a movement outcome. Hence my Kaleidoscope usage as a thought process and routing device. The imagined blocks and shapes that I packed together for the visualization exercise had one impossible movement they could perform as part of bypassing preconception, that'd be near hardwired to the brain from just passive confirmations over life. And that movement was to be able to expand symmetrically coherent way. Just as the visuals from a Kaleidoscope would happen.

So that was what was bruited for a considerably lengthy time. Around 6 hours a day for a week or two.
>achieved the increase in visualization scope.
I don't think I expanded my visualizing power at all in this. The use of visualization give it a clear overseer component and make detection of a 'in-correct' movement immensely more easy to detect.
In no means did I increased as to how vivid, or how broad of a visualization I'm capable to enact. Given the experiment a smaller workspace and transparency of objects is far more preferable. The fewer points of contention the better, until it's inversely affecting the illusion of the Kaleidoscope.More you trick perception to make connections to 'real world' concepts that work for a outcome, smother things go,

>>10722820
Sounds like a pretty neat exercise in visualization though it's not clear what was your motivation was to try it out and I'm not sure what you mean by thought path block or why expanding in a symmetrically coherent way be an impossible movement

I think I understand what you mean by that of visualization, I did try something similar when I was younger and it gave me a lot of ability, though at this moment I have the idea that visualization is not exactly that special and that one can connect to not just real things but make any sort of analogy, and it's especially useful if things are too abstract

>>10722197
>>As they may have unforeseen effects. And lasting, or recurring ones
>would affect you like that on the visual novel "rewrite", but in reality?
Yeah it's a real, and has near permanent outcome potential.
Neural placidity when done properly. Is not just a matter of election gate procedures being altered.
In full blown placidity you're controlling neurons physical form. Via the creation of new physical synapses.
They take time to make. But deletion of them is not something I'm aware to be possible.
Now one would thing that shutting down the path way might be the next way to 'correct' a outcome that has this at play.
But sadly that kind of thought pattern is far prom being controllable enough to stop all use of new synapses. You can attempt to limit it and have it limited to a good degree. But the pathway connection is always going to be checked by gateway impulses at an absolute minimum.
>>10722274
Even if perceived shutdown of of inducted program/mapping has occurred. Ther's those gateway checking protocols. They not only report the networks. But conduct port mapping by forcing neurons into a spasm spewing god knows what chemicals and electro patterns.
This is what causes the long term recurrences. Because whilest a 'user' may have stopped the background process. The random jusk from unused pathways is detected and triggers the 'program' to reinitialize it as the mapping showing unused potential is coming from the synapses specifically for it.
It takes a long time for functionality to be removed from the brain. It's just plain not made with that in mind at all.

As for Tulpas. They're a whole different beast. They're often conduit from the subconscious, that wasn't intended to be from that level. It's stupidly difficult to create this entity on first attempt without catastrophic error. Let alone with a specific form desired.
They're something only safely built in years. But of course instant gratification faggots ignore all warning labels. (cont)

>>10722818
I meant Delaunay and Voronoi

>>10722935
Well yes plasticity does exist but even then it's kind of particular rather than something that generalizes except in the case of metacognitive skills, and I can see that it's not necessarily that easy to remove the functionality of the brain though I'm not so sure why it the program would be reinitalized but now that I think about it more clearly it does kind of make little sense to think that the brain simply forgets as if it were some sort of decay (as if memories were radioactive elements), there must be processes like the ones that you describe, so your theory is intriguing in that sense, you have an impressive intuition though quite confusing haha

>>10722805
>Thank you, I'll check the paper. I think I've hard about Brouwer fixed-point theorem but I don't remember what it was about, do you know how could one come up with the theorem say as from a puzzle, maybe relating the hex problem to topology xP.

You can have a look at this blog post for an informal discussion about the "Hex theorem": https://vigoroushandwaving.wordpress.com/2013/09/30/the-joy-of-hex-and-brouwers-fixed-point-theorem/

At the end, he remarks that if you understand why Hex can never end in a draw (the "Hex theorem"), then you already have the intuition behind Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem:

>If H is a Hex board, when all hexagons are coloured in blue and red,
>then there is either a red path connecting the red sides or a blue path >connecting the blue sides.

>This means that when every hex on a board is filled at least one
>player must have won. As the players take alternate terms and the
>game is finite (an n \times n board will be filled in n^2 moves, this
>means one player must have completed their path first, and hence
>won.

But you can also prove Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem using its combinatorial analog, known as Sperner's Lemma! And you will find an intuitive discussion of Sperner's Lemma that is grounded in geometry in an early chapter of Kac and Ulam.

In fact, the same blog that discussed Hex => Brouwer, also has a post about Sperner => Brouwer: https://vigoroushandwaving.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/homotopy-groups-we-dont-need-no-stinking-homotopy-groups-at-least-if-we-want-to-prove-brouwers-fixed-point-theorem/#more-1000

>>10723011

Ignore the anchor in that last link:
https://vigoroushandwaving.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/homotopy-groups-we-dont-need-no-stinking-homotopy-groups-at-least-if-we-want-to-prove-brouwers-fixed-point-theorem/

>>10722818
>I just rememered though that topology and graph theory are in some sense related, I remember reading a paper that someone here published about their computer science thesis that related some things about topology and graph theory using graphs that are used a lot in optimization problems, I think, though I don't remember the names

Yes, they are definitely related. In fact, not only did Euler write the first paper on graph theory when he solved the Seven Bridges of Königsberg problem, but he also started "homology" (now a topic of algebraic topology) when he defined what is now called the Euler characteristic, which Wikipedia says he used to classify the platonic solids. The Euler characteristic is an important part of "planar graph theory", which is a sort of bridge between topology and graph theory. In particular, it seems that by forcing the graph to fit on the plane, you must subject it to certain invariants (in particular, the Euler characteristic... look it up on Wikipedia, it's an extremely simple formula), which seems to be particularly powerful for solving problems in computer science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_characteristic

>>10723049
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_characteristic
Yep I know about the euler characteristic, it's a bit cryptic what you say about fitting the graph on the plane but I'll think of it

>>10723011
>>10723016
I skimmed the links and they seem colorful and playful and I like it when math is like that but before anything I'll try to prove it on my own

>>10723078
>Yep I know about the euler characteristic, it's a bit cryptic what you say about fitting the graph on the plane but I'll think of it

The tl;dr is that it's not always possible. A question of whether or not is is called a graph embedding problem.

>I skimmed the links and they seem colorful and playful and I like it when math is like that but before anything I'll try to prove it on my own

Tbqh, don't read those blog posts. Instead just go to chapter 5a of Kac & Ulam, where there is a marvelous intuitive discussion of Sperner & Brouwer.

I don't know of any texts that have you prove it from scratch, but I've seen plenty examples of this in more advanced textbooks. That is, you'll often find what more elementary books develop in the text posed as problems. For example, in Dieudonne's famous Foundations of Modern Analysis, you'll find a problem that invites you to create complex analysis.

The thing about these problems is that they typically guide you carefully, so you aren't inventing it completely by yourself. If you DO want to do that, though, look up the Moore method. In this style of text, you are only given definitions and theorems, and you are expected to supply ALL the proofs, in the entire text. :-)

>>10722274
The common fuck up of Tulpa induction. Is trying summon the whole thing without any actually designing as to how it's to work, not even in a rudimentary idea on scratched down on a napkin.
The build for a tulpa should take several weeks to get just the conceptual functions nutted out.

Things like If the entity's to be a external auditory perception with their communications or movements, or be internalized.
Or even for something like a mute function be in place.
The better you can understand the shell. The higher capability you will have in understanding how to fill it.
And gives a good head start of the relationship understanding and requirements. And can act as sort of a subconscious training preemptively for the soon to become entity's acceptable behaviors.So long that little to no previous play had occurred to have more then lose set 'personality' attributable to it.

A bad build start would be for instance.
Someone to tulpa a imaginary friend they've had for many months with regular engagement.
Thus thinking that the relationship build methodology can be skipped over.because of 'ol Bill? known him for yonks. Wont be a drama'.
To not to take into account on what level of consciousnesses their from. Or if they exist on both.
Subsequently not putting in a mute function to later find their friend is a incoherent mess of sexual assertions and death threats Because need for remapping the fiend from subconscious was missed. So not they're stuck with something that wont shut up or settle down because its in essence a live readout of near upper level speech pulled from the fuck it, or fight it loop.
>Not sure what you mean by exponentialism
Well basically just means
1+1=2
1+2=4
1+3=8

>>10723110
Oh I know about the Moore method, but even then there's a way to do it with very few definitions and proofs (so that it's one that invents the definitions and conjectures), so that you can invent most of it from scratch, I've done it personally, and ohh that brings some memories about dieudonne's book, though I didn't follow suit to go through it all but now that you tell me that I might reconsider, I'd love to create complex analysis though I did read the beginning of the book of real and complex analysis by rudin it was rather easy and I was kind of impressed with myself though Borel sets are kind of burdensome so I kind of left it for later but I might try it again, but I can see that one could invent perhaps complex analysis by thinking of euler's equation perhaps. I'll look into the marvelous intuitive discussion if I'm unable to prove it from scratch, but I'm pretty good at being autonomous however who knows we'll see :-) hahaha

>>10723121
Not sure how uncontrollable a Tulpa would become but it does seem to have an interesting relationship with plasticity. By shell you mean the structure of teh tulpa? My own experience with Tulpas mostly comes from my own investigations into characterization of a visual novel character from wonderful everyday, Zkauro Takashima, who I have studied a lot and try to synthesize her various qualities, and I'd like to be able not just roleplay her but also to simulate her in my mind, but it's a lot of work.

Odd notation for exponentialism but it's fine though I don't understand its use in those sentences nonetheless

>>10722805
>Are you saying that one can give value to the data that one enters into the scratchpad
Yes and no. A file put in tagging system can be given a positive or negative score to the file it self. Via the liking system.
.
So on the scratchpad. You'd have to copy the lesser value data into a new text file to separate it in order to tag a differing value to the rest of the data. Should you find it be worth being shown in the results if a tag can be attributed to it that would make it useful in a potential new line of inquiry if it arises or to one you have on the back burner.

Maybe with the 'like' for 'like' linking of tags can be used. so a tag that's a score value is attributed to the whole scratch file but only triggered with the mention of the like tag for that particular piece of information in the text file?

>integral components?
Separating data completely..
Not even leaving a solution to a problem intact on the scratch pad. (not for reals. I'll keep a uncut copy. Just not having the whole scratch pad in the tagging system)
I'd like to try developing the tagging system as the method of relearning and inquiry. With fleshing out the like for like tagging system a much as possible. (what i meant via that cataloging in a random access filing system)

I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out too.

>>10723154
I think I grasp what you're saying that you separate the data and that each file has a value, I guess it could convenient to separate the data. The only thing that it's not so clear is how would one make it useful in a potential new line of inquiry? Or well how would this relate to the lesser value data being in a new text file?

>>10722849
>thought path block or why expanding in a symmetrically coherent way be an impossible movement
There's two understands one can have. The Observed world. And the known world.
These are generally pretty well separated by nature. To prevent interference from pesky known world perception from stopping perceived world perception to reacting because of a unknown.

Observed world perception is actually a bit slow on the uptake of new information. And has a passion for ignoring any thing known world persecution has to say.

So this is how you can show yourself a magic trick involving optical illusion and simultaneously be aware and confused as to what to trick.

Kaleidoscopes are magic to perceived world perception. They exist in the real world. To so dispersing acts with seemingly 3D objects. Moving in ways never seen elsewhere.
Only when really focusing on seeing the mirror arrangement does this illusion dispel.

So because this level of mind exists, and that mister Observed world is sucker when it comes to optical and other sensory illusions.
It might be a potential point where a escalation of privilege can take place to escape limitations enforced elsewhere by that sucky known world perception bastard that say's physical objects cannot pass though themselves or others without damage.

And that a item in particular being a good representation of the desired out outcome to be attempted.exists, and is a illusory device.that has been exposed to Observed world perception
enough that's he's accepting of that happening even in the face all other data that says it not happening, or possible to happen as witnessed.

So by making the visualization attempt akin to this real world device in how it would look then a movement could be made. Via the visual process. Might be a good idea because that system responsible for keeping things in order. Is primed to be tricked into opening up what's needed to perform an 'impossible action'. .

>>10723152
>By shell you mean the structure of teh tulpa
Basically yes. Just everything else you can think of to a a factor in desired design you can think of. Because ne you hit Print. There's no second chance for some time after.

>>10723183
It's going to be a learning experience for myself,
Loads of thesaurus work will be involved.
And a mighty leap of faith of how a file should be weighted,

It's going to be a really on the fly development.
I'll probably have to export to PC because of the search times that may become involved.

>>10723240
Your knowledge of tulpa will always be incomplete if you don't factor in egocide/dissiplation of the tulpa. The idea that you can't change them just because they're sentient is wrong. If you will not claim full dominion over your own mind, then you stand to lose more than you ever imagined—because your mind is the damn thing that imagines any of that in the first place.

Never embark on a psychonaut journey unless you're willing to exercise full control over all that you experience. A mind is not something you can afford to lose.

>>10723225
This vision that you're showing to me is honestly sort of spectacular, I love your analogy even though you're not very good at punctuation -.- (though I'm not a grammar nazi hahaha).

>So by making the visualization attempt akin to this real world device in how it would look then a movement could be made. Via the visual process.
Though that sentence is confusing but if I understand it well you're saying that this movement thus consists in making observed world perception realize that what they're seeing is not something impsosible at all, that what happens inside the kaleidoscope is a possibility that is observed by the known world perception.

>>10723240
Well I understand that though I'm not sure, as I see things, Tulpas grow with you, I don't think it finishes when one decides to print the Tulpa :P

>>10723253
I wish you lots of luck with that experience

If you make it open source or something is there a way I can track your progress? Or is it perhaps the link that you gave us?

>>10723329
There's no losing though when it comes to those aspects of the mind, for I'd be open to be changed by a Tulpa or a psychonaut journey for instance. Though on the other hand I can see that if you lose some aspects of yourself, one might want to recover them, so it makes sense to try to find a way to always integrate yourself as you find new journeys in life, to backlink (and not just forelink) as it's called in linkography and design.

>>10723329
>Never embark on a psychonaut journey unless you're willing to exercise full control over all that you experience.
This is patently misleading due to a single word.
>control
Responsibly is the keyword there. And let me tell you why.

But from theoretical development of a system that can have normal, predictable and safe operation there of. Rests on the elimination of one factor. Human involvement.

There is in no way some one can create a 'legitimate Tulpa', with any reasonable expectation that controls or measures prescribed prior to have any appreciable affect after induction.
Anyone to claim simple methods to control a newly formed tupla with neural mapping as part of the build of the tulpa are beyond false.
This is a system that is built by a human, with designs by a human, from information given to them in a near word of mouth seance by differing humans, for a system with wide interactions with a human, that is driven by the needs of a human, to be run off a human system, that impacted by involvements with further humans. that the involvement of the system to the human directly results in affect to both system and human host.

You seeing the uncertainty in outcome?

Yes egocide and dismissal methods can work but should not be considered applicable when this is in relation to
Neural placidity manipulators.
Further editing after instigation of entity is possible, but not with a mere notion. But can take weeks or months.

Also anyone that has done remapping to facilitate Tulpa will tell you. Editing in a "ego death" is not an option at this level of mental manipulations.
To try and induct consciousness dissociation when Bicameral mentality and ego has been bisected. in order to create 'near true personality' in a Tulpa. wouldn't be advisable at all.
I'd expect displacement. Or damage as a result of merger psyches.

>>10719938
Sounds stupid

>>10723483
>making observed world perception realize that what they're seeing is not something impsosible at all,
Correct.
Mother always told me that theoretical physics should have a practical application. ;)
>If you make it open source or something is there a way I can track your progress? Or is it perhaps the link that you gave us?
The website for the file manager has a user submitted tag collection. Bit if not there I'm just shit /sci/ with my handle desu~ till i can get it to you.

>>10723665
>>10723483
But if not there, I'll just shit up /sci/ with my handle desu~ till i can get it to you.*
Wow I need to go to bed.
>(though I'm not a grammar nazi hahaha).
Nah, my coherence has been atrocious.
I thought it was mainly run on sentences. but failure to apply or correct connective words at all has happened.

Though I'm going to have to save this thread and re read it after a sleep,
The level of discourse and malformed posts might align in such a way. That my entry post to the thread may it seem as if it was just further reiteration of and hammering home the point.

I could be spouting like a spastic too. But I've enjoyed the exploration of the subject. And finally finding someone not just interested to my accounts. But able to give some of their own. And have meaningful input to the matter to boot!

Maybe /sci/ is due for a /psychonauts/ thread at some point.

>>10723639
I have yet to learn a lot about tulpamancy
this article on the topic captivates me: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Samuel_Veissiere/publication/278671032_Varieties_of_Tulpa_Experiences_The_Hypnotic_Nature_of_Human_Sociality_Personhood_and_Interphenomenality/links/5582522008aeab1e4666e9e1/Varieties-of-Tulpa-Experiences-The-Hypnotic-Nature-of-Human-Sociality-Personhood-and-Interphenomenality.pdf

Well humans are unpredictable but would that mean that the effect of humans on Tulpas would make tulpas uncontrollable? Wouldn't instead be the human nature of tulpas that makes them autonomous? and how would one induct a consciousness dissociation though?
>>10723665
How do I find the user submitted tag collection?
Hahaha, I'll try using a handle too ~
>>10723733
I can the same about my enjoyment of the exploration of the subject, and it's so refreshing to find someone with an overabundance of ideas!
I'll look into /sci/ every now and again in case I find the /psychonauts/ thread hehehe

>>10724460
Found the "Official" gasp on why Neural placidity tasks may be re-initiated without 'consent'. As I described earlier.
[Implicit] procedural memory.:
The multiple memory system would be where, to be ceased functions imo get banished to. In order for a rudimentary preservation of accuracy via passive run time for corrective elements to be done before a given condition met for shelf storage to happen.
And yes. Your data degradation aspect mentioned in given good credence to take place.
>Expertise-induced amnesia

Thanks for that article link. My only disappointment from it. Was lack of mention to the sutdy'd groups methodology. Or their groups discourse scope when in a virtual forum.
His writing style makes me think this is a near auto biographical account. Involvement closely with chan Tulpamancers is a given.
If this was some one outside looking in. The anecdotal and digression count would be much lower. And the introductory segment no where near as casual lol.

(cont0

>>10724886
My notes from which.

>Tulpas reported overall cognitive and affective difference from their hosts’ ‘baseline’.
>often claimed relative or total independence from the hosts’ conditions.
Take note of that tidbit,
>59% of non-tulpamancers fell in the diachronic spectrum
>70.8% of tulpamancers tended toward episodocity
That;s a large swing in any demographic, And I think I know why this is the case.
>Getting rid of a Tulpa for a seasoned -mancer, thus, could be analogically situated somewhere between unlearning the piano or correcting one’s posture.
I have my big doubts.such claims clames of east to dismiss.
Easily affirmed/given actual credibility with a non informative measure to confirm interactions with a externalized entity existing in a 'realized' form can be done with just pupal dilation monitoring, But I've yet to find any study that more then self affirmation for Tulpa.

Okay these points stuck out to me as
i'd suspected indicative a of a large portion of the study ground being negative to Tulpa induction.

The 40% +-2.5%? swing to a greater occurrence of episodocity types being the groups dominance.
Now normally wouldn't be of a concern. Such a inversion of make of a group from baseline,. Would normally be expected given tre fringe nature of the group,

But in this instance it's actually bizarre.
>diachronic
<concerned with the way in which something, especially language, has developed and evolved through time.
This seemingly trivial distinction. It a grater tell to as mentality as a whole. And in a diachronic state is a great indicator ability for a reflective and methodical based behavior for Tulpa induction as a real achieve outcome.

The make up of other 70% of respondents?
>Synchronic linguistics aims at describing a language at a specific point of time, usually the present.

Do I even need to say what kind of attribute this would be related to?
Instant gratification

>>10724966
So I'd dare sat that of the 118 respondents. Less than 40 would have achieved induction of a a episode.
And as for full Tulpa respondents number, it's a crap shoot.

>>10724460
>ow do I find the user submitted tag collection?
To connect hydrus to services->manage services and hit the 'add' button. Fill it in

hydrus.no-ip.org

45871

4a285629721ca442541ef2c15ea17d1f7f7578b0c3f4f5f2a05f8f0ab297786f

>>10724460
>make tulpas uncontrollable
In a perfect induction. It would be no more risk adverse then being hand cuffed to a some one new to you that was already showing potential a being a best fiend.
But with the twist that for the handcuffs to unlock.
You'd have to play down any and all notion of their existence.. a way that even your method in ignoring them. Isn't a by-proxy acknowledgement.
It's not as critical as it sounds in text to have a failure.
But it must be adhered to the it the process already worked and you're not even blocking aware they had ever been. Especially if you'd like a timely result.

In a less prepared and introspective initiation. With neutral character trope preceptors.
Any problems problems are likely to be "6 of one and half dozen the other" in cause, from a isolation of event. But in the end it's ultimately user error or not doing all they'd reasonable expected to do. Even the time frames blows out to years.
Half arseing mental preparations and knowledge of how these work. is just asking for a bad time.
Worse account i heard. Was reciprocal distress resulting in inability to break the cycle that the user did not seek help for. That only got worse and worse to debilitating hysteria developing in both the User and Tulpa,
So chemical relaxants had to administered and maintained at high dosage in a mental health ward. over the course several weeks with subtle dose reduction to keep then ni a relaxed state stare without any 'jarring' pressure the might trigger them falling back to a into a stare,

>how would one induct a consciousness dissociation though?
You'd have to create a very specific notion as to such and event would feel to occur.
I can only guess. If I were to aim for it. I'd go for sensation of vertigo with weightlessness, With confusion to perception's accuracy. That perception entered a flux like Dolly zoom. There in film where they more the camera in a direction as they apple zoom in the other way.

>>10724886
It's interesting perhaps some functions do get banished to some place in the brain, and there's good reason to argue that nothing is forgotten or at least nothing after you sleep, and a reason for that is because there are always some memories that as you said get recalled by implicit memory as in Proust's madeleine or Heidegger's lifeworld. And what would that condition be? it doesn't sound to me like memory would depend on certain conditions
Hahaha well I bet that might be true but still the article does have some interesting ideas
>>10725014
Oh thank you friend! :)
>>10725325
Oh I see, it does make sense that one would be reminded by the tulpa, it's strange and I think I have a better understanding because of what you said, so a Tulpa might involve linking them to the lifeworld, making the objects of the environment the vessels of the spirits of the memories of the Tulpa.
I do understand that it is pretty time-confsuming though I don't have a very good knowledge about the common practices that people engage in but my theories are kind of similar from what I've seen and it does take a lot of time.
Oh I'm not sure if I heard about that account but I did hear something similar and even then it sounds kind of remote and crazy, I'll google it either way

That thing you say about consciousness dissociation sounds a bit like derealization

(cont)

>>10724966
That tidbit is a bit strange but interesting nonetheless
Speaking about diachronicity and episodicity, well I see myself as more diachronic than episodic, though sure my life does have drastic changes, many of them actually but even then and especially recently I've been trying to integrate my life a lot, though it's not so strange that that is the case, but I'm not entirely sure, I wonder if you ahve the same thoughts

Heh I can agree with you about it being pretty influential such distinction though seemingly subtle. Recently I read about self-awareness and the justification systems (in the book of a unified theory of psychology), and it seems related to all of this, and when it comes to higher-order language it grants us the capacity to justify our actions to others and to ourselves and evaluate the performances of others in order to navigate the social environment so it's quite transcendental in all the things that matter to us, human beings.

Though I'm not sure why you're comparing it to synchronic linguistics after all the text is speaking about how some people see more discontinuity in their lives and describe themselves less than others (having less self-awareness thus)

>>10719938
bump

>>10727176
Bump

jkj

>>10729012
jkj?

>>10719938
I recently discovered that this can be understood as a specialization of emotional regulation skills, for procrastination is a behavior that one uses to cope with certain emotions, and though these self-destructive behaviors might lead to tempoary reward, in the long-term they are rather pernicious. Moreover, a way to deal with such self-destructive behaviors is by recognizing them in the same way that you recognize the procrastinations that you're having in the metacognitive sketchpad, and thus it makes sense to think about the whole contribution system, how by pursuing those actions you're affected in the small term and the long-term, and recognizing alternatives that can lead to better coping while not judging yourself for being this way ^w^

So apparently self-awareness is involved in self-regulation, which makes sense if you think of private justification systems, such that private justification systems are related to how the unconscious urges, emotions, perceptions, and goals, are converted into conscious thoughts, how you decide to accept them and let them be part of your private self or not and in what way!

I've been very, very productive for the last three days (and pretty much not a single day before that) and it has been the result from following my approach, so if you have ADHD then go ahead and try this out, you might find out it works for you too :)

>>10720388
>>10720278
>>10722375
>oh no someone is using a lot of words I better make sure they know I have a hard limit for comprehension and attention span!
>there's no chance that an idea could have multiple facets and that a person might want to try to cover their bases because it's satisfying to them

>>10720973
wait, do you think that someone essentially using themselves and their experience as a benchmark for day to day repeatability of 'experiments' of productivity isn't related to science? what a small imagination

OP, I do something slightly similar but less detailed wherein I take pretty ridiculously copious notes or voice memos as much as possible in short time frames while I'm completing activities, so I have the completed activity and a running record of my moment to moment perceptions about the activity. It's hard for me to emphasize how many notes and recordings I'm talking about. Probably close to a million words spread across something like 100 notebooks and maybe like 200 hours of voice memos, sometimes 10-12 hours of writing/recording every day for months concurrently with the baseline activities

I don't really even go over my writings or recordings that often, but I view it like additional stress and articulation, and then when I take a break, just doing one thing is so much easier, if that makes sense, and what I can accomplish in a where I don't have my real time updating going on at the same time as solving problems or playing piano, etc. is pretty extraordinary

Keep doing you

>>10730910
Just a suggestion, but you might want to familiarize yourself more with the scientific literature regarding executive functioning. As someone who spent a number of years researching neuropsychology/behavioral neuroscience focused on EF, your ideas come of as more of a philosophical tangle that lacks a certain empirical substance.
Also, try organizing your syntax so your sentences aren't paragraph-long run-ons. It was genuinely difficult to follow what you were trying to convey not because of the inherent complexity of the topic but more as a result of the way you express it.

>>10731893
Well of course they are a philosophical tangle (though with some amount of specificity) rather than having empirical substance, the only empirical substance is my own life (but it has worked so far), though what I said here: >>10730910
was actually based on theories of other people (look "A unified theory of Psychology" and "DBT skills workbook") and it's my hypothesis that procrastination is a self-destructive behavior, because it all seems connected from the things I've learned recently :P
I agree with you on what you say about my syntax, and I wasn't realizing that it would be difficult for others to read, I appreciate that you expressed this to me

>>10731425
Oh that's quite interesting, I do more or less the same as you about taking lots and lots of notes about what I'm doing, and synthesizing my notes is a bit of a chore though I've been able to cope with it better, recently. Though I want to say that I'm not just speaking about taking notes, but more as if you were programming yourself, by instructing yourself what to do, what not to do, and getting involved on how to make these instructions a reality. I feel a bit confused at the end of your last sentence, are you telling me that it is extraordinary what you can realize while at the same time making updates about what you're doing?

>Keep doing you
Aww thank you! I like it that you appreciate me ^^

>>10725900
>>10725923
bump

bump :p

>>10719938
are you a genius?

>>10720302
this

>>10736284

Maybe not:
>"Mathematics requires a small dose, not of genius, but of an imaginative freedom which, in a larger dose, would be insanity. And if mathematicians tend to burn out early in their careers, it is probably because life has forced them to acquire too much common sense, thereby rendering them too sane to work. But by then they are sane enough to teach, so a use can still be found for them."

(Angus K. Rodgers)

>>10719938
I got over this by unloading my cache of worry, doubt and misunderstanding onto god (heathen read; deified entity). It speeds learning up by a whole lot and lets me engage in an activity without getting caught up in it as i know that through the nature of learning and thought and how recursive it is, i'd come back to it later.
Also OP, the people in antiquity already figured all this out and wrote and pondered these exact same questions of yours in excruciating detail. Treat yourself to some classic natural philosophy as opposed to exposing yourself to the horrific, stale, rigified maggot filled corpse of modern day 'science', everyone here is a gigantic cum filled faggot.

>>10736284
It boosts my self esteem, that this looks like a genuine question and for that I'm thankful to you :), but even then it would be a delusion to say that I understand the actual intention behind your question, so let me ask, why do you ask? and what's your understanding of genius?

>>10737942
lmao maybe I should indeed boof on some adderall but I can't at this moment given that I'm not seeing any psychiatrist but perhaps there might be a way to obtain such drugs without going to a psychiatrist?

>>10737953
That connected with the other post, reminds me of this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beautiful-minds/201201/must-one-risk-madness-achieve-genius-0, there's of course also the scientific article that deals with more or less the same topic but in a more empirically rigorous way, but I'll link to this one as a prologue to the scientific one for whoever is interested. Now, speaking about the quote, I do relate a lot with the imaginative freedom that is so ubiquitous in the invention of new mathematics. Moreover, it is meaningful to hear about this tendency to burn out early in one's career, that has happened to many of the most famous scientists.

>>10738227
Your method does seem quite consistent with some of the ideas proposed here, like say unloading your distractions in the metacognitive sketchpad, and understanding yourself instead of forcing yourself, though it's interesting your addition of not getting caught up or unloading one's uncertainty onto god or a deified entity, though I'm not sure I have specific examples in my experience that I can draw from to relate with those points. Can you relate some example from your life?

>>10731425
>oh no someone is using a lot of words I better make sure they know I have a hard limit for comprehension and attention span!
He said his problem is procrastination. Obsessively developing on a convoluted method for eliminating procrastination is itself a really transparent case of getting caught up in procrastination.
Has nothing to do with being anti-complexity. If it were any topic other than procrastination that wouldn't be an issue.

>>10738227
>Also OP, the people in antiquity already figured all this out and wrote and pondered these exact same questions of yours in excruciating detail. Treat yourself to some classic natural philosophy as opposed to exposing yourself to the horrific, stale, rigified maggot filled corpse of modern day 'science', everyone here is a gigantic cum filled faggot.
LMAO, haha it's reminiscent of Nietzsche's conception of truth and Barthes' body explained in "Writing Degree Zero" (of the dead body and living body, such that the dead body represents the accepted sterile abstractions). I think there's some usefulness in reading about what people in antiquity already figured out, especially, because of its connection to philosophy and hence, it being more paradigmatic, such as in the case of the Stoics. However here you're talking about the natural philosohers and well it does make sense to read their works even if textbooks already suammarize what natural philosophers have discovered, for if one does it this way, in my opinion one can understand the significance of their achievements, be observers and coparticipants in the process of discovery, and realize where ideas actually come from, and that I'd find fascinating, and I assume that some have pondered about these questions though I'm not sure I can point which of the (natural) philosophers, what philosophers would you recommend me to read?

>>10739083
I really haven't focused much anymore on the method, though I do talk about it more or less at this hour on this website :p, and yes in other circumstances it would make sense that it would be a transparent case of getting caught up in procrastination.

Regarding whether it's anti-complexity or not, umm well you must keep some things in mind, like say, the fact that you have to remember that you have to limit your procrastination whenever you have a strong urge to procrastinate, that you must be patient with yourself when you don't feel very interested and take another strategy, to write down your distractions, and well maybe some of the frameworks I proposed above could help minimize the amount of things that you have to keep in mind.

>>10722755
and you called it fuckin "example 1" or something and never came back with the next

>>10739152
Ummm, where did I call it "example 1"? With the next example?

>>10739162
i am talking to the person who wrote this, is this you?
>I once made a thread on /sci/ about the simplest description of some piece of abstract art
I think it was called example 0 or something in the thread title

>>10739315
Oh true :P
Oh I remember
I never came up with the next but I will someday soon

>>10739315
but here have some evidence ^^

>>10725923
Just gotta bump. Will be with you in a moment. Have had to recuperate for a few days.

>>10725923
I'm making a more nudging point about the Tulpa community.
Basically half of them are /x/troverts looking for a quality pasta.
A quarter are engaging as if they're accomplished but are just more so sating their need for social interaction. And they do it well because it a skill that has 'higher' respect in the BBS community; and introversion perspective value. So they use all the right words and the per-condoned methodology. They just want to fit in. I actually have to say they are acceptable to have. At least they fucking lurked.

And of the last. It's a lot of half arsed rushed jobs with various degrees of success. From voices to almost had it perfect for a moment. Really it's just a lot of Anons that induced schizophrenia/hallucination. Very uncontrolled.

Remember I said never tie a placidity to an emotion?
The original Buddhist? incantations were heavily skewed to using fear as a means of getting results.
They use something like rats. Something that can be anywhere, anyplace, anytime; easy to remind yourself to think of. The 'programming,triggering' of the Tulpa is simply hyper-awareness.

See my image. I can post this to /b/ and potentially cause someone to have a severe anxiety attack in someone that's never been inclined before.
The game is simple.. Play on risk, peer perception, regret.

Seems an innocuous thing to do right? Just a pinch of the wrist.
But here's the fear.
>The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
"Hey Anon. Wanna cum sum m0ar? Do this!"
Fool heartily they comply.
Then the first few post come in "WTF my heart is racing" "I've just had a palpitation"

I don't even need to seed those posts. The landwhales with those anyway and those that have lurked enough will do that autonomously.
Que remembrance about penny straw crystals.
And panic sets in. Elevating heart rate and misfiring. Feeding the delusion. Manifest destiny?
(1/?)

>>10725923
>>10743038
So I guess you can call the kinda doing it tier of users; Tuplaphants. (Ref: New definition of sycophant not original)
They comply with the rash implementation of maintained thought the Buddhists had used. However, they're deluded into thinking they're able to have a supreme control over what is a complex creature. With the only thought as to how that will work is if i can think it as X then it must be X if i just throw a thought cloud at it for a few weeks.

Buddhists doing rats was piss easy. Something that's a peripheral thought to a creature that scurry's away.
Of the Tulpaphants there's a small group that in essence are doing it. But I think they might be attributing internal visualization as 'halucination'/externalization of Tulpas image.
Only thing wrong is that they're either leading on with information. Or they're admitted defeat way too early. These ones are on the cusp of having a Properly functioning Tulpa.

The last segment. Like 1 in 10 that claim it. With a significant post chain. These are slightly less rarer than a Unicorn. Any may be in more numbers, but abandoning the skill and mental health confusion are in play.
These fall into the I need to study them with in-intrusive cameras and microphones to determine pathological lair from mental-case. Finally then you'd be able to safely ID a Tulpamancer.

He may have been some sort of Psychology education accredited person that done this ""study"". But even he was easily duped by. Fringe behaviors described by self appointed outcasts with nothing to gain=Truth.

I've covered this topic extensively. Not because I'm bored at the Terminal. But because none I've seen of disambiguate the subject. And considering you've taken a mental precept much like my own as a superior pathway, not to mention playing with placidity. I feel that laying out reasoning's from one that's been in that state for over 25 years. It just might help you hop skip and jump the one legged race.

>>10730910
>So apparently self-awareness is involved in self-regulation
Oh very much so. Cringe moments are a stand out. You've learnt well enough. But the emotional tie to that moment of typically "how did I do that despite all my knowledge of the other".
>yeah we geddit. We all have unpalatable memory.
Don't overlook what we just learnt a meme arrow ago.
Did X despite overwhelming Y, Now it's a highly uncomfortable thought, knowledge, and even physical reaction.

You've had a blind sight for this issue or it couldn't have happened.
Capt'n hindsight decided that to fix this. All vaguely similar instances and thought trains should immediately point to incident X.
This is you're brain on defeat. It couldn't create a obvious pathway, or was duped into an alternate annalist of the situation. So it has to overcompensate. Awareness is more likely to stop a recurrence.

>related to how the unconscious urges, emotions, perceptions, and goals, are converted into conscious thoughts
The 'tick' of the tourettes is a extreme example.
It's 99% of sufferers having OCD with social acceptability triggers.
'Curse' words, and the obscene being common externalizations. A obvious correlation proving causality.
Note*: There's obviously 2 conditions listed as tourettes. Much like ADHD has Apathetic parental/skills included in the 'spectrum'.

If you remember my mention of the sloppy created Tupla from early thread. Something wired to the fight it or fuck it loop.
These processing if/else loops exist in our mind. They're there to bullet-point check a situation for answers to proceed. There's general encounter which runs the safety checklist for burst reactions that may be required.
That can be somewhat suppressed. Hence comfortably in close quarters public. It's a pretty black and white system.

>>10743191
Then there's conceptual salad makers. These are a bit smarter. They relate the jist of what the "user focuses" on to an approximation/s of possible moves or greater connections to non-frame things.
But this isn't 'consciousness'. No. It's easily interrupted by the verbal interrupter.
Because wording a concept is like a malformed Jig-Saw cutting play-doh for puzzle pieces.
Square peg, round hole. Either the peg needs to change or the hole becomes wider.

There really should be a conceptual descriptive course as part of core curriculum. It's touched upon with philosophy. But for like 2 hours during my upper education.

So knowledge, reasoning, discovery and language are highly intertwined.
What good is having an .iso if nothing you have elsewhere can interrupt it. Best you can do is pull some compressed .jpegs.

With the right words [code] you can define anything. Even something conceptually new, if the relations can be made.
Pic related.

>>10731425
>I don't really even go over my writings or recordings that often
Hersey!
Put those fuckers into a STT (speech to text). Then catalog them as best you can in each file segment.
Then post them to a repository. I'll use them for you :).

But seriously. You've probably notarized at least 50 ideas that you promised yourself you'd do when you were in X position. And that position is now. So what are you waiting for? Don't let your dreams be dreams
Yesterday you said tomorrow. So just do it. Make your dreams come true. Just do it
Some people dream of success. While you're gonna wake up and work hard at it. Nothing is impossible.

>>10738227
>the nature of learning and thought and how recursive it is
Is that over a lifetime? I know in the schools system they re-hammer several key points in a subject every so many moons to cement a concept or idea. and multi media sources have basically run out of core subjects. So reiteration is rife. (can someone please tell Academia to fucking stop with the word counts for any subject other than novel writing. Disseminating shouldn't be a verbal gymnastics of restating the same thing in a way that's suffusive to the reader enough to think they're reading a new passage of information than what was said two lines ago. It should be based on concise and lack of ambiguity FOR FUCKS SAKE)
Or do you mean as a fractal understanding, where applicability is wide enough that you can learn X from Y in a conceptual from enough to apply it to original study subject Z?

>burn out early in one's career
Yep. For most if just 'not just over qualified lab operator' positions being the cause. It's the zero-sum game that kills them.
'Ay b0ss I thought of a new way to X'. "No you didn't, fucktard. It was some dipshit from 1600 with nothing more than a stick and a barrel they stole. And it didn't fucking work anyways".
Or. "I've come up with physics thing X". Nooope. A folk tail from Mesopotamia already did that and 100 other things from it.

>>10738227
Yeah. The lack of 'new' pathways just fucks young nerds.
I was rather sad when I came to learn holographic universe existed. Sure not quite the way I envisioned. But the bastardizations of it have covered most aspects in a different shell.

And the 'unsolvable' problems for math and the like. Sure it can be fun to tackle. But it's generally not a practical path for their job to try it. More than just being aware of it.

So it's a nurture fragile minds into position where they know all their is. Even if it hasn't been brought up before. But were told in training that there's so much more to come up with.
Not exactly a lie. But effectively having no use for at least another 130-200 years? Not a strong motivator for a happy career.

There's gotta be a way to get new 'academics' hitting the ground running.
Constantly playing catch-up for the early years is not productive. Or even beneficial in a technician to operator then methodology job pathway. Sure a company might find the tall poppy better like that. You've just hired 20, multi year University trained scientists to do the fucking dishes.

>>10719938
The difference is, computational devices are forced to attempt to parse instructions given. We aren't. We can pretend we are, but still have some fleshy failing get in the way, like desire.

Bump.

Go away schizo.
No bump, only sage.

>>10731252
Good to hear. Has the file system worked out so far?

>>10722299
>What he's described is almost identical to how I do mathematics.
So how does that vary? I'm unfortunate enough not to be in high end functions. So I've probably have a conceptual disconnect.
I'd understand explaining the 'code' and how it relates to the problem. But for the 'algorithmic' inventive stage, I have more of a feel/aspectation way of it.
Barring in mind I can barely compute on a calculator.

>>10722271
Is IRC still alive and kicking?

>>10742637
Oh you're back :)
I'll respond to what you've written in some short time

Bump.

>>10743038
>>10743110
Well makes sense to me that many are looking for some quality pasta.
>introversion perspective value
Also do you mean the value of the perspective of introverts? for wouldn't it make more sense for extroverts to have needs for interaction?

> Really it's just a lot of Anons that induced schizophrenia/hallucination. Very uncontrolled.
I guess it could be potentially dangerous if not done right but well I would have to experience it first hand :p

>The original Buddhist? incantations were heavily skewed to using fear as a means of getting results.
That sounds very interesting! I think it's worth exploring more about how the original Buddhists did things. Though I wonder, was it the rats that were the trigger that caused tulpas in the original buddhists as not just some conditioning but like you say hyper-awareness or perhaps more like hyper-alertness?

It's curious how you're relating it to the image you show in that thread. It kind of does cause some anxiety to look at it. I suppose the anxiety has some evocative properties, like in this case if one keeps thinking about it, the anxiety builds up until one might have a severe anxiety attack, especially if other anons give the impression that it actually does cause what OP says it does, as if it were some hypnotic suggestion, and I suppose it can work with sufficiently open people.

>Que remembrance about penny straw crystals.
What are those penny straw crystals?

>And panic sets in. Elevating heart rate and misfiring. Feeding the delusion. Manifest destiny?
Pretty much, a whole reaction chain, that creates a mood, and a somewhat fixed perception

>>10743110
>So I guess you can call the kinda doing it tier of users; Tuplaphants. (Ref: New definition of sycophant not original)
Well I guess It's meaningful to say that if they go through this perfunctorily without giving it enough care and to understand what a Tulpa really is, that they are rather Tulpaphants.

>>10719938
>be more productive /sci/
>its simple
yea like brush your teeth in the shower. saves time. pee in your gf ass it saves time. eat breakfast in the car while you drive it saves time

>>10748158
>more sense for extroverts to have needs for interaction?
Degrees of separation. 50ish% were knocked out via Synchronic linguistics indicating extroversion and participation value.
The remainder making more valued interaction being a higher makeup of introverts. Is accounted for with method of interaction being indirect and less time constrained for response.

>What are those penny straw crystals?
A infographic saying that to make pretty chemical crystals you just need to mix inauspicious household products in a glass containing a penny for a nucleation site. And that oxidizing the mixture via blowing bubbles though it with a straw significantly catalyzes the reaction.
Sure enough. Mustard gas.

bump

>>10743110
>With the only thought as to how that will work is if i can think it as X then it must be X if i just throw a thought cloud at it for a few weeks.
It does sound like it could be naive to think this way

>But I think they might be attributing internal visualization as 'halucination'/externalization of Tulpas image.
What would you say that a tulpa truly is? Is it some division from the self perhaps? that perhaps first exists as just an internal visualization or say information or knowledge about the tulpa and as one learns more, it starts having autonomy of its own?

>These fall into the I need to study them with in-intrusive cameras and microphones to determine pathological lair from mental-case.
What do you thin about these last segment?

>And considering you've taken a mental precept much like my own as a superior pathway, not to mention playing with placidity. I feel that laying out reasoning's from one that's been in that state for over 25 years. It just might help you hop skip and jump the one legged race.
Well what can I tell you, I do think it's quite significant to learn more about the mental phenomena, especially because in some way it is common to all humanity, and some of our traits are also shared by other animals, and moreover independently of the context, our cognition is always with us, even though it does change under different situations, and it might be interesting to think that perhaps we would be completely different in an alien setting or we wouldn't even know how to act in the first place. Though even then, I think that the subject is all there is, and so it makes sense that all explorations are cognitive explorations, especially when new information is involved, and I appreciate that you're telling me all of this, and I thank you, though at the same time I think it would be all the more all the more relevant if we related it to projects that we're working on at the moment. Like an actual tulpa that we're building.

(cont)

go away schizo no bump only sage stop posting nobody cares about your psychotic blog posts

>>10750302
You're not doing so well are you?
Think you should take a breather and reevaluate your mental health.

>>10750302
who are you calling schizo? Zakuro or Suseiseki?

>>10751922
you sure they're different people?

>>10752173
lmao, well, we're actually one person ;)

>>10753372
>zakuroandsuseiseki2.jpg
>2

>>10719938
That took you a year and a half

>>10719938
fuckin schizos baka

>>10754379
t

>>10739069
do not take adderal. it's unnatural and destructive - speaking from experience.

>>10719938
just masturbate until your impulses are sated, then do (thing u gotta) free of natural distraction.

don't actually do this.
but I mean, if you do, theres probably worse coping skills out there.
like masturbating and then just doing nothing at all thereafter.

>>10719950
Brute forcing absolute retard detected. You can probably only learn through rote and have shit casual association. Have never even synthesized an original insight in your life.

OP, this is a very good idea. A bit time consuming and takes some effort to get going, but definitely a beneficial supplement to learning. I don't think people are generally aware that "thinking on paper" is helpful or even something they're "allowed" to do. Most people don't even learn how to effectively solve problems unless taught through arithmetic, flow charts, diagrams. Language is much more natural though, and self-reflection with the aim of conceptualizing new information opens your associative horizon so that you can consider a much greater breadth of contingencies than isolated thought alive might provide.

>>10719938
how is this any different from making a to do list?

>>10755160
bump and it's different because the to-do list is a subset of the metacognitive sketchpad

bump.

>>10720019
You write like shit, scientifically speaking. You don't define your jargon, and instead you just sort of float along like everybody knows what you are talking about. Like you are writing to yourself in your own little world where everything makes sense. Hence, schizo.

>>10756970
Can you provide an example where this is the case?

>>10756970
And a childs play is psychosis?

Bump.

>>10719938
Mods! /x/ is schizoing again...

>>10757741
> You don't define your jargon, and instead you just sort of float along like everybody knows what you are talking about. Like you are writing to yourself in your own little world where everything makes sense. Hence, schizo.
Please, quantify what your claim is. We cant read your mind or address your concerns if you don't tell anybody what they are.
So Anon. Where are the shadows hiding?

>>10757023
>metalanguage
>text file becomes the conscious controlling mind
>you treat the self as an other, as a person with its own will that differs from the controlling voice
>metalanguage but other metametalanguages that controls the first-order metalanugage
>metacognition

>>10758442
>metalanguage
from Tarski's metalanguage and object languages
>metacognition
rather a standard word used a lot in pedagogy and cognitive psychology

>text file becomes the conscious controlling mind
I'm not sure how to explain it but I think this "categorical mistake" [math] ^1 [/math] is rather poetic and meaningful if you know about "embodied cognition". And like someone said it's kind of like a prosthesis.

>you treat the self as an other, as a person with its own will that differs from the controlling voice
I admit, that's part of my private language, but basically what I'm trying to say is that you should treat others like persons and not objects and you should also treat yourself like person and not an object. And that's kind of paradigmatic, because one generally assumes that controlling the self is straightforward, but the truth is that the unconscious self is to some degree independent of the conscious self. Therefore, it's much better to understand oneself than just trying to get a compromise from the self.

Even then I don't know, I mean it's clear that all these things will be meaningful to me and that I'll be able to explain them, but what would be considered schizophrenic? Using some words that are not commonly used and that only those who know about the subject would understand? The use of strange metaphors that are only meaningful if you can understand that they are metaphors and how the analogy works? Expressing things that are only meaingful t you and no one else, because of your exprience and that you believe that this contingency has a more special meaning than it actually does and pretend that everyone else can see the meaning in that contingency? Or if not what else? And what does schizophrenia mean to you?

>>10753785
It's another project that has been taking me a year and a half, but that other project was in some way connected to this project of the "metacognitive sketchpad"

>>10758600
The use of such obscure jargon needlessly obfuscates your idea to your audience.
This is a tendency of individuals who not genuinely understand their own point, and need to make it difficult to understand in order to deflect criticism.

It comes off as schizophrenic because of you have a group of seemingly disjunct points or examples being presented which seem to be put together not by a fluid stream of solid connections, but by words with an ill-defined or obscure definition.
Essentially it appears to the average /sci/ user like you are making meaningless babble with few coherent logical connections, obfuscating the poor logic with big words, and are earnestly treating it as though you have created something life-changing, in a similar fashion to stereotypical schizophrenic conspiracy theories.

This isn't to say that this is the truth, you seem to have an interesting idea, but the way it is presented could use some work, even if it's only saying "I will refer to structures which exhibit the characteristics blah blah blah as a metalanguage" at the start of the paragraph.

>>10759243
Please ignore the "of" in paragraph two.

>>10722375
Get rid of the foreign nonsense. Tl;dr

>>10759243
>The use of such obscure jargon needlessly obfuscates your idea to your audience.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+find+the+defenition+of+a+word+used+in+a+text+based+comunication+with+long+responce+time+allowance
>This is a tendency of individuals who not genuinely understand their own point, and need to make it difficult to understand in order to deflect criticism.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+to+ask+someone+a+question+about+hat+they+are+claiming
>Essentially it appears to the average /sci/ user like you are making meaningless babble with few coherent logical connections, obfuscating the poor logic with big words, and are earnestly treating it as though you have created something life-changing, in a similar fashion to stereotypical schizophrenic conspiracy theories.
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=Are+my+views+the+same+views+of+a+wider+audiance+even+though+I%27m+the+only+one+expressing+them%3F

>>10759975
You asked why people called you a schizo.
I answered.

>>10759982
And I asked you if a childs play is psychosis.. But you're incapable of making the connection of how this applys to you.

Bump

>>10760005
I never even called you a schizo.
This >>10756970 is a different anon from me.
These: >>10758442 >>10758600 are me.
I never said your idea was wrong or bad, but you are lashing out with needless aggression.

>>10760581
I didn't mean >10758600
Meant to say >>10759243

>>10760581
So you point the issues then explain them rationally as a case in point of the original 'ur a skitzo' posters inability over two posts in a reply chain?
Perplexing but anywho's
>aggression
That's more indicative of the readers mindset given the language used.

>>10760585
>>10760581
Disregard >>10760595
From >>10760005

>>10719938
You had to have been high AND drunk to have written this slop. Reiterating this: >>10719950

>>10757023
Why not just keep your posts brief?

>>10760767
I guess in a year or so I might start having some wierd perceptual experiences, hopefully the hallucinations will be pretty cool ^^

>>10760772
Well I can try to make them briefer, any advice though?

>>10762118
you need to toss the boxers

>>10762118
>>10762146
boomer

>>10762146

>>10719938
A degree of brain damage is helpful for productivity. I went a bit of the way into amphetamine psychosis.

>>10720102
Imagine that /sci/ is the most bland, small minded little bitch you've ever met. His opinion is literally irrelevant because he's a blind, braindead degenerate.

He has no insight. He sees no beauty. He feels no spark. He is something less than a man. He is not even human.

>>10762439
Perfectly described /sci/. This place is a big fat mistake.

Bump

>>10762509
like human beings

>>10764044
If only there was a image to depict such a thought.

go away schizo no bump only sage don't bother writing a blog somewhere else nobody cares

>>10764543
Tho of dark skin. Quantify thine claim please.

>>10765312
go away schizo no bump only sage don't bother writing a blog somewhere else nobody cares

>>10765511
So tho has o leggard to standath on? How is thou holier then thus?

>>10765511
I've shown you my dick. Answer me!

lol no bump :p

>>10765580
>>10765657
Go away schizo no bump only sage. Nobody wants to hear your stupid 'tism rants.

>>10766713
You still don't know why your mother tried to get you into special school do you?

>>10766546
You sure about that?