[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Charlie, Perhaps it would help if I say I do understand your ideas most of the time and value them, I also find some challenging me and in return sometimes I want to challenge you. Also to reassure you this thing you call intertwingularity is similar to a range of philosophical and religious

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

> > >> From me (Charlie >> Aside from having ADHD (attention subtype), I have this strange cognitive >> issue in which I cannot see any one thing without all interconnected things >> (at however many degrees of separation) related to that one simple thing. >> That makes it really

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Charlie, Well, How did I know you were going to bite me? It should not be so easy to get attacked when expressing a different viewpoint. I inhabit this space as well, and whilst you demand something from me, please expect some demands in return. The moment anybody here says that any other

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Just in case it helps clarify my thinking, at the risk of muddying ... >From Feasibility Study of a Wiki Collaboration Platform for Systematic Reviews : One

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Now hold on for a second. The moment anybody here says that any other member's perspective is wrong: What Peter says about Paul says more about Peter than about Paul. I can't seen anybody who says "you are wrong" as credible at all. It is a pretty lousy way to give one's perspective.

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Charlie et al, I value this discussion, and hope to respond in more detail to the OT, because I value the forthright and open conversation, but I also need to disagree sometimes to be truthful. Just as I expect you to disagree with me. The fact is tiddlywiki helps us understand the process of

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

>From the Wikipedia article Schema.org : Schema.org is a collaborative community activity with a mission to "create, maintain, and promote schemas for structured data on the Internet, on web pages, in email messages, and beyond."[1] Webmasters use

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

> > It sounds like you are describing Information Architecture > . I may have misunderstood, but is https://schema.org an implementation of this? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Thanks for the lots of answers! If I have enough time, I will try to respond to all of them, but I’m almost certain I can’t answer for everyone because of the lack of free time, I apologize for that. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki"

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Ha! Perhaps TiddlyWiki folks overlap disproportionately with this cognitive pattern (ADHD). In order to gain traction on a task, I often need to back up and rework the *tools* (and/or the environment) in which I'm doing the task. To some degree, this is novelty-seeking (boredom-forestalling)

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

My "series" of replies can't be helpful at figuring out the "branch of science" related to thinking, but I they may be useful to help think about "thinking" ??? - What kind of thinker am I? Linear vs. Non-linear thinking

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Charlie Veniot wrote: > > > Everything (sensory and cognitive) competes for my attention. I've known > all of my life (for as long as I can remember): when something is > distracting me from my focus, the harder I try to ignore the distraction, > the more energy goes into trying to ignore the

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

I'd like to +1 that one too for the sake of this thread. And I would like to +1 this again because you've just introduced me to a concept that explains oh-so-well something I've been trying to explain since being diagnosed, last May and in my early 50's, with ADHD (inattentive subtype.)

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Ciao Charlie Actually in this GG past there have been very good, deep discussions of Z. Its always an issue you we can't f*ing find anything easily after the fact. TT, x On Saturday, 31 October 2020 20:42:02 UTC+1, Charlie Veniot wrote: > > Man, this thread is turning into something like crack

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Ciao Charlie Add some comments on how this explicitly relates to the OP please. Otherwise its just your shopping list of "to do later" which isn't useful. TT On Saturday, 31 October 2020 18:30:29 UTC+1, Charlie Veniot wrote: > > If I may stand tall on si's shoulders ... > > I'm thinking, as

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

I'd like to +1 that ! On Saturday, October 31, 2020 at 4:27:50 PM UTC-3, TiddlyTweeter wrote: > > bimlas wrote: > > Can similar rules be drawn on thoughts as well, e.g. mathematical >> formulas, or program design patterns. Is it possible to standardize the way >> of thinking even with formulas?

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Man, this thread is turning into something like crack for me. That was awesome, TT. Zettelkasten is quite awesome for folk who see everything as intertwingled. I imagine for some folk, duplication of information/notes is easier. This way each copy of a note exists in a structural

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

bimlas wrote: Can similar rules be drawn on thoughts as well, e.g. mathematical formulas, > or program design patterns. Is it possible to standardize the way of > thinking even with formulas? Is it possible to refactor thoughts? Can they > be grouped (as integers, irrational numbers, etc.)?

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

bimlas wrote: Zettelkasten Is the brilliant application of a brilliant man's praxis. A praxis developed on paper where "external brain" was connections to zilliions of cards that *never changed position*. The "network" is in the indices. Does is expand to *all* people? I mean: is all

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

bimlas wrote: in order to create something radically new, you have to completely forget > what you currently know about the world A major problem with "conscious forgetting" is THE WHITE BEAR problem. Here is my instruction:* Whatever you do, never remember the White Bear. * Forgotten it

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

bimlas wrote: you have to completely forget what you currently know about the world In practice you learn how to: HOLD IT IN BRACKETS to permit The Other to Be Arising. Its a bandwidth issue really. TT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Bimlas At root, concepts ABOUT concepts are the domain of *philosophy*. FYI there is NO universal agreement on what "thought" is so the OBJECT of your query is itself not so stable. Philosophy is the only discipline that rigorously explores such issues. In practical USAGE to make stuff I

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

Arg, I should have added: Information science Not just in the sense of "how do we record information/thoughts", but also how do these ways of recording impact our way of thinking? For me, I see everything as connected directly of within only

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

If I may stand tall on si's shoulders ... I'm thinking, as you dig into cognitive science, that there are a ton of overlapping and (to me) wildly interesting topics that compliment each other. For example, (I like to think of these as all under and/or linked to si's great catch-all of

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

> > These encouraged me to think about the process of thinking itself. Is > there a science of thoughts? Would that be the philosophy? > I think this would fall under cognitive science . I believe that we refer to the process of 'thinking about

[tw5] Re: What is the science of thinking?

It sounds like you are describing Information Architecture . On Friday, October 30, 2020 at 3:52:17 AM UTC-4 bimlas wrote: > I apologize for writing to the group lately on philosophical topics, but a > note-taking software isn’t worth