? Finally, I built a "interpersonal relationship" model based on "human cognitive structure".
? In the past thirty years (65438-0980), cognitive science has stepped out of the category of "psychology", merged many "powerful sciences" and made great achievements in the practical field of "informatics" (IT industry).
? From the "cognitive hexagon" in 1985, we can see that the system of "cognitive science" embodies the essence of human knowledge in this century.
All knowledge is, in the final analysis, history.
-In the final analysis, all knowledge is history;
All science is mathematics in essence.
-In the abstract sense, all sciences are mathematics;
-all judgments, in truth, are statistical data.
-In a rational world, all judgments are statistics;
C.Rao: Statistics and facts.
? On the long journey of human scientific research, the knowledge of knowledge, mathematics and philosophy has reached a very bright height.
? In this way, the new "cognitive science" can just learn from Newton's attitude, "stand on the shoulders of giants", follow and apply the existing scientific achievements, and create new "knowledge" for human beings to explore "nature".
Based on the understanding of the philosophical logic of "knowledge and history", we can infer from this angle:
? Perception: The "sensation" obtained by the human nervous system through the "sensory organs" is the original "neuroelectric signal", and it becomes "perception" only after judging by the existing "cognitive conclusion".
? The "neural signal" of "sensory organs" is equivalent to the method of "measuring the world" by human beings, and the "measurement result" can be "real existence". However, due to the different cognitive conclusions, the judgment of "real existence" is different, so the same "existence" will have different cognitive conclusions.
? Please refer to the last article: The first module of human cognition: belief.
? Based on this logical situation, we can refer to the existing scientific research results and deduce a series of cognitive logic laws:
? In the previous article "Tools of Human Cognition: Talking about Big Data 2", I mentioned that "human beings have finally dug a' scientific boundary' in the fields of mathematics and physics through continuous exploration and excavation. This "boundary" first appeared in the field of "quantum physics" "
? The debate about this "boundary", or discussion, has been going on for hundreds of years. The core debate is, "Is our world a wave or a particle?"
Briefly introduce this "electronic double-slit interference experiment"
? When the electron gun that emits electrons is imaged on the negative film through a double slit and continuously emits an electron stream, the negative film will appear obvious "bright and dark stripes", which is a typical behavior feature of "wave", and the "superposition of peaks and valleys" causes this result.
? But if only one electron is emitted, only one bright spot can be presented on the negative, which is a typical "particle" behavior. If precise measuring instruments are installed on two slits, it will be found that no matter how accurate the monitoring is, an electron can only pass through one slit, but not through two slits at the same time, which is completely different from "wave behavior"
? Later, the "particle school" headed by the famous Heisenberg Bohr, through the matrix calculation of "kinetic energy * position", obtained the distribution characteristics of electrons, which was also in line with the experimental observation results. The "wave school" headed by the famous Schrodinger Einstein published a beautiful "wave equation" beyond "wisdom" and calculated the observation results by mathematical methods (this equation was first published).
? But in the end, Bonn, the general of the "particle school", pointed out that the "ψ" of the wave equation is actually "the running probability of particles".
? After the monster 1926 Bonn was released, "Does God roll the dice?" It has become a headache for quantum physics.
? A core problem of this problem is that because the volume and energy of electrons are too small and primitive, there is no way to "observe" the structure of electrons without affecting their state.
? The same problem also puzzles the observation of "cognition" because of the immaterial characteristics of information. If we want to observe "cognition", we must use "cognition" to measure it, which is equivalent to using one electron to observe another "identical" ("the same size", and the current technology does not know what it is). The result is "I am still me, he is still him"!
? Under the existing scientific and technological capabilities, there is no suitable tool for human observation of "thinking". Although there are a lot of "neuroscience" methods such as "brain wave" and "transcranial magnetic stimulation" to read the changes of nerve potential and map the activities of brain and ganglion.
? However, this observation method is just similar to labeling "color change" with numerical values, and it can't turn "color change" into a symbol carrying information, let alone interpret the connotation represented by "symbol". Just like reading a gobbledygook.
? When we want to observe a person's cognition, if there is no "any external stimulus" or "this person has no behavior", we can't read the "cognitive result" of this person from the face of a still person.
? The general observation method is to observe people's cognition or psychological activity through stimulation, questionnaire and behavior observation.
? However, in this process, new "stimuli" and new "information" will be constantly produced. Even the simplest "observing a person eating", this person will be disturbed by new factors in the process of eating.
? There is inevitable interference in the observation method. However, the observer and the observed are two completely independent "cognitive carriers".
? In the process of observation, the "observer" often understands the "new observation result" with his own "historical cognitive conclusion", which is completely different from the cognitive conclusion of the "observed".
? No matter the observer or the observed, in the process of cognition, there will always be new "feeling" signals substituted into the basic cognitive formula: cognition = f (cognition +f (feeling)).
? In this process, new cognition is constantly incorporated into the cognitive formula and becomes historical cognition. (Typical phenomenon: I feel I have to buy before buying, and I feel "that's it" after buying: D)
? During the experiment, we have both the difficulty of "not disturbing the observer" and the risk of "understanding deviation".
Give a comprehensive case to explain four meanings:
? Objective: To observe whether the guests like the dish "kung pao chicken".
? Methods: Observe the proportion of "returning to order" and get opinions through questionnaire survey.
Analysis:
? 1. From the modeling point of view, subjectively, if a guest thinks it's delicious, he will order it a second time, so many guests who think it's delicious, but I want to eat something else for various reasons, and of course, those who think it's delicious, but don't patronize it because of the environment, price and other reasons, are ignored. In other words, obviously, it is difficult for this model to obtain the overall sample of "thinking".
? 2, this model, from the operator's point of view, he failed to wash away other factors besides the standard of "delicious taste". For example, there are a large number of customers, because of the "historical cognitive conclusion", which leads to the "rational" constraint of not eating high-calorie food, thus having a "prejudice" on diet except taste.
? 3. In the "questionnaire" part, we should do this behavior because we want to collect customers' opinions, but if this behavior is too blunt, it will interfere with customers' "cognition", which was originally thought to be "good taste", but because of the interruption of this survey, it was originally an ordinary "dining behavior", but because of the participation of the survey,
? 4. This investigation behavior may make customers change their evaluation of restaurant brands, that is, this cognition becomes historical cognition and will be brought into the next dining decision. Even here, this evaluation behavior will change the "representation cognition (association)" of the next meal.
? Very dizzy! Haha, as the internet said, Bohr, as a leader in quantum physics,
He said, "if someone is not confused about quantum theory, then he just doesn't understand."
? In the middle of last century, the concept of "parallel" universe even appeared in the discussion of "wave-particle duality" of electrons, especially the "double-slit interference" experiment mentioned above. When an observer is added to the experiment, the results of the "double-slit interference" experiment will change.
? What do you mean? That is, when we use a sophisticated instrument to monitor which slit the electron passes through, that is, when you want to understand what the electron is thinking, the "interference" fringe disappears!
? Many scientists have suggested that this result is because we live in multiple parallel "worlds", and the uncertainty of electrons is because they have to serve multiple "worlds". However, because the observer's world is certain, once the observer points the device at the electron, the behavior of the electron will show this certain result.
? This theory directly draws "observer" into physical operation, which leads to the paradox of "consciousness" impression "existence". The best sentence in this paradox is:
"BIGBANG happens to be speed, and the most fundamental reason is because of you! Because if you were too impatient, you wouldn't have the present result, and you wouldn't be discussing BIGBANG at this moment. Because, if you are not born, the big bang will lose its meaning! "
There is also a literary expression: "Just for me to see you in the crowd, the universe has prepared10 billion years!"
? Obviously, this view is untenable. However, it was not until decades later that scholars discovered that this understanding was wrong. The original author means that we may live in a space-time that is not only three-dimensional, but due to various restrictions, this multi-dimensional electronic movement can only show three-dimensional characteristics once it is associated with our observation equipment. "
? We don't care about this "logical pit" of quantum physics, because compared with the "multidimensional parallel cognition" of cognitive science, this "pit" is nothing!
? At a meaningful event point, this time point is long enough for people to have a sober "cognitive conclusion", and even the same thing, there will be multiple "candidate conclusions" in a person's "cognitive result".
? Just like having breakfast in the morning, at this time, there are many choices: pancakes and hamburgers. ...
? There are many reasons to judge a feasible conclusion.
? Moreover, these reasons are not all "sortable and comparable".
? It's like which grid you go to find a specific electron. This is random!
? Just like when an instrument detects the path of electrons, it will affect the result of "double-slit interference" of electrons. At this time, you ask a specific question, "Do you want pancakes?" It will break the law of randomness.
? Although every decision is random and the "absolute answer" cannot be inferred by the "observer", the statistical data of a group of people will show a "potential law" over a period of time.
From the above significance, we can establish:
? First of all, because the "problem to be solved" is not necessarily a single type of answer, there will be many "structurally irrelevant results" in cognitive results.
? Simple example: If the question is "What to do on weekends?" Constrained answers are very broad, including "sleeping, studying, playing ball" and so on. The analytical structure of the answer may not matter, but the behavior choice is related to the question "What are you doing at the weekend?" Related. However, factors such as "weather, teachers' and golfers' time" related to this behavior result may have a low correlation.
Because different cognitive subjects have different "historical cognitive results", when judging the same "viewpoint". Their respective "cognitive structures" are each other's "black boxes".
? Moreover, when judging "viewpoints", they all use their own "viewpoint" structure to reconstruct others' "viewpoint structure".
? For two or more "cognitive subjects" (which can be simply considered as people), when communicating with each other, they have the following characteristics:
? Among them, Party A and Party B exchanged six views on "the same thing", but there are still differences in the direction of "expression and observation" in the interaction.
? The yellow color in the above table stands for "A expresses opinions and B observes and understands"; Green stands for "b expresses opinions, a observes and understands";
? It exists: although it is the same point of view, communication {A, B} does not mean communication {B, A}!
? God, this is the mathematical model of Heisenberg's "matrix mechanics" in Quantum Mechanics! This is much better, you can directly use the matrix algorithm to calculate!
? Here, we introduce the mathematical model that cognitive science will face in the process of "human social activities".
Back to the beginning of the introduction:
-all judgments, in truth, are statistical data.
-In a rational world, all judgments are statistics;
? At this point, I talked about the mathematical model of historical cognition and cognitive calculation, and finally I simply ended with "statistics". In fact, some knowledge and tools of statistics have been introduced in detail in the previous series "Tools of Human Cognition: Talking about Big Data".
From the first article: the first module of human cognition: belief, the words "probability" and "statistics" are closely related to the cognitive principle.
Voiceover:
? How to get information from hundreds of millions of "sensory" units, process it, and finally "decide" the "most important information" and give it to the cerebral cortex for "judgment" is the ultimate content of cognitive science.
? Cognitive science is one of the most advanced sciences in 2 1 century. It is the top performance of a nation's "scientific literacy".
? I once told a friend a case. In the structure of my Sales Science (an applied branch of cognitive science), there is a typical calculation formula: "Salespeople and scammers basically use the same method to do their work, and this method is' transmitting information'. There is not much difference in methods and skills between the two. However, the fundamental difference is that the purpose of sales lies in the correct understanding of information by customers. The liar's goal is that the customer misinterprets the information. The ways to make customers understand the mistakes are: shortening the understanding time and using biased conclusions. "
? Cognitive science is a widely used subject, ranging from "the formulation and interpretation of laws" to "the sweet communication between husband and wife".
? In recent years, we have discovered a large number of mathematical structures of human social cognitive disciplines, which are the basis of all work and research related to people: the mathematical structure of cognition directly affects the purpose, method and possible achievements of work.
? I have hesitated many times not to write these results. Even consider whether to cooperate with "China" or "foreign" companies to realize these mathematical models. Recently, I survived. Since all the results I have seen are from "Internet learning", I will put them online. I was born and raised here.
? Moreover, because my English ability is not very good, many existing discussions about cognitive science are conducted in English background. I hope other netizens who can see the latest news can share the development direction of this subject with me.
Others:
There are many interesting things about the analogy between thinking and many ideas of quantum mechanics:
1, free electron, electron with position.
In the double-slit interference experiment mentioned at the beginning, electrons show "interference fringes" on the negative film in the form of "waves" without "observer interference". Once "the observer makes any observation", even after the electrons pass through the grid, only the shadow of the grid appears on the negative film.
This is the same as our idea. When we don't consider other people's thoughts, thoughts (called cognitive activities in this paper) can be carried out at will. However, once you know that others are "peeking", you immediately become a "good boy".
2. Except the observed results, other parallel universes are meaningless.
In the parallel universe theory, many people think that it is meaningless to pay attention to those "other universes without observation results" because it has nothing to do with the world in which the "protagonist" lives in multi-dimensional space. Similarly, for Heroes in Another Universe, our "universe" is meaningless.
It's like thinking in the brain. Whatever you think, it doesn't matter. As long as you don't do it, those ideas are meaningless. As mentioned earlier, "What do you do on weekends?" You may have n kinds of ideas, but in the end, there is only one result in this world that is related to your father, mother, wife, children, house, car, dust and everything. Other "parallel ideas" are meaningless.
3. Can the "future" really affect the "past"
Similar to the first one, someone specially designed the "pit electron experiment", which is to observe the path of electrons after passing through the grating and before contacting the substrate. But electrons will still jump out of the "interference phenomenon." There is a problem. "Observation" actually happens after the electrons pass through the "grid". How can electrons know in advance?
Just like people's thoughts, when you think in your mind, you can think of any complexity, any "details" and even "200 years later". However, once they return to reality, even if it is only 1% from reality. All illusions will disappear. Go back to reality and become a "good boy".