What is the subject of your theorizing?

[Architect]

Question for you

1. How many specific subjects?
2. Or do you theorize globally, on things that come along?
3. Are you happy with that, or do you wish to change gears?

Answer from me

1. I spend most of my day theorizing on two specific subjects, Computers (~60%) and MBTI (~30%)
2. I'll work on various other things as they come up - ideal computer gear, politics (rarely), finance (sometimes now) (~10%)
3. I'd like to keep it mainly to computers (~90%), but I keep finding refinements in my understanding of psychology & MBTI as time goes on so I stick with it. Soon ...

 

[Teax]

1. in such broad terms, then Computers ~80%, Psychology ~20%. MBTI is minor subpart.
2. the rest percentage is passionately dedicated to everything that does not somehow add to the above.
3. Psychology is a must for my field, wouldn't have it any other way

although 'Computers' is an overspecifying lamens term.... the underlying theories are broadly applicable (information science is better)

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

thinking about sense of life, my place in world, who am I, what I want - 50%
thinking how stiupid are my duties - 10%
thinking about eat - about 3%
daydreaming about perfect world - 15%
some thoughts about mbti, neuroscience, brains, etc - 10 % (sometimes much more)

rest of my thoughts relates to not important everyday matters, or others topics (video games sometimes, imagined conversations....)

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

The subforums give a clue to what members are interested in. I typically theorize on:
1. Psychology-particularly in the area of differentiation. Not so much Maslow's stuff but the intersection of relationships and the reciprocal impacts on growth.
2. Philosophical concepts-especially consciousness and how that plays out in the psychology of the individual.

Things I read, conversations I have and most anything, I use to relate to a better understanding of the nature of being human. You could say that's my Ni/Fe stereotypical focus.

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

it would be quicker to list the very few things that don't interest me.
everything is fascinating, i could never specialize.
i aim to be a jack of all trades, master of some.

 

[Nick]

everything is fascinating, i could never specialize.
i aim to be a jack of all trades, master of some.

I fall in and out of love with things, but over the course of many years. Retaining all individualist knowledge that comes from that interest, could actually only be a handful of things that I'll hold onto for life.

 

[TheManBeyond]

i theorize about human relationships, music projects i have, mbti and ultimately about muscle gain diets haha

 

[Architect]

The subforums give a clue to what members are interested in.

True, at least online. I don't talk about the thinking I'm doing in economics much here.

i aim to be a jack of all trades, master of some.

I didn't aim for that but went down the path regardless. Eventually you run out of interesting subjects and have to specialize anyhow.

At any rate I shouldn't complain, I'm interested in psych because the brain is the ultimate computer (presently). All my hobbies related to computers in one way or another actually.

 

[Teax]

... I'm interested in psych because the brain is the ultimate computer (presently). All my hobbies related to computers in one way or another actually.

Interesting, I never saw the brain as a more powerful computer... or even in the ballpark... rather as a key to consciousness. The question of why seems more fascinating then what you theorize. When deconstructing reality, computers are a natural tool but I don't think it's fair to pin down computers as an actual field.

In many other languages the english term "Computer science" actually reads "Information science" (e.g. Informatik) which describes the nature of the science much better. It's all-encompassing.

 

[TimeAsylums]

You seem bored lately

 

[The Gopher]

TIMEASYLUMS *hugs* How've you been!

 

[ddspada]

50ish% is about the human mind and different models about it -- MBTI (around 80% of that 50%), Socionics, Enneagram, and the Four Temperaments.

20ish% is about people's beliefs (on the human mind, possible definitional inaccuracies, culture, their self-image, and relationships). I most often proceed to bring it up in conversation, and most often through Facebook chat, which is the only reason I use FB at all.

20ish% is about music theory, geometry, algebra, calculus, physics, biology.

10ish% is about formal logic.

I'm cool with the above right now.

 

[StevenM]

At the moment, I can't handle too much theorizing. My mind isn't thinking the clearest right now.

I lightly just touch upon pop-psych (ugh, I know), and muse a little about the dynamics of human relationships.

I'll probably be up and running fully in a few weeks from now.

 

[Analyzer]

I theorize mostly about social/political philosophy, and personality psychology. At times economics, education, epistemology, history, and technology. I wouldn't say I theorize about general psychology, because I find the personality branch more interesting and relevant. The scientific or more empirical branches of psychology seem like a wild goose chase to me.

 

[Architect]

Interesting, I never saw the brain as a more powerful computer... or even in the ballpark... rather as a key to consciousness. The question of why seems more fascinating then what you theorize.

Brain is the hardware and consciousness is the software. Not a new idea, Alan Turing pondered it, as did Ada Lovelace as she worked on Babbages Analytical Engine back in the 1800's*. The concept of automatons that can think and act like people goes back to the Greeks and earlier with the Jews and the Golem.

When deconstructing reality, computers are a natural tool but I don't think it's fair to pin down computers as an actual field.

What?

In many other languages the english term "Computer science" actually reads "Information science" (e.g. Informatik) which describes the nature of the science much better. It's all-encompassing.

Call it whatever you want, CS is a poor term (it's not really a science), so it IT (associated with keeping systems running) or Software Engineering (it's not really engineering). I'll use whatever term bubbles up in my attention at the moment I'm writing because none of them fit.

* Fascinating that she would be considering that. I've seen a replica of the earlier Difference Engine as the Computer History museum in Mountain View. It's a descendent of the abacus and punched card looms (or maybe vice-versa). Anyhow from my perspective it's hard to see that as a progenitor of intelligence, but it apparently was obvious back then.

 

[Polaris]

I'm more preoccupied with why I theorize about stuff. Not necessarily a terribly healthy path to go down...

 

[TimeAsylums]

What is the subject of your theorizing?

preoccupied with why I theorize about stuff

Polio just pulled a meta

Brain is the hardware and consciousness is the software. Not a new idea, Alan Turing pondered it, as did Ada Lovelace as she worked on Babbages Analytical Engine back in the 1800's*. The concept of automatons that can think and act like people goes back to the Greeks and earlier with the Jews and the Golem.

Spoiler

<shrug>

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/2012/06/general-purpose-self-improvement.html

It's often said that the human brain is a computing machine, and this is blatantly true. It's less often said that the human mind is an operating system or programming language. And when it is said, it's assumed to be some kind of metaphor. It isn't a metaphor, it is exactingly true. (Consciousness though has no exact analogue.)

it's hard to see that as a progenitor of intelligence, but it apparently was obvious back then.

Depending on your definition of "Intelligence"

lol IIRC the behaviorists(or Pre) believe(d) intelligence was binary (reductionists)

 

[Teax]

Brain is the hardware and consciousness is the software. Not a new idea

yes ofcourse - hardware.. sorry when you said 'computer' I thought about actual discrete computing.

What?

A computer is like a pencil. it helps scructuring your thoughts, modelling reality. If someone is saying "i'm into computers" to me it sounds like "I like using pencils", it tells me nothing about what you actually do or the motivations behind it. (In your particular case I know because of your other forum posts)

Call it whatever you want, CS is a poor term (it's not really a science), so it IT (associated with keeping systems running) or Software Engineering (it's not really engineering). I'll use whatever term bubbles up in my attention at the moment I'm writing because none of them fit.

I don't critique your word choice, rather point out that deeper concepts learned from computers give insight into every other area of life, even though CS sounds like it's all about computers.

If I'm getting too abstract for you guys, just ignore me, but CS(aka "Informatik") is not IT and it's not about software; it's an insight into structure of information(=math)... but from the perspective of time(=closer to human perspective than math), so it's a sort of science of entropy(=closer to physics than pure math).

So these 2 quotes are more similar than most people realize:

"i aim to be a jack of all trades, master of some."
"All my hobbies related to computers in one way or another actually"

 

[TimeAsylums]

Spoiler

Spoiler

TIMEASYLUMS *hugs* How've you been!

*hugs*

If I'm getting too abstract for you guys, just ignore me

lol

CS is not IT

Has anyone thought that ever?

it's an insight into sctructure of information(=math)

Unless youre saying somethign else than from what this sentence is, The structure would be meta(subject), not pure math.

... but from the perspective of time(=closer to human perspective than math)

wait, what?
If you're saying that chronoception is at a deeper layer of the human mind than math, then yes,
(PS the sentence is confusing because you said "from the perspective of time" ... meaning from Time's perspective (lol), I think you meant "From the human perspective(perception) of time"

so it's a sort of science of entropy(=closer to physics than pure math).

If you're saying entropy doesn't exist at the level of pure math, but instead at a higher level, yes

Spoiler

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/search?q=entropy

 

[Perfectly Normal Beast]

I didn't aim for that but went down the path regardless.

do you have to 'been there, done that' with every single thing? it might seem patronising if you weren't so obviously wrong in your assumptions/preconceptions almost all of the time:

Eventually you run out of interesting subjects.

as if.

 

[Architect]

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/20...provement.html

It's often said that the human brain is a computing machine, and this is blatantly true. It's less often said that the human mind is an operating system or programming language. And when it is said, it's assumed to be some kind of metaphor. It isn't a metaphor, it is exactingly true. (Consciousness though has no exact analogue.)

Yes exactly. To those of us who work with computers it couldn't be more obvious, it's a self evident truth. The only non parallel is consciousness, as far as we know we haven't created or seen that on a computer yet.

do you have to 'been there, done that' with every single thing?

No, just relating what worked for me. I tried most of the big ones, not enough time to try Balinese basket weaving and variations.

it might seem patronising if you weren't so obviously wrong in your assumptions/preconceptions almost all of the time:

blah blah blah, or "quack quack quack". I bring up a point, I'd love to hear a reasoned position why I'm wrong (like you did above), instead you just throw mud. Doesn't get far as it's a response killer.

 

[Black Rose]

i have been interested in A.I. since i was 12.
the process of cognition should follow very simple rules
most of what the brain does is inefficient and should be replicated in a simpler system

http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...r-of-parallel-processes-running-in-the-brain/

 

[Teax]

Unless youre saying somethign else than from what this sentence is, The structure would be meta(subject), not pure math.

math is one way of looking at structure. so it is a meta of information.

If you're saying that chronoception is at a deeper layer of the human mind than math, then yes

...deeper? the human condition is to be constrained to time. math is not. hence math can be used to describe both equally, space and time, but not all can be applied back to the subjectiveness of being constrained.

If you're saying entropy doesn't exist at the level of pure math, but instead at a higher level, yes

http://richardkulisz.blogspot.com/search?q=entropy

nice link. but I'm not sure what you mean by higher level...

the concept of entropy not only encompasses information at one single point in time, but also change. e.g. the mind experiences entropy's time-asymmetry as causality. (regardless of whether the underlying physics are completely causal or not).

CS is a science of entropy and especially its time-relative morphing behavior. which is exactly what the mind tries to discover about reality, no matter where your interests lie.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Spoiler

math is one way of looking at structure.

Stand alone that sentence is true, but what are you saying by it?

so it is a meta of information.

Same as I said above.

Are you familiar with the "order/hierarchof sciences? That generally what I mean by 'level'

"Generally" (I'm leaving out specifics, but go to wikipedi): math, qm, physics, chemistry, biology, neurology, psychology (yada yada yada, also note I didn't say they are discrete, plus the meta levels of each...etamath, metaphysics etc")
[bimgx="300"]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/The_Scientific_Universe.png/800px-The_Scientific_Universe.png[/bimgx]

...deeper? the human condition is to be constrained to time. math is not.

that's what I said.

Yes, the human condition is, and math is not, just like you said, and we use math.

(regardless of whether the underlying physics are completely causal or not).

duh? Wouldn't confuse the human perception of things as opposed to the actuality of those things

science of entropy and especially its time-relative morphing behavior. which is exactly what the mind tries to discover.

I thought that was siply called "computation"

anyway, looks like we're derailing from Archie's intention (and not even getting anything new out of it, so I'll stop )


soz Archo


but anyway regarding OP (subject of theorizing)

Looks like Polar, Teal, and TaSlums enjoy going meta lulz

 

[redbaron]

I theorise about ways to more effectively theorise.

I'd love to hear a reasoned position why I'm wrong.

The reason people don't do this for you is for the same reason people don't try to come up with reasoned positions when speaking with street corner doomsayers.

But just like the nuts on the street corner, some people can't resist prodding them for a good giggle every now and then. Newcomers to the street corner are sometimes drawn into the whirling insanity temporarily before realising their folly too. A few unstable souls inevitably learn to find some twisted version of solace in the doomsayer's words, feeding him just enough attention for him to continue his mad ranting. They are of course, attracted to the visage of magnetic certainty which the doomsayer so powerfully projects. An ideal reflection of themselves, a state of being they so yearn to have.

This attention is just enough to feed the insanity and allow the madness that is the doomsayer's mind, feeding on their psychic attention as a cat feasts on mice until one day, even those few will abandon the cacophonous vortex of madness.

And that is the day of unravelling for the doomsayer.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Eventually you run out of interesting subjects and have to specialize anyhow.

I think you have no way of proving that other than your life, which doesn't have to be like the lives others have.
I'd have to ask what do you mean by specialising, as I can see it, one can specialise in as many things as their time allows for.
And with specialisation being a function of time, you end up specialising every time you pick up a subject.

 

[durd141]

mines vastly vary from time to time. currently however they are about;

50% mbti / psychology type of thoughts
30% engineering/work stuff
10% personal problems, got a fair few at the moment.
10% hobbies, won't go into detail

 

[Architect]

I think you have no way of proving that other than your life, which doesn't have to be like the lives others have.

Who said otherwise? I don't claim infallibility.

Specialization is just doing a few things predominantly, in my definition.

 

[themfed]

1. Mainly political theory and politics. I am always trying to come up with forms of government and figure out how to improve our current systems. I also theorize about alterative histories a lot. What i mean by that is how things could have gone differently and how that could have changed things.

2. I'm not quite sure what you mean by globally. But I don't just think about the systems around me but the systems all around the world. I will also theorize about just about anything I am doing in the moment. So if I'm playing Minecraft I will come up with some grand idea for a new server but then never get vary far into it.

3. I am happy with it.
​

 

[Violine]

For me, that's a little bit of hard question, because this period Im in right now is tuff for me. It's because I don't feel comfortable in school and I go right now to a curator to speak out on my problems. If I have a typical living where I get up early and go to a institution to meet people I don't want to meet and do subjects I don't like to do (and that I actually often don't do either), and the only thing I'm waiting for is to meet my curator again, then I can't concetrate on my favourite stuff, like math. But I try as hard I can, so I read the news to be updated about the society (and politics) and try to watch as many documentaries as I can, about stuff in nature which I also appreciate. And yes, I read and search a lot of human behavior, just because I myself struggle with that daily.

 

[nanook]

specific & and globally

most of my specific interests are elements of my worldview and global in that sense. they are of general relevance. very few thoughts are related to strategies of what i should do and how and i'm not sure if they ever amount to theory building.

• 60% general intRApersonal and analytical perspectives on human nature, (structure and development, pathologies, typology, spirituality, entheogens, lucid dreaming, altered states, sacred geometry ....)
• 30% my relationship with my non existent friends, with girls and with the rest of humanity. i guess when you start about issues like sexism or how concepts of romantic love affect relationships, it becomes theory building.
• 10% weight loss and dementia prevention

i used to be a big time computer geek, but gave up on wasting my time with that, however my trial and error approach to working with software does not really qualify as theorizing, even though i was coding scripts and inventing skins.


i don't think a lot about "what comes along", in fact i prevent things from coming along, so they can't throw me off.

i wish i had whatever allows you to come up with a plan to design your life and pull through with it. mundane reality actions like getting a job, knowing what you want, giving enough of a shit to make an effort.

i can only think about changing myself and hoping that my changed self will have more of a clue about how to live life. if i could loose weight, i would gain confidence and approach girls. if i want to overcome social anxiety, i must attain nonduality. that sort of thinking.


the percentages are about theorizing, not about what goes through my head all day long. because this would be tons of mundane stuff like how do i find good music and so on. just want to get through the day feeling good. while i am theorizing. i feel empty, when i run out of theoretical inspiration. i prefer theorizing over watching movies to the point where it's difficult to wind down and enjoy a movie.

 

[The Introvert]

1. Broadly, Biology, Writing/Literature, Music, Work, Studies, Video Games, other

~50% of my theorizing time is centered around biological systems and evolution.
~10-15% Is focused on writing (myself) or something that I have read and am thinking about
~10-15% is focused on Studies
The rest is on work (some of which I count in the Biology dept.) and the other categories.

At least, that's what I want it to be. Realistically it's probably about 75-85% wasted time, but I daydream so much I can't really be sure. My life reminds me a bit of Faulkner's stream of consciousness style. Much in my life seems to lie on one continuous thread.

2. Do I theorize globally or what comes to me?

I'm not sure what this is asking.

3. I would be happy with that I think, if it really were the case. I fear it may not be.