Postscripts addressing possibilities for artificial intelligence:

What about this perspective for AI, without doing the eye-tracking research and getting and establishing some psychological findings:

A possibility (though I see this as very unlikely -- because it would take great insight) is: IF someone could guess a [set of] somethings that is perceived/remembered (and may well also be processed to some extent via working memory and possible contextualization contents there), before becoming [part of] an "object" of attention or even an attentional bias. And, if this beginning-with feature(s)-detection/selection (however it goes), influencing what WILL be attended to, has the result of yielding an appropriate SET of attentional sets which then appropriately and in a GENERAL cross-situational way YIELD correct associative learnings (aka "higher"-level learnings or "abstract learnings"), "whatever" the domain (at least to an extent) OR across-domains (at least to an extent) _THEN_ you would have simulated something in a role similar to my hypothesized "perceptual shifts". If this worked-well for functionality (as compared to other solutions), it would be a type of proof of concept, and perhaps it could be refined to be usable in real AI.

The guessing of somethings that are perceived (in such perceptual shifts) which guides attention and eventually yields a significant part of what is attended to would VERY much depend on FIRST "bringing forward" all the appropriate relevant situational Memories (of all sorts) before the "perceptual shift" itself: this is to have the correct and full real "seen-and-understood" situation-at-hand ** for any developments and eventual shifts in deliberate attention, and new learnings (

Reflections on the organismic context of perceptual shifts:

I, myself, still cannot really even guess at what specific concrete aspects of the environment might direct attention for the inception of a new "level" of thinking. (I have indicated their species-typical RESULTS in my larger papers (Research Items). ) I do have a tendency to imagine that perceptual shifts have to do with some "gap" ** noticed by the organism between rich representations of important circumstances/situations: THEN, I imagine, when something "comes up" as a new aspect of a current environment that may fill the gap then it is 'seen' ('noticed" -- in the sense of "attentions noticed" in the Question beginning this thread).

The good thing about the "gaps" idea is it does expressly indicate a relationship between present representations and understanding and the new aspect(s) eventually yielding further understanding. There are gaze pauses likely in each context, both the known but incomplete, and the new where more is to be 'seen'. TO COORDINATE the represented/known/understood with the good-to-'see' new representables/knowables in the present environment is good -- this keeps the process very much like a biological thing should be. [ This is as close as a "knowing before found" could reasonably be -- I think much more reasonable than what you find in current popular theories that are like that. ] Also, you have more clues as to what the perceptual shifts will be, because of what-is-an-'issue' BEFORE a perceptual shift; potentially each may be equally 'seeable' with eye-tracking technology. Plus you have a pattern to look for : a "this" before "that".

FOR AI: Realistically representing the nature of key visual-spacial memories seems to me to be the main challenge and biggest challenge (the other knowledge and skill factors OF long-term memory are, of course involved, BUT those may be the easy parts). The other challenge is defining BUT NOT LIMITING the episodic buffer -- what is the "frame", what is the contextualization THEN yielding some of the "chunks" worked on in working memory?

Given our adaptive nature, the way all BIG qualitative changes in thinking occur ABOUT the same time may be related to TRUE analogies -- the same pattern for advancement repeated for developments in different domains. [ I normally eschew analogies, but the idea of 'seeing' or looking for similar patterns (somehow) may be adaptive. ]

** FOOTNOTE: an example of a 'gap' would be noticing differential responses to individuals in a social hierarchy, where the immature organism has not yet come to an understanding of the full nature of the bases of status. (It is from such things, that were the likely evolutionary precursors to 'abstract thought' -- AND involve some abstract thought themselves -- that we have the cognitive abilities we do).

---------------------------

As important as perceptual shifts may be, the empirical/biological/behavioral/assumptions CONTEXT and JUSTIFICATION of such a view would be just as important or more so. Readers can find the justifications for this "shifts" perspective, with respect to all 4 of those major types of considerations (just noted), in may main paper and in the many, many other essays I have written here, under Questions (I asked) and Answers (I've given). [(On my Profile page, find my Research Item, "A Human Ethogram ... ", and read that; also: click Contributions, and then click Questions, and Answers: You will find an entire LARGE book on the better justification and advantages of the perspective: for empiricism; with biologically-congruent explanations; having explanations in terms of behavior patterns (and environmental aspects) -- JUST those -- providing complete explanations (as psychology was intended); _AND_ ALL associated with well-justified assumptions.) Readers will also see the huge short-comings of other classic and current theories, in each of the 4 big areas, "spelled out". The FULL CASE, argued and detailed. ]

---------------------------

{ I do hope my sincere guess at a possible description of things, and at least most of my other posts, seem more intelligible than the absolute blither/blather , from one "Nathan Latvaitis", in an 'Answer' below. He quotes two of my paragraphs, without quotation marks OR attribution, and provides MANY other apparently random quotes (without proper attribution), interspersed throughout his own irrelevant pure nonsense writing. He has NEITHER any education listed in his Profile NOR any publications; it looks like RG has NO standards for admitting people to this forum nowadays.

I hope at least some of what I post makes good sense, and separates me from those who may be mad. }

Do Analytical Philosophers basically just "fine-tune" concepts AFTER a major view has been accepted/adopted by psychology researchers/theorists?

If so, then absolutely unless they are one and the same person. Did einstein take someone else's idea and then figure out the equations?

I think you're trying to distinguish between someone who just thinks like I ramble in this entire post and then someone who tries to work out proofs and include mathematical & experimental citations. I can cite lots of experimental stuff, but I'm not going to use more greek symbols than I already have in this answer for proofs.

Given our adaptive nature, the way all BIG qualitative changes in thinking occur ABOUT the same time may be related to TRUE analogies -- the same pattern for advancement repeated for developments in different domains. [ I normally eschew analogies, but the idea of 'seeing' or looking for similar patterns (somehow) may be adaptive. ]

** FOOTNOTE: an example of a 'gap' would be noticing differential responses to individuals in a social hierarchy, where the immature organism has not yet come to an understanding of the full nature of the bases of status. (It is from such things, that were the likely evolutionary precursors to 'abstract thought' -- AND involve some abstract thought themselves -- that we have the cognitive abilities we do).

Do they all occur at the same time? I dunno some of those past civilizations, we kind of smart, but I'd explain this with an integration and differentiation of information throughout the minds of humans.

The idea of looking for patterns is adaptive. I'm pretty sure it's not may. Let's say we don't look for patterns at all. How do we..what are we trying to learn/do/achieve....hmm...

I'd broaden this to say life and even that which is everything (because i'm not using universe, existence, or any of those semantics...instead I'm going to just sound like buddha) seeks patterns and is actually conscious.

Your take on the development of social hierarchy as seeding abstract thought is actually quite interesting.

However, I would argue that life seeks to secure life as a whole the best it can. Many evolutionary steps are nature being "random" I believe by playing with errors in DNA due to the degeneracy built into the genetic code and trying out some stuff with recessive genes...which if they become useful genes become non-recessive genes. This is also degeneracy.

I'd say our thought arose out of those more fundamental things rather than social hierarchy. Instead, nature's experiments eventually led to us and thus we won the lottery, MADEFIRE AND BEGAN TO DOMINATE THE WORLD. We basically absolutely dominate almost every other form of life on the planet and even eat it. We're even helping life itself to spread to other places with space stuff. I don't see lions going to space.

Your question seems like it has many little questions inside of it though. I'll attempt to get them all...

To try to answer some of your questions, I can provide my theories I think...although your questions are a little confusing to me, but I will try. My answer is likely just as confusing though. Philosophizing is much more fun when I don't have to cite things.

First shot at part of it:

Everything is information. But what is information?

Information can only derive from relation, there must be more than 1 thing to compare it to.

In isolation if you flip a coin with both sides as heads, then you already know the outcome. You get no information.

By isolation I mean, yes, without time, order, existence (a kind of flawed overarching word) or any other variable someone wants to throw in here. Isolation means isolation.

Or imagine an existence without even the context of existence itself of PINK. No time, no you, no me, no Selena Gomez, no universe, no ...nothing. You could say infinite PINK though. But that still provides nothing to compare it to. Perhaps 0 and infinity are intrinsic?

All information is derived from relation somehow.

Ok, our brains work as a different form of a computer taking in inputs of information and then outputting the information as what you could say subjective perspection or whatever as our behavior back into the environment/universe.

BUT WHERE DOES THE INITIAL INFORMATION COME FROM!?

You can't make information by associating it with other information in your mind without some sort of seeds.

In my opinion, this goes to quantum mechanics and theory due to the fact that things take on seemingly random values when measured (I don't believe they are truly random, nothing is truly random....it is impossible).

and actually the nature of a somewhat overlooked part of entanglement - 2 entangled particles will act in an anticorrelated way (in some form) between each other with some fidelity when one is measured despite "distance". Everyone focuses on the "holy crap...no way that information could be transmitted faster than the speed limit of the universe...light"

If this DID NOT EXIST, simple put, then everything is just like a 1 or everything is just like a 0. There's no information. No researchgate, no hipsters, no selena gomez...and that would be a horrible life. :(

It's almost as if this anticorrelation of entanglement is the fundamental binary construct of everything. Now, the fidelity also makes it more than just a 0 or 1 and in fact there are an infinite amount of numbers between 0 and 1...so that's useful.

Anyways, I'm going to throw this statement out there.

Relation/Association = Information = Entropy (both thermodynamically and in information theory) = Time = Entanglement = Energy

How could two "particles" reflect the other faster than the speed of light? Well, first off it does obey the "cannot be transferred faster than this speed limit" but most importantly....in my philosophical opinion and as many experiments have begun to work on this year I'm not going to cite (anyone reading this can go to readcube)

The actions of entanglement do not involve a speed or m/s. There is no distance or time to them. In fact, this quality is time time. It's as if you are putting 0/0 in the formula for speed of transferred information.

Information doesn't relate to time?

Think about this:

By the way, ever notice how time flies when you're having fun? You're brain is processing more meaning and information during that time. You're also likely experiencing more novel things. This is all brand spanking new information. You perceive time as having passed much more quickly than it should have normally.

But did time actually pass more quickly or did you perceive it to......HMM.

It sure does feel slow on the bus or train, unless you start a chat with someone....or play Final Fantasy.

Similarly, why does the fly always seem out of reach when you try to SMASH it? Everyone else has fancy theories, but I believe it simply comes down to information which increases "temporal resolution."

Look at how many eyes they have (they actually have compound eyes) (I can cite experiments here but one can just readcube this and find the same ones...they involve flickering light rates we can't distinguish from...and not flies per say, but you'll see the data)...they're simply getting much more visual information even if they arn't "processing" it. Thus, a perceptible time advantage.

This is an evolutionary adaptation (they also have their eyes directly connected to their wings and special flight patterns...but when you try to smash one do you really truly think that's the cause?....If so then why are spiders so hard to smash too?) but thus they move through time faster than you do. Also, bees arn't as hard to smash as flies. They are scarier, but they don't have compound eyes.

The universe is a weird place:

If the universe is headed towards equilibrium (which would be 0 information, there would be no relative means of measuring anything as all would be infinite), then it was already in perfect equilibrium during the "big bang" just infinitesimally small? so what is it headed towards? Equilibrium?

I can only understand the universe then in some form of an ocean where waves just keep moving. Perhaps all it is is just dynamics. Like if you were to observe an ocean with the waves moving up and down. But you don't know where they come from or the energy that causes them to move the way they do. What are the source of the waves? Time...e.g everything else? Or perhaps if it truly is expanding the stretching of space-time...but then that. I'm stopping here.

----

Ok I think I can maybe help with something else by pointing to you DEGENERACY. I realize I"m just posting the same answers to everything now...ironically because they are applicable to everything in my view.

I attached a picture of the triangle of it, and it depends upon how certain parts are semantically defined as well. But the biological wikipedia page I believe does a good job at explaining it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_(biology)

-----

Your semantics are a bit rough here, "analyze," "system," "analytical philosopher."

One doesn't need to use the present day to investigate this question as I feel you may be insinuating, just look at the past.

I am writing something about "consciousness" - which I'm not going to define because I'll garner hate upon myself.

But, Pythagoras and Aristotle had some interesting ideas.

Here is part of something I'm writing, part of it came from someone else too, but mostly the facts, yeah, it's a script actually, missing some cites, but..you get the idea.

" The study of consciousness has been around since the time of Ancient Greece, and likely far before that. But we're going to start at the lover of triangles, Pythagoras, who lived from 570 B.C. - 495 B.C., and is credited with discovery of the, not so obviously named, Pythagorean theorem which he won the Noble prize for, discovering Western musical harmonies, and the notion of the harmony of the spheres, which relates inner states of mind to the contemplation of celestial bodies. That last part wasn’t abstract was it? Honestly, I’m not completely sure what it, but it paints a pretty picture in my mind and Googling it brings up cool desktop background pictures; however, it also provided me with the following thought that has nothing to do with foreshadowing at all:

As this journey feels more and more like it leads to itself, like a circle, or perhaps a sphere, then Pythagoras may have been onto more than just triangles.

Let’s define a few terms here before I run through the forest too fast and lose you. Quantitative: Something that is quantitative is measurable with a number. Like the number one, or the number sixty-nine...or ninety-six. Your sister is measured as being 180 cm tall for example.

Something that is qualitative can’t really be measured by numbers. It’s a quality. Tell me how much orange you have. How much “good” is there? How dirty is your face? How hot is Selena Gomez? (Interesting note there, something I don't believe participating in actually, is how men assign a # value to this "quality" :) Finally, because this example is actually vitally relevant later on regarding something known as “entropy” can you provide for me a number that represents the amount of “disorder” of your bathroom? I know your sister’s bathroom is pretty messy, but I’m not sure how I’d assign a number to that. When was I in your sister’s bathroom you ask? I forgot. Let’s stay on topic.

Pythagoras believed the relationship between all things could be expressed by numbers, numbers, that took on qualitative properties analogous to qualitative differences found in musical harmonies or colors or sensations or...and the list goes on. To him, numbers are the principle by which symbolic properties of the mind are linked to intrinsic aspects of the physical universe.

That’s an interesting thought, isn’t it? It reminds me of something that today we can actually measure and that we even use to express qualities, or whatever else we want really. If only Pythagoras had met Claude Shannon. I think they would be friends."

We use quantitative interpretations of qualities as our means of telecommunication - eg information.

---

Pythagoras stressed the harmonious development of the soul within humanity. (Guthrie and Fideler 1987). Pythagoras probably liked to find the relationship between things, especially when he felt there must be some relationship. Just ask him about triangles and listen to his rambles. WHY DO I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE HYPOTENUSE PYTHAGORAS? IT’S FREAKING 500 B.C. Oh, yeah, to maybe build cool stuff...cause the Greeks never did that 2500 years ago.

Judging by his tendency to find relationships, he must have felt they were important. Perhaps the word “soul” he used here actually meant relationships to him....I think 2500 years ago, that word meant something different, in the context of his culture. Plus, he didn’t speak English. Plus, this is all translated. Plus, greek can be quite subjectively viewed especially 2500 years ago. So, perhaps….he meant the relationships within humanity. I wonder if he ever spoke about the “soul” of a triangle.

Or I wonder if he had an idea to make a publicly accessible book where him and everyone else in his city drew pictures of themselves and wrote about their lives, which they could update whenever they wanted and could also see how everyone else was doing. He could name this book “Soulbook.”? Random thought on my part? Sorry, I have ADD.

Let's look at what soul is translated to in greek though. Now this could be described as Greek or well anything the symbols could mean and then cherry picking them with confirmation bias - I ADMIT THIS...but there seems to be a little more than that. Seems. That's all I'm saying. I'm also in a very loose manner trying to identify correlations or relationships. Any input would be cool.

THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS MANY, MANY QUOTES FROM WIKIPEDIA.

Anyways,

This is going to get really interesting :) Now, from what I gathered looking at 8 wikipedia pages for about 4 minutes, the Latin alphabet was derived from the Greek alphabet, which was derived from the Phoenician alphabet, which was apparently derived from the Egyptian alphabet, which evolved ALOT, which apparently has some roots in the Gerzah culture, which has roots in the Nagata or Dynasty 0

Nagada, also known as Naqada, is the type site of the prehistoric Egyptian Amratian culture ("Naqada I"), Gerzeh culture ("Naqada II") and Naqada III ("Dynasty 0") predynastic cultures.

Latin --> Greek --> Phoenician --> Egyptian --> Gerzah --> Nagata "first unification."

"Naqada existed before and during the union of Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt, the Naqada III or "protodynastic" period. The process of unification apparently started from Nagada."

I bet Nagada symbols were derived from literal drawing people would make to communicate things if they wanted to. That makes sense.

Which hits the basis of many things. And makes this make alot more sense, in a way it makes me wonder if our cultural interpretation of language has regressed. I mean is it easier to define a word to you or draw you a picture of what I mean so you understand better?

Perhaps it's also why Eastern cultures sometimes hold onto their pictographic alphabet. Pure speculation on my part.

This is the Greek translation of "Soul" according to translate.google.com.

ψυχή

Ok symbols that mean something. A message is an unordered set of symbols mapped to a contextually dependent, in essence, ordered set of natural numbers. Each of these symbols means something. So does the way in which they are ordered.

Using wikipedia, which is at least the most degenerate pieced together encyclopedia there is...and is still evolving... It's fun to look these up.

They always mean something different in different sciences and contexts too, which angers me when I try to understand formulas from various categories. But writing this has helped me to globally understand them now.

REGARDLESS DEFINE YOUR SYMBOLS IN YOUR RESEARCH PLEASE AGHH...do you JUST want people in your field to read your research...? Oh, ok, well that could be a reason why it doesn't spread as much as you'd like. Hint.

I know whomever decides if it's "worthy" or not will likely have some skewed bias of reality and cite redundancy, which is one reason they will eventually fail. Anyways.

Wikipedia, all the derivatives in modern language were rooted in it's parent, so let's see if we see any patterns.

ψ FIRST OFF IT'S the FIRST SYMBOL. Importance? Not important? I don't know, that's culturally defined, the D in the world Dragon doesn't mean anything more or less than the rest of the letters. However, the more associations one can use with fewer symbols, the more information a word can convey ;) Nonetheless, it is #1 in this word "soul" in greek.

• In circadian physiology, ψ represents the phase relationship between a zeitgeber and a biological rhythm.
• ------Ok, represents the relationship of these two things which may be important.
• The letter ψ is commonly used in physics to represent wave functions in quantum mechanics, such as in the Schrödinger equation
• -----People may disagree with me but the wave function is the means by which the the fundamental relationships in reality or associations between differences as in almost differences/association/relationship itself. Feel free to argue with me.
• psychology, psychiatry = chology i'll summarize as mental processes or " of mental life" iatry = medical treatment or "to heal" and "medical"
• ----Could we say ψ means the relationships of the mental life? "Study of" is frequently used as well, and any pure "study of" is really determining relationships. Same thing with medical treatment here again.
• Pseudouridine (abbreviated by the Greek letter psi- Ψ or the letter Q) is an isomer of the nucleoside uridine in which the uracil is attached via a carbon-carbon instead of a nitrogen-carbon glycosidic bond. It is the most prevalent of the over one hundred different modified nucleosides found in RNA.[2] Ψ is found in all species and in many classes of RNA.
• ----This is interesting. ψ is the most prevalent and is found in all species and in many classes of RNA. I suspect due to it being everywhere in this context it plays an important role in the relationship between important things. Without a relationship, you don't have really anything useful.
• In building, to represent an adjustment to a U-value, accounting for thermal bridge effects.
• ---It's possibly skewed here, but nonetheless is part of the relationship between these things.
• Indiana University (as a superimposed I and U)
• ----I and U from the beginning of the two words. Is this even the same symbol? Whoever put this on wikipedia should...that's it I'm removing it now actually...meh not registered.
• The planet Neptune
• ----Narayanan Bhattathiri, we need you.
• --KEY TAKEAWAY - I think it stems from some form of relationship literally to the core of that word and more than we describe with it.

υ Ends up really meaning {\displaystyle \Upsilon }📷 if you can see it it looks like a Y kinda. I have to go much older back a bit to I think get a better use than Psi.

• Look at just the picture of it, 1 line into 2 lines or 2 lines into 1 line. Perhaps the two lines represent two things and the joining of them represents something.............hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
• In astrophysics and physical cosmology, {\displaystyle \Upsilon }📷 refers to the mass-to-light ratio. I can't example this completely unless it is as how energy and mass are essentially the same thing.....or merge into the same thing...or they evolved from the same thing into 2 things.
• The usage of Y in Latin dates back to the first century BC. It was used to transcribe loanwords from Greek, so it was not a native sound of Latin and was usually pronounced /u/ or /i/. LOANWORDS KEYWORD.

χ or Chi?

• From what I have gathered and can be seen just by looking at the symbol, it generally meant in some forms the crossing of two things. Where they intersect perhaps. In a fancy book from wikipedia, it's used in terms of part of a lattice. It was also interchangeable with Psi many times...(our first symbol) which makes sense because if Psy is the relationship of things, then wouldn't that also kind of mean the crossing of them?...But on a more specific level?...Hmmm.
• X-Rays, we're crossing light with something in a way that derives new information.
• In Plato's Timaeus, it is explained that the two bands that form the soul of the world cross each other like the letter Χ. I'm quoting wikipedia in alot of this.
• X as in XFER - transfer XREF - cross ref.
• Symbol for Christ, although that could have been a bit culturally influenced or biased for certain reasons. Then again if he was the intersection between God and humans, it makes sense.
• X in math means some unknown variable interestingly as used the most frequently in algebra. Perhaps the two lines intersections could be indicative of something of something that intersect to make something we arn't sure of yet but has an intrinsic relationship. I just made that up tbh.

ή I swear this is the derivative of a number. But you can't take the derivative of a number unless you want it to disappear. So it must be two numbers or things. Well, notice the way it's drawn? It's showing as if there is a union between these two lines, one line comes out of the other and isn't as long as the 2nd one indicating they are not the same number or thing, but the other is a function of it in some way...it's like it emerges from the left part of the symbol. Forgive me for my speculation. It's just really fun sometimes.

Okay, and...what the....calculus wasn't invented until much much later. Perhaps the mark means a broken down or the lower piece of? I don't know..and then that's where the symbol for derivative came from. I DID NOT want this answer to turn into an ancient aliens episode.

Either my confirmation bias is overwhelming in what I write next or this is some weird stuff.

• I firstly want to point out how we designate the derivative of something in math by the use of a similar symbol in a way. n itself usually represents some number of....usually first order things. IN many cases, just n alone is not used but has a subscript attached to it. There are many ratios (related to efficiency/ratios that are rather simple related to this symbol, although I do not believe with the derivative mark. Nonetheless, a ratio does occur between 2 things, and if you take the derivative of it, well, you get a more isolated and specific, broken down..meh you know what a derivative is.
• n without the accent many times represents a ratio between two more or fundamental things. Efficiency is often used.
• MANY WIKIPEDIA QUOTES AHEAD
• "The derivative of a function of a real variable measures the sensitivity to change of the function value (output value) with respect to a change in its argument (input value)"
• The eta (η ) and eta prime meson ( η′ ) are isosinglet mesons made of a mixture of up, down and strange quarks and their antiquarks.
• ---quarks are pretty fundamental first order things not sure what difference is between both times of eta's here but.
• ok, im not a cosmosologist, but it is related to the conformal time, which is "the amount of time it would take a photon to travel from where we are located to the furthest observable distance provided the universe ceased expanding." As such, {\displaystyle \eta _{0}}📷 is not a physically meaningful time (this much time has not yet actually passed), though, as we will see, the particle horizon with which it is associated is a conceptually meaningful distance.
• ---For some reason this seems fundamental and lacks the derivative accent.
• Particle physics, to represent the η mesons.
• Experimental particle physics, η stands for pseudorapidity.
• Cosmology, η represents conformal time; dt = adη.
• Cosmology, baryon–photon ratio.
• Relativity and Quantum field theory (physics), η (with two subscripts) represents the metric tensor of Minkowski space (flat spacetime).
• Electronics, η stands for the ideality factor of a bipolar transistor, and has a value close to 1.000. It appears in contexts where the transistor is used as a temperature sensing device, e.g. the thermal "diode" transistor that is embedded within a computer's microprocessor.
• Power electronics, η stands for the efficiency of a power supply, defined as the output power divided by the input power.
• Atmospheric science, η represents absolute atmospheric vorticity.
• Rheology, η represents viscosity.
• Oceanography, η is the measurement (usually in metres) of sea-level height above or below the mean sea-level at that same location.

I'm going to interpret ή as the derivative of the relationship between two numbers or things. Whereas just η represents a relationship and how it seems to change.

BACK TO THE USE OF THE WORD SOUL in GREEK:

ψυχή

ψ = relationships on what seems to be a universal fashion from what I derived.

υ = The linkage that exists between two things, often used a Y (a fancier version though). That are bound in some way by coming from the same thing or part of the same thing.

χ = The actual crossing of two things, perhaps where they overlap, perhaps where ever that intersection in the previous letter WOULD be...if we use it in math so much as a variable for, say, x pineapples. Some unitary number? We could get fancy and combine both, the crossing of two things at an unknown value in an unknown but to be defined way.

ή = Those two things have a relationship, but are not identical. If you change one, you change the other. Efficiency is many times involves with this. Then there's this mysterious derivative like symbol. Suggesting a what I'm going to say "Just go one deeper" interpretation. Heh.

Im going to let you interpret all this and do your own research if you actually read all that. But it is CLEAR to me that although they may have assigned the same word to the "soul" or "spirit" almost like a ghost like we do today, I don't think he was...unless he accidentally did and it was the pictograms from the original language that actually let to this. Huh. Well, wow I just did all this research as I wrote this and this is kinda crazy.

Alright, so when Pythagoras uses the word SOUL as in ψυχή and stresses the development of the soul of humanity...it's as if we are doing that today...the more we can share knowledge that is both similar to and different from what we don't already know the more we together, we'll develop, evolve, transcend, perhaps we'll all form into Chuck Norris.

Ironically, I'd say Pythagoreas would like Mark Zuckerburg or moreso him and his team alot. Who else has really interconnected humanity as much?

Ok, I will admit I'm insane sometimes.

But you are wrong in that I have hostile intent in anyway. In fact, I was quite surprised by your reaction. I mean, hey, at least I tried. No one cites things in their answers most of the time.

But because of you, I probably overcite now. https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_energy-cost_of_information_retreival

I admit I should probably install the grammarly addon as my verb tense does have issues.

Honestly, I started to answer or try to answer your question and then I kind of went off on a tangent but tried to come back around.

And yeah, you're right, my degree is in business. That doesn't preclude my ability to digest and understand other topics. This site is set up to let the users decide who they like. I am proud of my 7 followers that I earned simply by expressing ideas I had and without any degree or publication listed (which I could do, but I prefer to interact).

You are committing libel against me in your answer here, but I don't really care. I don't think the moderators want QA threads to turn into flame wars. In fact, I'm hesitant to even respond, but your reply made me laugh a little. It was true....but I'd also consider the saying "It takes one to know one" :) or you're projecting.....or I am projecting on your projection...agh I'm insane!

Something I never expected I do, I am now going to do. I am going to further hypothesize the NATURE of the perceptual shifts initiating each new stage/level of cognition. I am going to do this to address what seems to be a paradox between extremely major developments (as they are first initiated) and how the environmental aspect(s) involved must be absolutely basic/simple (as well as being flexible and open, and shown in many domains).

I have already noted that I think these "perceptual shifts" quite likely, at first, are NOT noticed in any way by the Subject (NOR by the researcher, without the latter having special equipment). (I have referred to these shifts as they first manifest themselves as "attentions noticed" -- simply because researchers can notice and see them with eye-tracking technology, and computer-assisted analysis, AND (of course) with some good knowledge of when and under what circumstances these could/would come up, during child development. The perceptual shifts probably at first should have been called patterned-gazes-noticed -- and perhaps that would be a good idea, here on, to call them that, until the Subject (the child) does notice new important environmental aspects changing experience -- and then these would be perceptual or perceptual/attentional shifts that are just THAT for the Subject (those both being other phases of the cognitive-developmental shifts).

(At all times (phases), these gazes and perceptual shifts DO involve innate guidance and will involve associative/discriminative (dissociative) learning -- AND to know the covert contextualizations and thinking involved, one must have done this research with all previous Periods/stages/levels, in order).

Freudians and neo-Freudians see a total of 5 such developmental stages (3 mo. to 18+ years)and neo-Piagetians can also most meaningfully see 5 if the Pre-Operational Period is divided into 2 stages, based on Piaget's own recognition of 2 phases OF this Period: the Preconceptual stage (2 to 4 y.o.) and the Intuitive stage (4 to 7 y.o).

All this, I just outlined, is further described in this, my own, third ANSWER under the Question,

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Have_Technologies_in_the_role_of_a_MICROSCOPE_for_psychology_been_developed_which_can_now_be_used_to_investigate_important_observational_specifics

Though I never expected to say more (but rather just leave all the rest to actual observation and research), for several nights, it has occurred to me ("plagued me", might be a better description) that more about the likely nature of the environmental aspects setting off all those responses and developments, described above, should be presented. These environmental aspects (MOST CERTAINLY SOME PRESENT IN DIRECTLY OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOR PATTERNS AS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE(S)) are behind the inception of everything cognitive that can be manipulated in working memory, I.E. everything ever deliberately processed (though in the early phase they may well be described as unconscious). This may seem hard to understand, given this process occurs at the inception of even the highest levels of cognitive development, including that providing beginning content to 'abstract thought'.

What could this behavior pattern responses be, phenomenologically, given the role(s) these "shifts" have, and with their phases, have? To get the correct perspective, one must have a thorough understanding of the vast amount of contextualization (of the environment and of overt and covert behaviors) brought forth by our various types of memory. This factor is so huge, that the new environmental aspects, triggering off these gaze/perception/attention changes can be VERY limited additional stimuli: altering some cognition already existing or adding to existing behavior or adding (perhaps with some subtraction) a whole new aspect of experience.

I have also frequently thought that the "shifts" could begin as gaps "noticed" with gazes WHERE THE NEW ASPECT FOR NEW UNDERSTANDING of concepts and physical processes COULD BE USEFUL (a innate "understanding" of a lack of "understanding"). _THEN_, perhaps on other similar circumstances (or just other instances of the same circumstances): a good "gap filler" WILL BE patterned-gazes-noticed (phase two of my "perceptual shifts" processes). This idea of there being initial "gaps", where, soon with development, new environmental aspects will be seen, or new experience combined with existing cognitions ... enhances the ability for this process in development to be very open and flexible, AS IT MUST BE. In short, the "gaps" themselves are the impetus to "look/see" further; the "gaps" themselves would be the organismic trigger (in Piaget's terms: where the recognition and response of the current Period are inadequate and a transition to the next Period must begin).

Also, the "gaps" in spacial or temporal/spacial patterns experienced could allow for SIMILAR responses to similar areas (OR TYPES) of experience, where more understanding is needed. HERE, I substantiate what may be behind TRUE actual analogies "in play" in situations, where similar developments are needed; and, of course, those needed aspects become "present", as appropriate, in the environment.

[ P.S. Please ignore the very largely off-topic and incoherent SPAMS (along with a lot of plagiarism) provided in 2 answers above by an uneducated, unpublished and undisciplined individual going by the name Nathan Latvaitis . ]

Here is another way I described and told about basically the same details as were described above, which seems more biological (more biologically likely) .

This expression of these more detailed hypotheses may be much clearer . While it is supposed to be about the same thing I said above, the following may be both a better written-up and more true :

The phases I was referring to are possible different behavioral/phenomenological characteristics during a "perceptual shift" (those overall occurrences at the inception of each transition from one way of thinking to a 'higher' level). Thus, I was referring to phases during any one of those perceptual shifts involved in any such stage advance (the INCEPTION of a behavioral/thinking advance). (So: They are, in effect, phases of any one single perceptual shift.)

The reason I keep coming up with idea of this extra phase is that it would facilitate openness/flexibility for learning and allow for some pre-apperception of things that structurally (e.g. like their place in visual-spacial memory) that are indeed analogously alike (what one could call "true analogies"). I usually dislike analogies, but in human development it could help the generalization and reuse of "noticing" processes (in a later phases) across domains where there is some real structural similarity (such at that I just described for v-s memory, above). (The "gaps" I refer to are fixations of gaze, but NOT on some new aspect of the environment -- but indicating a need for some more information to "fill up" the phenomenon the child is experiencing (basically a "something's missing" experience). Now, one whole "perceptual shift": In this conceptualization of a perceptual shift, it is thought it may involve: (1) such gaps, then (2) "noticed attentions"** (