https://preview.redd.it/kdii8z5qc6kh1.png?width=418&format=png&auto=webp&s=97fd825df0f7a3a195434915fec57eef8d9f7b26

I just noticed that munkers toplogy is in the palestine section of the mit website?

so, I have finished all the endings except the true ending, and now I got all the flags for it. however, I took a long time to prep mentally before I replayed the game as it totally destroyed me before. I remember 99% of the details, but I dont remember why we need to undo the first dmil that prevented kurisu death if we can just delete the D mail from echelon. thats basically the only thing I dont remember.

I have read part of the book and was semi impressed. Mostly I have a hard time seeing how its different from a cramming/just spending more hours. I especially want to know from others how their ultralearning projects went, and in greater detail on what makes it unique

I am especially intereated in how to make such intensity tolerate and enjoyable as oppposed to painful and draining

This might be a very stupid question, but, I have taken a few more adv math courses and haven't found an answer yet. Usually we treat multiplication as repeated addition during schooling and the separation came a bit suddenly to me in more adv math courses.

EDIT:

some people gave examples when repeated addition isn't 100% applicable, for example multiplying a number by pi.

I always thought of it as repeated addition going to infinity, at least thats how I remember it being taught. i.e Σ where the number is added for each index. So, 4x3(i.e 3+3+3+3) + 4x0.1(i.e 4+1 ) etc etc. note, I am aware that division is the opposite of multiplication, so it is quite weird to include it in the definition of multiplication, however if we restrict ourselves to only defining tenths as defined as needing 4 to be added 10 times to be equal to 4 we have again defined multiplication as repeated addition

I wonder and when a similar argument can be expended on

Hello. It is very much time to update the document, with roughly 4 years of thinking and research into cognitive science. Also my english improved tremendously in that period.

I wanted to ask what are you most interested in seeing? The document ideally is a streaming focused but holistic introduction to improving intelligence including improving learning methods. I realized after first writing the document that I need to learn more before I add more content, and in the last few years I did quite a bit of reading

So, what do you guys wanna see?

hello. recently in the discord(though very lackluster scheduling, on fault) we started a weekly reading group for cognitive science material, and we covered relational frame theory.

I will write a brief summary of our research before I dive into the new variation, I will leave some stuff out, mainly how it relates to behaviorism. later on there will be a intro to thought streaming for those who havent tried it yet.

note this is a semi long post, but its important. it is in my eyes a total revolution for thought streaming, and I am trying not to say that lightly. you can skip this summary of the research

the core of the logical relationships that relational frame theory claims we have is very opposed to the traditional "associative learning" model, which assumes we simply reinforce patterns. the theory doesnt claim the brain isnt making associative connections, but pokes holes at the idea and provides an alternative. for example:

research has shown that in order to learn a concept effectively multiple examples must be presented attacking the same idea from a few angels. if our brains processing was associative, we should be able to apply the pattern we see in a lecture effectively after it being flashed out, but we know from experience that it isnt the case. deeper investigations must be done in order to effectively apply the concept.

if our learning is associative, how can we make connections such as A<B, B<C, therefore A<C? how can we chain logic so effectively?

so whats the deal with relational frame theory? relational frame theory claims that in short:

1. our processing is taken in the context it was provided in, in short contextual processing. this explains why we need multiple examples, when we were presented with one context for a concept we associated the learning with that example. once we are presented with a few ideas, their context was taken into account to create a logical frame
2. the relationships are more complicated logical frames and are bidirectional. they are bidirectional because it makes no sense for a logical principle to act in only one direction. it must apply more broadly

so that is a brief summary. note the theory is very complicated, even researchers can have a hard time, this is just a summary. the theory has been accepted into consideration and applied but still has massive debate.

the new variation:

thought streaming was created by brandon woodson and is meant to train your ability to spot logical relationships and in general improve your processing abilities via deliberate training, mainly focusing on finding logical relationships in sensory information.

lets do this example of a game I am playing recently, its dope you should play it.

https://preview.redd.it/ji6kwwak7h9h1.png?width=480&format=png&auto=webp&s=f8299243694a66575fc3befe8fb61f61153cd6ac

normal thought streaming:

>the arm band is part of the arm, thus being in the ontological category of "difference" also known as part of. the gun he is holding is also held by him, thus is a part of him. the shadows around him are link

etc etc etc. you probably noticed that there are infinitely many ways to express an image. brandon woodson solved this conundrum by saying that finding as many relationships as possible is the point. I want to offer a different perspective

from our investigation into relational frames, we learned that relational frame theory that builds underlying logical structures and generalizes them.

this practice isnt helping us develop that skillset, it is a association exercise, which might has its own benefit. but we are missing the structure creating elements of relational frame theory. in short we arent building a system for thinking.

my variation:

>the armband can be understood as a part of the whole arm. it has a critical implication. if it is understood as part of the arm, the whole arm requires attention. the arm holds a gun.

>if we view the armband as part of the arm the whole arm and its structure gets highlighted, in part highlighting the gun. is that a faithful interpretation of the drawing?

>I would say no, the gun isnt the focus of the image. however we will challenge that, what pieces of evidence are in the image to say that it isnt a point of focus?

in this variation, we are taking the role of an art critique, critically analyzing the images and implications for each association we make. the point is to develop a system of thinking for critical analysis, revision of thinking, and making sure our interpretations are faithful, consistently finding underlying structures in the image that build overall principles. for example we might conclude that it is best to understand this drawing as a person in motion, or a person planning a shot.

we can do the same for concepts, and I actually found this a useful revision exercise for my maths stuff

results:

oh fuckyeah the results are there. I found that even after just a few days I am much more systematic and analytical in my thinking, every step of thought feels deliberate too. and, when I do this revision practice for my maths stuff, I find that I consistently make discoveries and insights when applying this technique, likely because I am so attentive to even the smallest logical step.

I really think this new exercise has so so so so much potential and I cant wait for you guys to try it out

edit: I forgot to detail the ontological categories. since it would add more writing, I will just give a docx with the reference, it isnt that long, just look at the first page for reference. it has everything and again quite short https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BYI_UxdkLwnXMoLzx0zYKDr_plXWV7c3/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=110551363359906365387&rtpof=true&sd=true

Hello, I am the mod of this server, the discords server owner, the person who wrote the recent document, etc. in short I put a lot of effort into studying image streaming and how it works

Unfortunately, the app currently has a few functions that are harmful or arent useful metrics. Also from my talk with the developer there isn't a plan to change them

There are a few big issues with 2 that ill focus on.

First things first, the app uses sensory switching during description as the main driver of your score

That's a useless metric. In terms of discussing results, that isn't advocated for in any source that made streaming famous, including the complete guide to genius, my work and a few other streamers, meaning very few used this guideline in years.

Obviously authority bias isnt credible analysis, some lets be more rigorous:

Sensory switching in theory according to the original creator is supposed to bring you closer to your subconscious, and thus increase some cognitive abilities.

It is important to note, the original creator of streaming, Win Wenger, treated streaming as a pseudo religious exercise which opens up your hidden powers of the subconscious.

In practice, you are neglecting training your capacity to describe in high detail for whatever sense is most "popping" at this moment, i.e easiest to describe. sensory information that is already most processed in your brain will "pop" for obvious reasons.

I am aware that the person who developed the app really loves the original creator of streaming win wenger for some reason.

However, Win used streaming as a semi religious exercise. For example in the Einstein factor:

He suggested an exercise to gain an ide from your subconscious, which and I quote should have a solution to just about anything.

photoreading, a reading technique which claims you can read at 25 thousand words per minute by making your subconscious read instead

And there's more nonsense where that came from

These books came during the new age movement which believed in some hideen power of the subconscious, in short sold well. Its possible win didnt mean harm here, but I cant help but be skeptical. Note I could be wrong on this one, open to corrections

Secondly, and a more pressing issue, the app tells you what to describe.

That is totally antithetical to good streaming practice. In streaming you are supposed to let images pop up in the most inconvenient way possible.

In qws for example you describe the real world as an image pops into your head, deliberately making image popping harder

Moreover as is very consistently reported qws developes a new kind of thinking with a lot of ahah moments.

That is simply increased creativity from the principles of developing insight thinking, which is a fancy way of saying practicing getting ideas from the default mode network, the same system which gives you ahah brilliance moments after you took a break from a problem, i.e your background processer.

That isnt voodoo. We arent taking ideas from a wealth of infinite subconscious magical energy, we are simply training insight thinking, a type of thinking recorded in research and is proven to be possible to increase with similar exercises under the same principle, key example being open monitoring meditation

I have been checking my memoirs after I got memoir 6 from floor 171, however I felt the number was off and checked my inventory and saw I don't have 4 and 5. I only have 1,2,3. If this don't bug?

hello! from my understanding inner products generalize and standardize our intuitions of orthogonality, angels, and distances. I am a bit confused how I should interpret a space geometrically when its defined on non standard inner products. the standard inner product follows our intuition for orthogonality with a 90 degree angle, and I have a hard time imagining how this will change under different inner product definitions for the inner product space. I would imagine that it would cause us to treat a "90" degree angle as say 30 or 180.

note, from my understanding, the importance of the notion of 90 degree angle is that when something is 90 degrees in our normal everyday lives it means that we can increase one axis without effecting the other. similar to graphs, we can raise y without raising x. I can see the same underlying idea being applied for non 90 degree angels with shifted definitions

I would love help clearing these misunderstandings!

Hello! I wanted to ask if there is any impact on flirting with the interactions and scenes

Edit: seems my question was a bit confusing. I am more so asking if female characters suggestion of romance as an option(and display behaviour beforehand like blushing) will always happen or if it depends on my word choices

Edit 2 i got my answer. Thanks for the help

Hello, I have been getting conflicting information regarding rebar support for 8th gen cpus. It seems that it is plausible with some motherboards, however some sources including intels website claim that a 10th gen is required.

Edit: my current motherboard does not support rebar, so I am checking if I will need to buy a new motherboard and a new cpu or a new motherboard alone

Hello, I recently bought a b580 arc and later found out rebar is essential. I find conflicting information online if my h370m pro4 has rebar support, I heard some cases of it existing in beta bios versions which need to be requested via customer support