Part 1
Perhaps the most interesting (and important) question that has puzzled psychologists, neuroscientists, philosophers, and computer scientists alike is this: What is the association between physical brain structures and the sense of consciousness? It’s even been dubbed the Hard Problem. I would attempt a foray into this, but that would be a misplacement of my priorities.
My objective is to tackle the next best thing: An investigation into the rationality of thought.
So… What is thought?
We can all think, but we don’t all think effectively, let alone efficiently. The average process of thought is inspired by an internal mental stimulus or an external interaction. Whether it’s a daydream, a critical analysis, or a flash of creative genius, every thought event (quite unlike the forces of the universe) gravitates towards a conclusion. It is our search for a conclusion at any cost that gives rise to the most defining feature of thought; biases.
A bias is any error in thought processing that causes a person to conclude irrationally. Biases could be emotional or cognitive.
An emotional bias is a deviation from rational thought triggered by an emotion or emotional state. Cognitive biases, on the other hand, are deviations from standards in judgment or reasoning arising from inconsistencies in logic.
Biases aren’t always bad. In fact, they are super essential when we need to make a judgment call that favours speed over accuracy. Knowing when to allow biases influence your decision making and when to think objectively is the bedrock of proper thought formulation.
What is Thought Formulation?
Thought formulation is the deliberate act of designing your thought processes to account for optimal outputs in reasoning, recollection, and judgment when making decisions. A well formulated thought does not necessarily equate to bias-neutral outputs, and so there still exists the question of how to think rationally and objectively. Before we answer that, let’s explore the forms of thought.
Forms of thought.
Thinking happens in different forms. The most widely accepted forms of thinking are:
- Reasoning: The logical process of collating and categorizing information needed to draw conclusions, based on a mental model. Reasoning is inextricably linked to judgment because, at the end of every reasoning process, a judgment is made.
- Judgment: The mental action of drawing a conclusion based on weighted facts, evidence, and insights either for or against a proposition.
- Concept formation: A form of thought in which one articulates and systematically categorizes a notion, belief system, or principles governing an entity. A concept is an articulated notion that defines an idea, system, or entity.
- Imagination: A form of thinking characterized by the formation of new imagery in the mind. It is particularly useful in thought experiments, deliberation, critical thinking, problem solving, and... You get the point. It can be used to enhance the quality of other forms of thought.
- Deliberation: An intentional act of considering possible courses of action based on mental projections of potential outcomes and impacts of available options. This is the most important aspect of thought formulation.
- Problem solving: A series of thought processes aimed at overcoming a challenge. It could be algorithmic or heuristics-based.
- Critical thinking: A form of thorough thought that involves the use of deep reasoning, reflection, and information (from memories, knowledge gained, and context) to resolve a mental challenge.
- Episodic memory: Memory of past events, including chronology information and contextual relevance.
A crucial note regarding thought is that all forms of thought are comprehensively linked entities. Most mental endeavours require the combination of four or more forms of thought (and emotions), seamlessly. This network of interwoven thought forms and how they interact with emotions and a sense of self, characterizes the concept of consciousness. With what we’ve explored so far, it’s time to begin our investigation.
Is Reality reliable? Could objectivity be a myth?
Reality is considered to be real because it is a shared experience. If I alone perceived a unicorn riding a bike, I could be said to be hallucinating. But if I could objectively demonstrate the experience in principle, via an experiment, or via a recording of my observation, then we can begin to talk about how real it is. This is the grand paradox of reality; the need to prove what is real by some objective means.
Let’s make our case for reality by starting from the least understood aspect of nature: quantum physics.
The Double-Slit Experiment and the subjectiveness of reality.
The famous double-slit experiment demonstrates the dual nature of light (and matter). Light can behave like a particle or like a wave, depending on whether or not it is observed. From the experiment, it is noted that light behaves as a wave when it is not being “watched” and like a particle when it is closely observed; as if the photons of light know they are being watched.
Reality, in this sense, is subject to observation. It becomes difficult to assert that reality is, by itself, objective. However, it is noteworthy that while the real-time experience of reality is subjective, the systems, forces, and entities that comprise reality can exist and exhibit their presence independent of an observer (in other words, if a tree falls in a forest and there’s no one around, yes, it does still make a sound). This means that reality is objective (as difficult as it is to believe based on our argument so far), but we perceive it in a subjective manner.
Furthermore, if our observation of the quantum world affects its behaviour, then it’s logical to assume that our observation of the classical world could have its own brand of spookiness. And that it does!
Time dilation and the subjectiveness of reality.
Time dilation describes a phenomenon where time passes at different rates for different observers depending on a confounding variable, which could either be velocity or gravity.
Velocity time dilation
This describes the phenomenon in which time passes differently for observers in different frames of reference. Generally, time passes more slowly for objects as they move faster. It is more pronounced as objects approach the speed of light.
This phenomenon has been experimentally verified in the Hafele-Keating experiment. Airplanes carrying cesium clocks were flown around the world (eastward and westward) with one clock remaining on the ground. After the trip, the clocks were examined and the one moving eastward was found to be slower than the one on the ground, proving the concept of velocity time dilation.
Theoretically, at light speed, time eventually stops.
Gravitational time dilation
Gravity also has an influence on space-time. The closer an object is to a source of gravity, the more it feels the effects of warped space-time. Time passes more slowly for objects in stronger gravitational fields. If you had a twin and he spent a year in space, you’d be younger than him when he gets back (albeit, by just a few nanoseconds). Due to the effect of gravitational time dilation, time has been observed to pass faster for GPS satellites. GPS operators have to account for this to ensure accuracy.
What does this mean for us and our search for rational, objective thought?
Time is not absolute; ergo, perception of reality is subject to the observer. In other words, we all experience reality differently, yet every one of our experiences is perfectly valid.
If this is the case, then two things have to be reconsidered:
The reality of a concept, system, or state of matter, cannot be said to be valid simply because of a shared experience, nor can it be said to be valid merely because it can be observed. Rather, it is valid because it exists and can exert a measurable influence on its surroundings. This means that a thing is real not because you can perceive it but because it can exert a measurable influence on nature.
More importantly, if our experience of reality is subjective and everyone’s experience is valid, then it is necessary for us (if we hope to survive the AI era) to establish an objective system for investigating and articulating the rationality of thought.
We can conclude this section thus:
Objective thought is possible. Objective perception is not, but we do live in an objective reality that influences us and can be influenced by us.
Part 2
The Theory of all Things: Principle driven Thought Formulation
Principle driven thought formulation is a methodology for formulating thoughts based on first principles. That is, the principles that govern the fundamental behaviour of people, systems, and nature. Technically speaking, it's an approach to thought formulation that guarantees a holistic and objective perspective of the thought being considered.
Principles are the foundation of truth
Years ago, I watched a seasoned astrophysicist opine that everyone has their own truths, albeit, the scientific method is what ultimately establishes objective truth.
The expert further argued that people can believe and hold on to their varying truths about the same matter.
The problem I immediately discovered with his opinion was his assumption that “truth” is synonymous with perspective.
The very nature of truth is that, unlike our shared reality -- discussed in part one -- truth is objective. Perspectives on the truth may vary, but the order, structure, and instance of the truth are always the same. Truth is that which an entity or system says about itself. Whereas, perspective is that which the observer says about the entity or system.
Developed from 15 years of thorough research, the PDTF-methodology uncovers the nature of truth through its principle first thought formulation approach. It effectively creates objective standards for judging truth and investigating the logic of thoughts.
In many ways, it is the theory of everything, in the sense that it enables objective, rational consideration of every concept, belief, or system. The PDTF-M is in direct contradiction to basic human nature, which desires that everything should be subject to oneself.
Duly, the average human mind tends to kick against the PDTF-M because it presents a non-self preferential mental model to thinking, which is arguably the most unnatural way to think.
The preference driven bias
The most fundamental truth concerning human reasoning is that our thoughts are organized around confirmation biases.
We desperately seek to see information in the light of an agreement with pre-existing personal notions and disregard any evidence to the contrary.
This means that we skew our understanding of reality to fit what we already believe to be fact.
This confirmation bias dependency is made worse by our preferences. A person whose purview is defined majorly by self-preferences would continuously adjust their explanations to suit a preferred narrative, despite new observations, just so that they perpetuate their preferred understanding of the concept.
For them, facts, axioms, and evidence all have to suit their preference. They see the world with reference to their preferences.
Here’s an example to consider:
A few years ago, a fraudulent startup founder made it to Forbes’ 30 under 30. At the time, it wasn't known that the person was a fraud. Supporters of the individual's lifestyle consistently praised the person and extracted lessons from the person's story and life.
Supporters made long threads on X (formerly Twitter), showing how to succeed like the said individual. Eventually, it was discovered that the individual had scammed investors and customers alike.
The person inflated customer numbers and carried out all sorts of reprehensible activities. After the revelation, a few sensible people withdrew their support. But those who stayed prisoner to confirmation bias began to interpret the new information in a way that justified their earlier positions. Because, to them, it was more important that they remained true to their preferences than yield to convincing and overwhelming proof to the contrary.
Confirmation bias can be good, but the PDTF-M is the ultimate thought arbiter
Confirmation bias is a fundamental bias, because it underpins the efficient way in which the brain works. To save energy and computing time, the brain often relies on previously held beliefs as rudders to steer our thoughts to a conclusion in the fastest time -- in most cases, sacrificing accuracy on the altar of speed.
The Principle Driven Thought Formulation Methodology brings crucial balance and control to the super dynamic environment of our minds by causing us to seek and rely on principles for thought formulation, rather than on previously held beliefs.
When we rely on principles, we are unshackled from rehearsed neural pathways and set up for curiosity-driven information adventures.
To further explain the PDTF-M, consider this thought experiment:
Proof-of-fact fact-of-proof gambit
Suppose we all agreed that everyone is entitled to their various truths. This would directly imply that if someone claims a truth, he would be entitled to the implications of said truth, and his truth ought to become his reality.
You can probably already sense the brewing chaos, but let's continue.
Based on our premise: a man walks into Aso Rock and claims to be the president of Nigeria. Now, because we have all agreed that everyone is entitled to their truth (and by implication, your truth is your reality), this man would need to be sworn in as president as a necessary implication of his truth.
Realizing the potential of this line of reasoning, everyone else starts claiming their truths and demanding to experience the implications and reality of their truths. Chaos soon breaks out as truths inevitably collide with everyone's realization that the fabric of reality is limited and not everyone can have their way.
The implication of this experiment: Truths cannot be self determined. If truths were self determined, then it would hold that an individual's idea of any concept would have to give rise to a reality that matched said idea.
Meaning that, if a person claimed the earth was flat, then the earth would be required to be flat to suit this person's narrative, if indeed truths could be self-determined.
Conclusion
Regarding any observation or system, there can only be “the truth”. However, we are free to entertain our ideas and perspectives on the truth. Our ideas cannot cause reality to adjust itself because they are merely our explanations of pre-existing realities.
This conclusion draws its validity from our earlier exposition on the nature of reality, in which we showed that a thing is real not because we can observe it and claim it is real, but because it can exert a measurable influence on nature.
If your subjective truth is real, then it follows that it ought to be able to exert observable influences on our shared experience of reality.
As the apex species of the universe, we are responsible for not only seeking out the truth but defining the principles that govern every truth. In doing so, we'll at the very least, have a sane society.
This is the reason why I developed the Principle Driven Thought Formulation Methodology. It standardizes the process of investigating the validity of thoughts and stands as an objectively verifiable arbiter of the logic of thoughts.
Why is the PDTF-Methodology important?
1. Assessing the validity of thought.
People are individuals for a reason. They are entitled to their thoughts. Their thoughts, however, are not entitled to correctness.
This doesn't stop the average person from making assertions based on feelings, biases, or inaccurate premises.
The PDTF-methodology can be used to determine whether or not a thought is valid by drawing a principle based line of logic that the premise(s) and conclusion of a thought can be judged by.
Practical use case: There's a strong correlation between ice-cream sales and shark attacks in the summer in the U.S. If someone wanted to spread ice-cream themed propaganda, they would claim that ice-cream consumption leads to an increase in shark attacks. And they would have the “data” to “prove” it!
This example is a ridiculous scenario. Very few people would need the PDTF-Methodology to unravel the confounding variable, which is the weather.
Consider a more complex claim like “Aliens exist in some distant galaxy”. Can you definitively say they do or they do not exist? Would it be worth spending a fortune to explore the possibility? Or is there a principle driven way to investigate how valid this claim is?
Consider another claim:
“AIs will inevitably become sentient”. To test the validity of this claim, one would need to subject oneself to the logic of governing principles. Crucial questions like “What is consciousness?”, “How do machines process data?”, “Can machines reason?”; will need to be answered to lay the groundwork for either proving or debunking this claim.
Fortunately, that's beyond the scope of this essay.
2. To confidently pioneer new fields.
When pioneering, you need a way to ascertain the consequences of treading various paths before you throw your weight, time, and resources behind any.
With the PDTF methodology, you can safely follow the path that the principles stipulate is most likely to lead to your goals. Because your biases aren't a factor in decision making, you can be confident about the veracity of each path.
3. It is the ultimate arbiter.
It caters to edge cases that falsifiability cannot address (like string theory), but it maintains a methodical, logical, and algorithmic based approach for guardrailing untestable claims (like Astrology). The PDTF-M is important because some untestable claims, due to their illogical nature, could smear the reputation of currently unproven claims, due to limitations of technology for testing and observation (like string theory).
Further explanation: Falsifiability is a concept in the philosophy of science that claims a theory cannot be considered valid if there exists no scenario to potentially disprove its predictions, in principle.
If someone claimed that all fruits have seeds. That's a falsifiable claim because we only need to find a seedless fruit to prove the theory wrong.
But a more complex theory like String Theory, which posits that fundamental particles are tiny, vibrating strings in 10 or 11 dimensions, cannot be disproven in principle, because we lack the technology to detect them.
Another interesting statement that is considered unfalsifiable is “God exists”.
There's no empirical, reproducible prediction of how God's existence would manifest in today's reality. So there's no way to test and potentially disprove or prove it.
However, a lack of measuring equipment (as in string theory) or a lack of agreement with the conventional understanding of concepts (as in God exists) are not enough reasons to discard a statement.
This is why scientists often rely on strong explanations, simplicity, or consensus when accepting new theories.
The PDTF-M takes it a notch higher. With the PDTF-M, you can reliably demonstrate whether or not the string theory claim and the God exists statement are valid.
Posteris Possis
For the sake of posterity, we ought to, as a species, rely on objectively verifiable means of validating thoughts and statements. It's the only chance we have if we hope to advance our Average General Intelligence and progressively adapt to every iteration of technology.
If you would like to learn to think more intelligently and predictably, take my AI Era Polymath Masterclass