Giving philosophical consideration to the nature of human thought, and would like some analysis of my ideas. With which aspects do you agree or disagree, and are these explanations especially confusing or difficult to follow at certain spots?


Human cognition can be roughly divided into three categories. First, there is perception, the qualitative endowment of sensation (exteroception), qualia, proprioception and affect, a general profile which humanity shares with the majority of species, but of course our own incarnation has its modicum of uniqueness. Then we have structural protologicality, intuitive notions of particularized form that allow numerous species to more potently harness their perceptual states for utility’s means and ends, with our genus achieving a comparatively sophisticated level as it grew more technology-oriented. And finally, linear protologicality grants all kinds of organisms the proficiency to execute reasoning sequences, enriched in humans by ties with evolving vocal communication into an autobiographical, self-defining introspectiveness and bent for analytically inferencing at length. The human synesthesias that integrate these domains are no doubt complicated, but highly subjected to the self’s intentional thinking, which in turn organizes and directs disparate cognitive processes towards particular goals considerably streamlined by behavioral practices in consort with environmental relevancy. Pragmatisms of studious observation and thought as influenced by evolutionary circumstance tend to exert significant selection pressures on parsing and recombining physiological centers of perception, structural protologicality and linear protologicality towards three distinct gravitational poles of functional synthesis parameterizing the spectrum of more or less intentional thought, altogether the three main types of conception.

Perceptual and structurally protological processing conjoin in structural conception, the mentality that envisions how phenomena fit together for humanity’s elementary technological purposes. This type of thinking is the basis for hominin and early human fabrication of rudimentary tools as well as the construction of relatively simple living spaces, where all requisite features are tangibly present to the mind, which must modify and place them into the desired form by procedural increments. In modern life, structural conception takes center stage when a purchased product requires assembly, also as appliances like vacuum cleaners and computer interfaces are used, or while operating heavy equipment such as a lawnmower or forklift as well as even more complex machines such as cars and planes, together with any instance where gadgetry needs repair. It additionally makes its presence felt in art as creativity submits to formal conventions. Essentially, this is the mind organizing phenomena, with strong attachment to objects concretely handled and imagined as constituent particulars, by conceiving their correspondence to proprioceptive and mental routines that will place them in emergently functional order.

From perceptual and linearly protological cognitive processes we get expressive conception, the employment of phenomenal content to convey intentions and purpose as a sort of narrative generated or embedded in the world around us. It originated from out of spoken communication’s nonliteral facets, language’s multiple layers of meaning contained in imagery, metaphor, and symbolism of expression generally. With ancient prehistoric societies, this way of thinking was closely related to spirituality, myth and the enigmatic qualities of motivation, a major factor in humanity’s compulsion to formulate stories, allegorical dances and additional traditionalized enculturations, which lended greater comprehensibility to deep-seated organic and psychical drives, humor, mysteries of the largely unknown and mostly undomesticated world as a whole, a more cerebrally satisfying, higher functioning coherence. Modern art provides quintessential example in the free verse poem, evocative of personal and often collective impressions, struggles, beliefs and values, a culturally condoned mode of expression that usually contains ambiguity and profundity of peak nonliteral intelligence while minimally intermingled with structurally conceptual formalism like we find in genre-bound literature such as Shakespearean poems, romance novels and so on.

Structural and linear protologicality bring forth iterative conception, the means by which humans inference extrapolatively and interpolatively, reasoning from particulars towards generality that is not affixed to the particulars themselves as these latticed discretions make their appearance in nature or otherwise manifest to the mind, a cognitive process we commonly call ‘abstraction’. This is the kind of thinking that deduces implications of object relationships supramaterially, a realm of infinite possible form permitting us to manipulate concretions entirely beyond the constraints of immediate perception, a cognition-centric palpability of pure ideas and their instantiations in speculative hypothesizing. Prehistorically, it took analytical adeptness to the next level, for humans escalated from apprehending causality within spatiotemporally localized contexts of object utility, such as in the case of handheld implements or simple huts, to deriving holistic models integrating total reality, doggedly progressing a fund of collective knowledge and logistical practice by revisionary experimentation, building more and more of the environment into encyclopedic compendiums of descriptive representation within the broadening contexts of an unbounded dimensionality. Ancient humans began experimenting with ecosystems, working out selective breeding and land use, constructing planned towns and cities in the first civilization, also immortalizing natural patterns and the most prominent cultural events for prolonged evaluation using record-keeping systems such as calendars and writing, inexorably refining all the diverse disciplines by which large-scale technical methods are developed. In contemporary society, computer programming is a perfect example of iterative conception: coders obtain an idea of what they will strive to create on the monitor, then tinker with detailed object language systems in order to embody the systematic objective in hardware, making copious corrections during inevitable moments of error by conjectural sequences of deductive troubleshooting until successful design is actuated. In terms of institutional practice, science is a pinnacle of iterative thought, advancing our theoretical and technological paradigms by effectively unlimited accumulation of fact-based inferencing and ensuant discovery.


Does this make sense to you guys?