Conscious Recognition

What is recognition, and how relevant is it to the function of the brain?

A technical definition of “recognition” is; identification of something from previous encounters or knowledge. Depending on the interpretation of the word “identification’, this could include or disclude simpler subconscious mind processes. As the word is broken down, it could be considered, literally the “re”-occurence of “cognition” of the same thing, since the definition of “cognition” is; the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. But, this definition of “cognition” includes the requirement of understanding, which would require a higher degree of intelligence and comprehension, and would disclude subconscious mind functions. Another definition of “recognition” could be; noticing a strong similarity, which indicates a repeated perception. In other words, perceiving something which has been perceived before. This would include subconscious functions. It seems that it could go either way, but for the sake of simplicity, I’ll assume recognition includes subconscious function, since from my experience, it seems the common interpretation of the word would include an animal “recognizing” another animal or a person. So, the word basically describes the process of perceiving something which is already in memory. 

This should be fundamentally significant in the function of any brain with subconscious or conscious processes, since these processes seem to be dependant on memory. Subconsciousness basically functions by saving experiences in memory, linked with positive or negative reinforcement, then on the occasion of recognition of something within the memory of that experience, reactivating the reinforcement. Every action or reaction taken by any animal, which is triggered in any way by memory, would be based on recognition. 

Recognition tends to be a beneficial function. It allows the subconscious to cause any individual to avoid or pursue factors, depending on which has proven to be more beneficial in past experiences. As a lack of recognition tends to cause stress of the unknown, it makes sense if recognition causes some sense of relief through cognitive ease. If you personally think about any experiences, the sense of recognition, tends to seem much preferable over the unknown. 

A more complex process of recognition would be comprehension. Comprehension of knowledge of circumstances seems to tend to cause further relief. With comprehension, comes the ability to make more beneficial decisions regarding the circumstances. Is comprehension anything more than conscious recognition of function? When someone comprehends something, they basically understand how it functions. Understanding how something functions is basically knowing the cause and effect of factors involved, which is recognizing how factors interact (or effect other factors), in memory. 

If recognizing 1 factor in memory, causes relief and cognitive ease, it seems logical that recognizing multiple factors would increase this preferable sense of relief. Since understanding is a process of recognizing multiple factors, including their interactions, it seems to follow that this should cause a further sense of relief. If conscious mind functions involve understanding and comprehension, then it seems this would cause an increase in the preferable sense of cognitive ease and relief. Would an amplified sense of recognition, not be a logical explanation for the feeling which we tend to consider so significant yet mysterious, which we call: consciousness? 

Categorically

How are various categories saved in memory?

A category is basically a label applied to an outlined maximum variance for attributes. The attributes can be for pretty much anything (object, substance, concepts etc), and the maximum variance would be the limit that any of the attributes can vary, while still being considered part of that category. 

The method that categories are saved and accessed as memory in the brain, seems like it would function similarly to the method for concepts. As I tried to understand in my last post; Concept Neural Combo, concepts seem to be a label applied to a maximum variance of interactions. As long as an interaction has the cause and effect relevant to the concept, it can be considered within the grouping of that label. Categories should be somewhat less complex than concepts, since they don't necessarily require comprehension of cause and effect. 

If categories are saved in a similar process of function, then it would likely be by method of; various combinations of neurons and synapses, each representing the sensory input recordings of an example of something that fits into the particular category. The neural combos for various examples, would be linked in memory with the short form reference label for that category. Any given label of category would be saved as a neural combo which is saved via sensory input of hearing or seeing that word. This neural combo would be linked with memories of various examples which fit that category. 

For eg, the category of “insect” would be a neural combo of memory for the label (of audio of hearing, and or visual of seeing the word), connected with neural combos of memory of seeing various insects. The maximum variance of attributes would be all the physical features required to fit our definition of “insect”. 

Even though each category label is linked with the various neural combos for examples within the category, the neural combos for all examples would likely not be accessed at the same time that the neural combo for the label is accessed. The various combos would be linked through neurons and synapses for potential to be accessed, but the specific combo of neurons would likely depend on various aspects of electrical flow and triggering. Just as when you think of a generalized word, and there is often no distinct memory for that word, the neural combo representing that word, would be an imprecise combo of neurons, and therefore create the perception of inaccurate recognition. But some examples which fit that word, are sometimes saved more precisely to cause more accurate memory recognition, if a particular memory is accessed. The way a memory of a particular example is accessed, is because of the connection of the neural combo for the word, allowing potential to trigger more precise combos representing examples. 

Labels of language seem to be quite significant for the advanced functions of memory access of our brains. Labels allow a short form reference within memory, for groupings of memories of things which fit a labelled category, and allow the potential to trigger the various memories of examples which are grouped, Categorically. 

Concept Neural Combo

What combination of neurons would be required for comprehension of a concept?

By “concept” I basically mean a generalized idea. An idea will typically have a cause and effect, so for it to be generalized, means it should be stated in a way which can include various factors which will still cause the same effect indicated by the idea, and therein concept. I further explained concepts and their relevance to intelligence, in a post from a yr ago; Carry the Concept. Basically, concepts require the mental ability to comprehend the cause and effect outlined by the concept, and to compare variables which would fit the concept, in order to cause the indicated resulting effect. 

The method of function of this mental ability is the question at hand. According to my understanding, it seems plausible that all memory could be saved and accessed by the brain, using combinations of neurons and synapses. Included in memory access could be the process of conscious comprehension of cause and effect, as I hypothesised in my last post; Conscious Neural Combo. If we are able to be conscious of cause and effect, through the process of accessing neural combos representing factors and the interaction of those factors, then comprehending a concept, should be plausible as an additional step of this method of function.

Since a concept involves various factors which can cause the same effect, it seems likely that someone would need to 1st save multiple “conscious combos” of neurons, which each represent the interaction of cause and effect of factors. Any of the interactions saved in memory, must have the same resulting effect, with different factors, for them to be relevant to the same concept. 

For eg, the concept of flight, requires comprehension of the effect of an object sustaining height in the air. For someone to save the concept of “flight” in their memory, they would have to access memory of multiple interactions of objects, which have the same cause and effect of sustaining height. If someone accesses memory of the interaction of a bird flying, but not other objects flying, then they will only remember specifically a bird for the word “flight”. If they additionally access memory of the interaction of a butterfly flying, they will be able to remember that other objects could have the same interaction with the air (of flight), and save the labelled concept as its intended meaning of cause and effect, which could include various factors.

Since concepts involve multiple factors causing the same interaction, the neural combos which represent the concept, seem they would be less distinct or accurate, than other memories of specific objects or occurrences. The neural combo for a concept, seems it would consist of interactions with multiple objects, therefore the neural combos representing the factor which can vary, would be less distinct or precise. The neural combo could become more precise when an example of the concept is remembered, but since multiple examples represent the same concept, the neural combo would generally be less precise. 

Typically there is a common element for a concept, which should improve effectivity of saving the concept as an overall memory. A concept can have various factors, but since a certain cause and effect defines the limits of the concept, that effect would be 1 common element. For eg, the concept of an object stretching, involves the interaction of one of the objects dimensions becoming longer, relative to its other dimensions. The common element is the object becoming physically longer, so the common memory of objects becoming longer, makes the concept more effective to be saved and accessed in memory. The neural combo representing visual measurements of the shape of objects becoming longer, would likely be a linking element to various interactions saved in memory, of other objects stretching.

The neural construct representing a concept, seems it would be a neural combo of a generalized interaction. Multiple interactions would each have to be previously saved as neural combos, then the common link between the interactions (of the effect of the concept) would be the element which can trigger memory of various applicable interactions (each represented by a neural combo).The overall neural combo representing the concept, would be a group of neurons which does not accurately represent any sensory measurements, but specific examples of interactions can be triggered by the common element, in order to cause more accurate neural combo representations of measurements. The label of language itself is a neural combo which helps link and trigger the various examples of interactions

A concept seems to be a short form reference for multiple interactions which include the same cause and effect. In the same way we have labels to categorize various objects which have traits that are within the range outlined by the categories’ label, we also have concepts to categorize various interactions, which have a cause and effect that are within the range, outlined by the label which is applicable for that particular Concept Neural-Combo. 

Conscious Neural Combo

How are neural combinations involved in the function of being conscious of cause and effect?

It seems plausible that all memories are stored in the brain as information, represented by neuron combinations, as I hypothesized in a recent post; Memory Information. When it comes to the process of using memories to be conscious of cause and effect, the combinations of neurons and synapses involved, seems to be quite a bit more complicated than simple saving and accessing of basic memories of sensory input. To be conscious of cause and effect, I’m assuming the function basically involves a minimum requirement of memory access of 2 factors and their interaction, as I further explained in a post from early last yr; Conscious Comprehension. 

For this process to function using neuron combinations, an individual would access the neuron combinations for (at least) 2 factors, a time period of the interaction of the factors, and the resulting effect on (at least) 1 of the factors. Memory of each factor could be saved as a sensory perception measurement, represented by neuron combinations. Then the time period of interaction could be saved as a sequential neuron combination representing changes in measurement. Therein, the resulting effect on a factor, would be a new measurement, represented by a neuron combination. For the effect of interaction to be saved as a memory, an overall combination of all these combinations must be saved. The minimum overall combination seems to be: the neuron combination for each factor, then a sequence of neuron combinations for 1 of the factors changing (while the 2 factors are interacting).

This overall combination seems that it would be a similar neural combo to a basic memory of an action occurring. A basic memory of sensory input of a time period of an action, would be a sequential neural combo representing the changing measurements perceived through senses. The difference between this process (of a basic memory of a time period), and the process for being conscious of the cause and effect of an interaction, may be the focus of neural combinations. 

In order for a memory of any factor to be relevant and effective, there needs to be a focus of a fairly accurate combination of neurons to represent the accuracy of that factor. When a factor is being perceived by the senses, there needs to be a focus on the factor, in order to save an accurate neuron combo, to represent the measurements of that factor. If an accurate enough combo is saved, then next time that specific combo is accessed in memory, an effective and accurate recognition is made of that factor. 

In the case of being conscious of the effect of interaction of 2 factors, there would be an accurate focus of neural access, for the combo of each factor. Each factor would previously have been saved as a neural combo, so that during the time of being conscious of the interaction, the focused neural combos for each factor would cause recognition. This new overall combo of the factors’ interaction would also then be saved as a new “conscious combo”. Each factor would still have a separate combo for recognizing only that factor, but these combos would also be connected to the conscious combo, which includes the interaction with another factor. If the conscious combo is triggered, then (as may be the process) the neural combos for both factors would be accessed, then the sequence representing the time period of interaction of the factors, and the resulting effect on at least 1 of the factors.

A basic subconscious memory of an action would not have the same focus of accuracy of neural combos representing factors, and each factor would not be saved as a separate combo for recognition. Since a basic memory does not have the focus on each factor involved in the interaction, the overall combo (of the factors interacting and the effect on 1 of the factors) will not be linked to the particular factors, for the potential to be triggered by either factor individually. 

Focused neural combos, representing separate factors within an interaction, seem to be quite relevant for the function of conscious memory access of cause and effect. Factors seem to require focus, for the potential of recognition of that factor and any effects to or from that factor which are relevant to the interaction. 

Labelling Memory Information

How are labels of language saved as information in memory?

Assuming the hypothesis that all memory in the brain is stored as information through combinations of neurons and synapses, as I further explained in my last post; Memory Information, then the process for saving and accessing a complex labelling system of language, as memory information, seems it would be to the next level of complexity. Compared to saving and accessing basic memories of sensory input, as neuron combinations, incorporating a labelling system of language, into the abilities of a brain, should be quite a bit more advanced. 

Saving basic labels in memory, of specified objects shouldnt be too complex. The process would involve memory of the sound of the word (assuming its audio language), connected with memory of the sight of the object. If the language is visual, such as sign language or writing, then the memory of the sight of the word would be saved, connected to sight of the object. According to my last post, the sensory input of the sound of the word, would be saved as information of the sound wave measurements, represented by a combination of neurons and synapses. The sight of the object, of which that word refers to, would be saved as another combination of neurons, representing lightwave measurements perceived by the eyes. For the word to be saved in memory, of the reference, both neuron combinations (of sound of word + sight of object) would be saved as a combination. When the brain receives input of audio of that word in the future, it would automatically access both neuron combinations, triggering memories of the sight of the object. 

This is a basic labelling system, since words are connected with specific objects (or actions), rather than including words for generalized categories or concepts. When a basic labelling system is used, subconscious mind function is sufficient, as long as the words aren’t used in combination (such as sentences), which would require conscious comprehension of the interaction of multiple objects (or actions or concepts) which are referred to, by each word. If basic labels only require subconscious memory access, then this would explain why the mind seems to access words subconsciously (if a word is used often enough). Individual labels can be saved through subconscious, since no comprehension of the interaction of that word is required. But if the word needs to be put into a sentence, then the interaction of the word needs to be comprehended, and therefore requires conscious thought (as I further explained in a recent post; Processes for Thought). 

As I determined in a post from early last year; Theory of Thought, it seems plausible that all thoughts, and therein processes for use of language, can be functional through memory access. But the method of saving and accessing these memories during the processes involved in complex language, is another question. If a more complex labelling system (like any that humans use) includes labels for concepts or categories, then the mind must have the ability to comprehend cause and effect, through memory. Words for concepts describe a generalized function of cause and effect. For someone to save the label for a concept, connected in memory to the appropriate meaning of the concept, they must access memories of the effects caused by various factors which would fit into the description of that concept. The 1st step toward saving a concept in memory (which could include various factors) is saving memories of the effect of interaction of specific factors. This step seems it would require conscious thought processes, which increases the complexity for saving and accessing the memory information involved.

Labels of language seem to be plausibly saved as memories, by a method of a combination of neurons representing the sensory input of the word, as well as neurons representing the object which the word refers to. This seems simple enough when it comes to subconscious use of labels, but when labels of concepts which include cause and effect are involved, it seems conscious comprehension significantly increases the complexity of Labelling Memory Information. 

Memory Information

How does memory save and access memory?

Since I know few details of neuroscience, I’m going to try to keep this at a distance of somewhat generalized concepts of function (including assumptions), despite the degree of science involved in the subject. The brain seems to record all memories via sensory perception. Somehow the external sensory organs seem to take measurements of the particular sense that they perceive. This measurement seems to be transmitted to the brain, to be recorded and stored as information. 

Assuming neurons and synapses are the method of storing the information about the measurements from the senses, the brain seems to do this by using certain combinations of neurons and synapses that represent the measurements. If certain regions of the brain are used for certain types of measurements from the senses, than it seems this could be a method of memory storage and recall. When the brain receives a measurement, it would fire to a certain combination of neurons and synapses within the designated area (for that type of sensory measurement). Every time the senses receive that measurement, the connection becomes stronger and easier to access, between the specific neurons and synapses for that combination. Perhaps memory is simply specific combinations of neurons and synapses being fired. 

If there are different regions of the brain designated for different types of sensory measurements, it seems each measurement on its own could trigger memory recall, via that regions particular combination of neurons, but multiple regions (each with their own recall of neuron combination) being triggered simultaneously, could create macro combinations, for more complex memories. 

For eg, if 1 region of the brain is used to store measurement of color (light wavelengths), then every time you see blue, the same combination of neurons will be activated. If another region stores measurement of visual shapes, every time you see a circle, that combination of neurons will be activated. If you see a blue circle, a macro combination of both regions combinations may be saved as a more complex memory. 

If more measurements are perceived by the senses, such as; size, pattern of surface, texture, etc, then more regions, each activate a neuron combination. When all of these are perceived at the same time, a macro combination is activated, of all of the regions and their particular neuron combination. As more information within a certain situation, is stored from the senses taking more measurements, and transferring it to neuron combinations, larger macro combinations are saved, which represent complex memories. 

Memories become even more complex when they involve a time span. If memories are only recordings of measurements, then how is a memory of movement or an action recorded? Movement occurs over a time span, so recording movement, seems it must be recordings of measurements which are changing. To access memory of changing measurements, perhaps a sequence of neuron combinations are fired. The sequence of successive combinations of neurons would represent the sequence of successive measurements (via senses). It seems to require some quantity of time span for accessing memory of a time span. The time it takes to access a memory depends on how many sequential measurements are stored as information, and how much time it takes to fire the successive combinations of neurons. 

Accuracy of recorded measurements depends on focus. Focus seems that it can be done physically, using sensory perception organs (eg. motion of the eyes), or psychologically (such as tuning into a certain sound). Perhaps accuracy of quantity of recordings is limited, so that only certain combinations of neurons will be fired. This adds value to that neuron combination, since it being accessed will cause it to be prioritized, as a result of connections between neurons and synapses being strengthened from use. 

If certain measurements (out of all the simultaneous sensory perceptions) are prioritized, then the neuron combinations which represent those measurements will be strengthened, relative to other combinations. Without focus, too many measurements would be recorded, and too many neuron combinations would be activated, causing access to all combinations to be strengthened. If too many combinations are strengthened, then next time a particular measurement is perceived, the additional combinations will be activated, causing recall of irrelevant memories. 

It seems plausible that all memories are stored and recalled as information, using combinations of neurons and synapses. If certain areas of neurons are designated for certain types of sensory measurements, then every time a measurement is perceived again, it would fire the same combination of neurons as it did when recorded, causing memory recall. Macro combinations of combinations would represent more complex information of memories, and sequences of these combos would represent memories of a time span. The complexity of the function of neurons in the brain, may be about at par with the complexity of Memory Information. 

Collaborative Consciousness

Is it possible to have conscious awareness caused by the collaboration and combination of multiple individuals?

By consciousness, I am referring to my hypothesized ability for the function of conscious awareness, as I further explained in a summary post; Conscious Comprehension, as well as  more detail in a couple dozen other posts. The basics of my understanding of consciousness are; it is memory access of factors and the interaction of those factors. 

Consciousness seems to be something most humans naturally possess most days, but having an overall system, gain the effect of consciousness through combination of multiple individuals, is another question. For a system to be conscious of any given concept, it would have to be able to access memory of a minimum of 2 factors, and the interaction of those factors. By any regular situations today, it seems there is no system that directly accesses memory of multiple people's minds. So the short answer seems to be; there is currently no collaborative consciousness. But that doesnt mean its not possible, or that it doesn't occur indirectly.

A potential method of a system which accesses memory of factors and their interactions, between multiple people, indirectly, could be communication. Communication is transferring information from 1 person to another, and information is basically an altered version of measurements. So if information about something which is involved in the process to be conscious of it, is transferred via communication, from 1 person to another, then it required the collaboration and combination of multiple people. Information was transferred from the memory of 1 person to another, for the 2nd person to be able to access that information, in the combination required for conscious awareness of that bit of information. 

A lot of information that most people know, is learned through communication from others, so by this understanding, a significant amount of what someone is conscious of, is through a form of indirect collaborative conscious awareness. This is basically the method of human progression. Through cumulative learning and transference of information of what was learned throughout history, people now are able to receive more information than ever before. Information which took 1000s of others, to contribute their portion of communication of their memories of conscious awareness of certain factors. 

This method is different than a potential direct collaboratively conscious system, because with this method, the memories of information of each individual must be transferred to 1 person before the information can be accessed. For a process to be directly conscious of information, it needs to be a system with direct memory access to multiple individuals. This seems unlikely to occur, but technology can allow a lot of possibilities.

A possible alternate method of indirect collaborative conscious awareness, could be an exterior memory access system. Computers would be the obvious potential memory access system which is exterior to our minds, but it seems they currently don't have the functionality to access memories in the correct combination of factors and their relative interaction. If AI does acquire this capability (which seems quite plausible), then it could potentially receive any information which humans have transferred to the internet, and perform a method of indirect collaborative consciousness of all our information. 

Besides receiving information which we have recorded, AI could have the potential for accessing memories of information long range. This could allow for the possibility of a direct conscious awareness, which is collaborative in the sense of using multiple technological or computer units. It could potentially have sensory perception (cameras, microphones etc) recording information, or computers, at various locations, then access memory of that information and the relative interaction of the information, from an alternate location.  

In a similar function, humans could have the possibility for direct (or at least more direct) collaborative conscious awareness, using technology. If we are able to integrate technology with our brains to transfer information, this should allow the potential for multiple people combining information of memories to cause collaborative conscious awareness. Whether it is direct collaborative consciousness, would depend on the requirements for method of direct memory access.

Technology will likely allow new potentials for collaborative conscious awareness, but it seems even today, through sharing of information, even if only indirectly, we do regularly cause collaborative conscious awareness. 

Questioning Motivation

What causes the motivation to question?

Similar to the basic requirement to be capable of questioning, awareness of additional information would also be a component to an individual having motivation to question. As I realized in my last post; Questioning Questioning, in order to be aware of more information existing, for the potential to question that information, an individual requires the ability to understand the cause and effect of concepts, so that they can be aware of the potential that there are alternate causes and effects. 

It seems, at least to some degree, the more information that is learned about concepts of causes and effects, the more potential there is to be aware of additional information, involving varying combinations of factors. So 1 relevant aspect of motivation to question, seems to be quantity of information already gained, and comprehension of the causes and effects of the interactions of the factors involved in the information. But simply having a lot of knowledge and conscious comprehension of the interworkings of that knowledge, doesn’t seem like it would be quite enough to cause motivation for questioning.

Perhaps combined with a natural instinct of curiosity, this could cause desire to acquire more information. But what causes curiosity? It seems that curiosity is natural in animals to cause exploratory behaviour. It would often be beneficial for an animal to physically explore landscape, as sometimes they would be rewarded with a resource which helps them survive. Perhaps humans have this same instinct, and often express it through exploring knowledge, rather than physical territory. If a person explores knowledge, they will often discover a new concept or understanding of cause and effect, which will be helpful for survival. Just like discovering new resources, we would receive positive mental feedback for discovering an understanding, which will be useful. 

Once humans minds developed to a sufficient degree of understanding, and gained enough information, we gained the more complex understanding of the concept of learning cause and effect, in itself. At this point, we could comprehend that the more learning we accomplish, the more progress we make, as individuals and as a cooperative species. Beyond simple mental positive reinforcement for discovering something beneficial, some people (as well as humanity as a whole) gained the understanding of the cause and effect of cause and effect itself. With the comprehension of comprehension and the understanding of understanding, we can be aware of the benefits of the process of learning. 

With the understanding that everything functions through cause and effect, we become aware that learning the components of the function of everything, gains us the benefit of making more accurate predictions, and therefore the ability to make adjustments to our preference. Once this benefit is understood, the next step to attain more information and understanding, is questioning.

Questioning Questioning

What is questioning?

At its basics, questioning is requesting information. But what are the mental requirements to be capable of formulating a question?

If questioning is requesting information, then 1 requirement would be; being aware that there is more information to gain. The concept of knowing that there is more information to gain, may seem obvious to us, but that is only because it's a commonality with humans. 

Take animals other than humans, for example of the contrary; they are known to have nearly never asked a question. There is at least 1 case of a parrot supposedly asking a question, but it is extremely rare, if animals ever do. It may be arguable that we can't communicate with most animals, to know whether or not they can question, but besides the examples of varying primates learning sign language, which are some of the smartest animals we know of, it can also be observed that animals do not pursue information or knowledge. Animals are typically incapable of comprehending that there is more information or knowledge to gain. Animals minds function based on subconscious reaction, which does not take into account the interaction between factors.

The interaction between factors is relevant, because in order to be aware that there is unknown information, the individual must be aware that there is a cause and effect between the interaction of factors. Information represents objects/substances (or factors), so to be aware of more information to gain, means being aware of more factors existing. To be aware of factors existing beyond the current sensory perception and memory, the individual must be aware that the interaction between factors causes the effect of a different resulting factor. Once it is known that factors can interact to cause the effect of a different result, it can be known that there will be other results of interactions. Once an individual knows that there can be varying results to varying combinations of factors, and knows that varying factors are a result of the interaction between varying factors, they can be aware that there are more factors to learn and to question. 

For eg, if a child learns that walking on sharp rocks causes pain, they may then question what other objects cause pain, from walking on. If they are aware that the resulting effect of pain is caused by the interaction of their feet and sharp rocks, then they might be aware of the potential that there are factors other than sharp rocks, which might cause the same result of interaction. Being aware of cause and effect, allows the ability to question what other causes or effects there might be.

Concepts are a relevant part of being aware of cause and effect, since a concept is basically cause and effect with generalized factors, which can be specified if the cause and effect are understood (as I further questioned, in a post from about 1 yr ago; Carry the Concept). Questioning is basically the ability to understand and “carry” a concept. Once a concept is understood in the cause and effect of its variables, it can be carried to alternate factors, and the effect caused by differing factors can be questioned. 

For eg, If the concept of an individual having a name, is understood, then they can carry that concept, to question someone else's name. They are aware that there is information (a name) which they dont have, because they are aware of the concept (people having a name), and question the result (name of which to refer a person) of that concept, if the concept is carried to a differing factor (person).

Conscious awareness of cause and effect seems to be the main requirement to be aware of additional information, in order to have the capability of questioning. It seems that the more information which is known, and the more concepts that are known of cause and effect, the more potential there is for questioning. Awareness of complex interactions of cause and effect, can cause effects of pursuing information of additional complex interactions, such as; Questioning Questioning.

Complete the Concept

How important is the ability to complete a concept?

Understanding and utilizing concepts seems quite relevant and important regarding the function of intellect, as I further explained in a post from 1 yr ago; Carry the Concept. Since the ability to understand a concept and “carry” it, based on its relevant cause and effect, for use in other areas of life, seems useful, how does this compare to completing a concept? By “completing” a concept, I mean being able to specify factors which would be applicable, relative to the function of the concept. 

A concept is basically a generalized idea. Typically the idea will have an intended function of cause and effect, but 1 or more of the variables involved in causing the effect, are unspecified. Completing a concept is the idea of specifying a factor to fit unspecified variables. In order to determine a factor which is applicable for an open variable within a concept, the intended cause and effect of the concept must be understood. Once the cause and effect are understood, a factor can be specified which effectively causes the designated resulting effect. 

An example of the concept of; completing the concept, would be problem solving. Problem solving has a problem, in the form of an unanswered variable or result to interaction between factors, which needs to be solved, by specifying a factor which causes the correct result, or is the correct result. The correct factor to complete a variable, is determined by understanding how that factor needs to interact with another factor, in order to cause the appropriate result. Or the correct factor to complete the result, is determined by understanding the effect of the interaction of the known factors.

Simple algebra is a basic example; 1+X=4, where X is the variable of the problem or concept, which needs to be specified, in order to cause the intended result of 4. To determine which factor will work effectively as X, to cause that result, the interaction must be understood between X and the other factor of 1. Once the interaction between those factors is understood, the solution (of 3) to the problem, can be completed for the concept. A more practical example of problem solving might be; preventing flooding of a garden. The problem is that the garden floods too much when it rains. The preferred result is a dryer garden, 1 factor involved is the garden, and the variable which should be specified in order to complete the concept, is the flow rate of water coming into the garden. If the concept is understood that the flow rate of water (variable), should be specified to a certain factor, in order to interact with the garden (known factor), to cause the effect of a dryer garden (result), then just like in algebra, that variable can be determined to complete the solution.

Problem solving is basically the epitome of progression and advancement for humanity. Any time something is not resulting in the most preferable way, the concept of the more preferable result, can be completed with a factor, which interacts effectively to produce the preferred result. 

Another example of completing a concept, would be; examples. Determining a specific example to demonstrate a function, is the process of understanding which factors can complete the variables, in order to cause the correct interaction of variables, and the correct result within the context of the concept. As ironic as it seems, an example is a good example of the concept of completing a concept. To specify factors which would produce the concept of “completing the concept”, I needed to understand the interaction of the variables (which would be variables needing to be completed). Since an example is the process of completing variables with factors which portray a concept, that effectively completes the concept of completing the concept. 

As it seems with that example of an example, concepts, as well as potential factors to complete those concepts, can be quite vague. There is a range of specificity for concepts, and that which will meet the requirements of a concept. Problem solving is more on the specific end of the spectrum, while philosophy might be on the more generalized end. If there is a concept with very generalized requirements to cause the result, then the factors to complete the concept can be fairly generalized in themselves. This allows adaptability of potential factors to complete the concept, yet that which will still cause the same result and function. 

Perhaps the concept of completing the concept, is significant enough, that to complete it, would mean completing the capability to complete any more concepts, which happen to fit the category of a concept which requires completion.