Driven By The Environment Page

Summary: Cognition has been described as an onLoad/offLoad work dynamic between self and world. According to the Extended Mind Hypothesis, (Clark, Chalmers, 1998),  the mind extends its cognitive resources by coupling with external entities (e.g., tools) that are then offPut and onSet to where they do not tax the mind and can be retrieved again. For example, language provides cognitive resources that offPut from mind and onSet to notebook. We may also consider mental resources that reassign from conscious to unconscious states as having a similar onLoad/offLoad kind of play.

The Quadranym Model of Word-Sensibility (Q): An Ecological Systems Perspective On Word-Level-Concepts & Contextual Unitizations – Non-Mental-Representation Representation Design Before Define Approach.

Rough Draft (WIP)

Consider, when a musician is no longer thinking of each note or a dancer is no longer thinking of each step, or when a driver is no longer thinking about the pedals and the steering wheel; active unattended senses provide for new level of focus on attended levels. The dynamic has obvious associations to what most would call muscle memory. In our view, this general idea is connatural with, present to hand (Heidegger, 1927), affordances (Gibson, 1972), affordances are relations (Chemero 2009), and unconscious prediction actions (Clark, 2016). We also suggest that the mind will reassign content to be frugal with time and energy.

The general idea is that mental resources offPut from attended sense (the cognitive system’s focus on environmental conditions) and onSet to unattended sense (a less taxing utilization of resources). Unattended state resources play a general and less conscious role that enables new levels of focus – that changes the environment that changes system activities in a continuous reciprocal causation. In our model, the attended/unattended sense concept underlies a schema that we will refer to as, Meta-Dimensional Roles.

Q system analysis maps connections between content and Meta-Dimensional Roles (M-roles). M-roles are basic templates to expedite inference operations and act like unattended or pre-reflective responsive units.

M-roles examples.

  • Coherent Actual → Condition Potential = Coherent Bias(x)

Coherent Bias(x).

  1. [Coherent(self) ⊇ Conditional(world)](x)
  2. [Inclusive(actual) ⊇ Exclusive(potential)](x)
  3. [Potential(inclusive) ⊇ Actual(exclusive)](x)
  4. [Active(function) ⊇ Passive(structure)](x)
  5. [General(coherent) ⊇ Particular(conditional)](x)
  6. [Possible(attitude) ⊇ Necessary(object)](x)

Meta-Dimensional Roles follow the Q axiom:

The Q Categorical Axiom:

  1. State: actual ⊇ potential
  2. Mode: potential ⊇ actual

The goal of Meta-Dimensional Roles is to supplement naive semantic framework type schemata (Dahlgren, 1988). Basically, naive semantics are a way to represent common sense assertions about the world. We propose Meta-dimensional Roles as a way to identify and reassign unattended/attended content of a naive semantic framework. The importance for a specific method of representation of unattended/attended conceptual sense relates to how humans rely on pre-reflective senses to cope with given conditions. Coping, we suggest, is quietly persistent in the human intentionality experience and will be an active factor in attended and unattended relationships between content.

The primary focus is on a way to identify responsive units to relate  a lexical expression to a situation. As already introduced, this is done with a construct that we call the quadranym.

Quadranym Basic Templates:

  • (∀x) Q axiom(x) → [Potential(actual) ⊇ actual(potential)](x)
  • (∀x) Prime Q(x) → [Expansive(subjective) ⊇ Reductive(objective)](x)

The Q system positions meta-roles to content. Meta-roles represent unattended dynamics. The method is best fit.

For example, say two are camping and one says, “Where can I wash my clothes?” and the other answers, ” the stream is over there”. In this case, the question of water is an unattended coherent factor because water does not need to be addressed in the question. It can be illustrated in a script: The second frame holds the coherent sense of water that is directed to its environmental condition. Any Q-unit is either a frame of a script or a generalization of a script.

Below, water changes from a conditional reference to a coherent sense.

[Coherent = wash → Condition = water][Coherent = water → condition = stream]

To wash is to find water and scrub the soil from the clothing. The answer is the attended conditional factor as water needs to be declared, in other words, where is water to be found? In this environment it is declared as the stream. As a unit, wash experientially acts as a coherent sense of water.  Water then becomes the unattended subject of wash requiring wash to have its own conditional sense. So, as in the example, the predicate and subject assertion Water(wash) might unitize such that, water becomes a conditional subset potential of wash, an object of its objective field.

Unit:[Coherent Bias = Wash ⊇ Condition potential = water]

This process initializes at unattended layers of Q-units. The first layer is very generic and begins a dynamic process on different layers to constrain the best unit for the situation, and from there build a script.

  1. (∀x) Axiom(x)……… → [Potential(actual) ⊇ Actual(potential)](x)
  2. (∀x) Topic(x) → [Expansive(subjective) ⊇ Reductive(objective)](x)
  3. (∀x) Procedure(x) → [Active(function) ⊇ Passive(structure)](x)
  4. (∀x) Wash(x)……… → [Clean(solvent) ⊇ Dirty(item)](x)
  5. (∀x) Wash(x)……… → [Clean(water) ⊇ Scrub(item)](x)

Layers in this system are called polynyms. Polynyms are the names given to layers. Essentially they are a strategy to run layers of scripts simultaneously until a goal is accomplished. In layer 4., wash is first predicated on the action and measure between clean & dirty. The coherent function is a solvent, water acts like a solvent. The condition is to scrub the dirt with water solvent until some item is cleaned. Notice how in layer 5., the action of clean becomes the measure of scrub.

Each layer represents a sensible standpoint. The human ability to reassign content as sensible standpoints is a unique experience for every person. A sensible standpoint does not need to be objectively possessed by another to find a similar sensibility, instead the goal is to obtain a sensible standpoint of another by reassigning one’s own system in an attempt to reach a similar judgment. It is a recursive procedure that includes words and topics constrained by a shared innate relational system. The Q represents the smallest unit in the system able to be attended, here the goal is to initialize and attend the proper reflective unit. Units are driven by the environment. Generally, what is being attended is a coherent sense focused on a particular situation in an environment.

The environmental situation is camping:

  • coherent-sense-wash ⊇ conditional-sense-water

Above, a cluster of words surround wash in the superset, the environment dictates witch words belong to the conditional subset. The unattended sense of water is now an attended sense of wash. Water is simply part of the environment and need not be attended to until it becomes a conditional sense. Water is a natural kind and has any number of unattended condition potential perspectives. The goal is to reassign content pertinent to a condition or to offer a new approach to the condition.  Unattended content  is what we call, Naive Standpoints. As already addressed in the previous post, a naive standpoint is intentional and seeks an objective field to engage a potential matter. If engaged in an impressionable matter we will call this, Content Coupling, for instance, if content wash is to couple with content water.

  • actual-wash → potential-water

Water is simply a potential conditional sense of the coherent sense wash. The coherent sense is satisfied through the conditional interaction with the environment.

People acquire different ways to aptly form and share their unique responsive and sensible judgments about the world. Obviously machines lack the senses of humans and therefor the acquisition ability of humans to even have sensible judgements. Although there is progress, it is also worth mentioning that there are numerous unanswered questions regarding human management of actual mental content. And for machine learning common sense acquisition efforts generally face many technical issues. Here too there is some progress but most agree that classifying and inferencing common sense content still remains problematic. “No question has vexed the human sciences more than – what are the rules encoded in a TYPE like?” (Jackendoff, 1988). Our general approach to this problem shares the naïve semantic view that classification is primarily an interpretive perceptual process of naïve realism (Gibson, 1972). As in our example above, water is that clear liquid stuff that runs in streams, we wash with, play with and drink. We add that what we classify or not, as an interpretation, depends on unattended ⇒ attended dynamics. Resources become coupled, this means that systematic processes engage unattended state content so to take aim at attended state content in an effort to cope with conditions that are occurring.

Individual words are resources to the Q system, resources to help decode an agents dynamical interaction with its environment – not in the compositional sense but in the ontological sense.  In application, the Q system can be used to help frame the word-sensibility ontology that emerges through the interactions that occur in agents/environment simulations. For instance, if a small society of people lived on an island that sustains them with coconuts and fishing then the basic procedures involved in these food gathering actions should help frame their word-sensibility dynamics. General knowledge is then communicated by repurposing the procedural or interactive dynamics with the island environment and each other. This is enabled because the initial situational content that creates the dynamical system scripts can become in a sense stripped away, and what is left is only the dynamical scripts and frameworks that can be repurposed to new situations. These interactions are represented in Q-units, scripts and hierarchical layers. Theoretically, word-sensibility normalizes dynamic content for different interactions, environments and relationships.

We might think of word-sensibility as a intrinsic interactive experience that happens right before a skillful response is made. At this initial point, it might be generally described as, a pre-reflective sense perception of generic unattended interactivity that becomes an attended sense. Theoretically, this is a dynamic sense individually felt to facilitate an immanent exchange with others to orient focus or viewpoints.

  • When a child asks, “what is that?” unattended interactivity becomes attended interactivity for both child and parent. We call this…

The Principle Of The Orientation Of Interactivity

The Coherent Bias:

Sensibility is a hypothetical construct. It forms the coherent bias . The coherent bias may pertain to deeper questions involving normativity. We suggest that these are questions that require more interdisciplinary research across the board. We offer no real definition. For now, we can only offer a description, the coherent bias is the fundamental attribute of the system to which it represents orientational units  for ocurrent responses at any contextual timeline on any hierarchical level. It might be best attributed to that which affects the normative expressions of the system.

  • Coherent sense is never a global phenomenon, it is always a local one.

Summary: Q-units represent four recursive dimensions that dynamically bind terms together. The predicate dimensions represent from action to measure. The subject dimensions represent from being to becoming. Q analysis optimizes these dimensions for any term or topic. This is done to help provide the initial orientations for concepts.

Theoretically, responsiveness is quietly perceived as a nominal dynamic able to be individuated as a resource. By emphasizing this dynamic one can better interpret the positions taken toward a referent/symbol. The Q-unit is an attempt to intervene philosophically with the notion of the responsiveness to things and not the things.

  • The Q is a phenomenological look at the responsiveness of concepts.

On this site we aim to show how various metaphysical notions systematically apply to the Q-unit, such as, part-whole, plurality-unity, being-becoming, time and space.

  • The different ways a coherent bias might resonate will refer its array of  naive standpoints. A naive standpoint is also a condition or place where new coherent biases can emerge.

(note: this might include repurposing urge and resolve cycles as pertaining to driven organismic survival tendencies, such as, hunger, procreation and nurturing. These cycles intrinsically drive individuals and are constrained by socially motivated repurposing tasks. Recurring conflicts between the individual’s cycles and societal cycles are natural challenges in the process.)

Final Thoughts: A typical objection to a Q commonsense ontology pertains to a lack of objectivity. Although a lack of objectivity may exist initially, the objectivity of a system depends on the ability reassign coherent and conditional roles to be more aligned with other discreet system in relation to the objective field. Commonsense is part idiosyncratic experiences and part conventional understandings. We think that both are essential factors for a dynamical systems approach to commonsense knowing. Each system is virtually driven to the objective field by environmental input. Different systems work together in relation to the objective field. Word-sensibility methods is about developing clear analytical approaches to coherent and conditional states of a system.

Dynamics decoupled from situations are retained in the forming of the coherent bias. The coherent bias is about sense making processes by which resources are meaningful based on the intrapersonal sense of interpersonal agency.

It is a dynamic system modules scalable across hierarchical structures of different domains. Some  modules do better than others, most simply settle on staying relevant to the basic dynamics of the schemata.

  • Topical interoperability is the ability to adopt or reject the topical orientations of other systems.


We use this statement, BY THIS I MEAN. It relates the extension function Contain to the set of intention arguments (e = out, r = in, o = full, s = empty).

Represented as: by_

For example

Container by_ [out, in, full, empty]

  1. Out is the function being described as having E attributes .
  2. Empty is the argument of that function. It has S attributes.

Out(empty) belongs to the superset hemisphere or the whole realm

  1. In is the function being described as having R attributes.
  2. full is the argument of that function. It has O attributes.

In(full) belongs to the subset hemisphere or a segment of the realm.


  1. E attributes: spatial factors, acting-in-space, active-potential mode
  2. S attributes: temporal center, being-in-time, active-actual state


  1. R attributes: location relation, spatial-measure, passive-actual mode
  2. O attributes: apt events, temporal-becoming, passive-potential state

The Quadranym Model of Word-Sensibility (Q): A Dynamical Systems Perspective On Word-Level Concepts & Contextual Unitizations – Non-Mental-Representation Representation Design Before Define Approach.

The Q is largely a meditation on Process Philosophy.