Paragraph Headings

The 10-minute Rule, not Theory

What explanation does cognitive science provide?

What does Living Algorithm mathematics reveal?

Experimental Results: 10-minutes of attention for new material.

Solution: A Sequence of related, but unique, 10-minute Modules

Salient Features of 10-minute Rule

10-minute Rule & the Pulse of Attention correspondence: 'Stubborn Timing Pattern' & Pulse

Correspondence: Consecutive 10-minute modules & Consecutive Pulses

Triple Pulse mathematics mirrors the pulse-like nature of human behavior.

Our 10-minute rule discussion provides further validation of this correspondence.

Could the Triple Pulse reflect a Modality Shift, as well as an On-Off cycle?

Can Shifting Modalities have the same benefit as Sleep?

Could Shifting Mental Gears refresh our cognitive abilities?

Triple Pulse Form remains the same despite different number pairs.

Similarly, Elliptical Form remains the same despite different number pairs.

Each Number Pair could represent 2 Different Activities.

Triple Pulse mathematics could symbolize a shift in Modalities.

An Essence of the Pulse-like Relationship is Refreshment.

Shifting Modalities to refresh Attention

10-minute Rule as Evidence

Institutionalized Customs as Evidence

Triple Pulse Refreshment applies to activity to rest and activity to activity.

What does the Living Algorithm System say about a building lecture?

Allegory Link

Cognitive Science's 10-minute rule & Dr. Medina's ‘core concepts’ approach

Triple Pulse syncs up with 10-minute rule & Shifting Core Concepts

Generalized to Shifting Modalities to capture Attention

Segmentation of an Experience, in some cases, builds to a Climax.

Alternating number strings refreshes the Triple Pulse just as shifting modalities refreshes attention.

The Core Concept Data Stream

Each number string: 120 data bits long

Graph A: Core Concept Data Stream: Living Average & Data

The Core Concept's Living Average models the core concept process.

Summary of relationship between the Core Concept Model and Core Concept Approach

What is the difference in the two approaches?

Continuous Rise Data Stream

Each data stream: 360 data bits long & same quantity of information

Graph B: Living Average of Continuous Data Stream

Continuous Rise Living Average models Continuous Approach Lecture.

Graph C: the Higher Derivatives of the Core Concept Data Stream

Graph D: the Higher Derivatives of the Continuous Rise Data Stream

Continuous Conscious Attention of Continuous Approach

Sleep-related studies associate Directional, the 2nd derivative, with Conscious Attention.

Conscious Attention – Core Concept: Pulse-like vs. Continuous Approach: Continuous

Wouldn't Continuous Conscious Attention be more effective than Pulsing Attention?

Graphs E & F: A Comparison of the Liminals

Graph E: Continuous Approach Liminals scrawny

Graph F: Core Concept Liminals vibrant

Continuous Approach inhibits the Subconscious Digestion of Information

Core Concept Approach augments the Subconscious Digestion of Information

Continuous Presentation of Facts effective if we learn like a computer

Liminals in Continuous Approach: Lights On. Nobody Home

Core Concept Approach: All Data Stream Derivatives operating at full capacity

Core Concept Approach engages complete range of mental faculties

Medina's Core Concept Lecture method as supporting evidence

Core Concept Strategy embedded in our culture.

Continuous Strategy rare in our daily lives

Pulses of Concentrated Information easier to digest than Continuous Information Flow

Core Concept syncs w/pulsing Attention span: Continuous Approach w/mind fuzz

What purpose does the Rest Pulse have, if an Active Pulse is refreshing?

Euclid's Elements epitomizes the axiomatic-deductive method.

The Axiomatic-Deductive Method

For 2 millennia, Euclid's Postulates were believed to be inherently True.

For centuries, leading Mathematicians attempted to prove the Parallel Postulate.

Non-Euclidean Geometry based upon a Different Parallel Lines Postulate

Lobachevsky's geometry challenges the current mindset, that Euclid is innately true.

Truth derived from Postulates/Assumptions, not innate.

Euclidean & Non-Euclidean Geometry apply to different features of Reality.

Non-Euclidean Geometry applicable to Jet travel and the Curved Space-Time Continuum

New Question: Which conceptual model provides the best fit for the math/data synergy?

Newton, Einstein & Feynman forced into bizarre assumptions to make sense of mathematical/empirical connection.

Forced to make radical assumptions to make sense of Living Algorithm's correspondence with Empirical Reality.

A Comparison of Matter Model Assumptions with Information Model Assumptions

Models are Conceptual Attempts to make sense of Correspondences between Mathematical System and Empirical Reality.

1>6: Molecular Matter, Cellular Life, Information-digesting Life & the Living Algorithm's Data Stream Dynamics

Nearly Universal belief in Postulates 1 & 2: Matter & Living Matter exist.

Materialist Mindset: Living Matter is a subset of Matter.

Materialist Mindset: Living Matter processes Information like a Computer.

Postulate 4: Living Matter digests information; Matter does not.

Postulate 5: The Intersection of Matter & Information is Life's field of action.

Postulate 6: Living Matter digests Information via the Living Algorithm.

Matter & Information Models share common assumptions (Postulates 1>3).

Matter & Information Models diverge on Postulates 4>6.

Diagram: Field of Action - Matter Model vs. Information Model

Matter Model unable to address significant features of Human Behavior

The Math/Data synergy forces certain assumptions.

How did the Math/Data synergy 'force' the Assumptions behind the Information Model

Immaterial Postulate based in Matter Model's lack explanatory potency regarding human behavior.

Monograph #1: A Data/Math synergy exists between Living Algorithm & Experimental Findings

Monograph #2: the Living Algorithm, the only plausible candidate for Mathematics of Living Systems

Monograph #3: Living Algorithm's Data Stream Dynamics provides plausible causal mechanism behind Math/Data synergy

Interlocking redundancy of 3 unique methods of investigation 'forces' postulates 5 & 6.

If Life employs the Living Algorithm, then Life must be subject to Data Stream Dynamics.

Prediction: Data Stream Dynamics should influence Living Behavior

Explanatory Power of Living Algorithm's Information system 'forces' our assumptions.

Postulate Refinement is the essence of scientific progress.

Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Feynman all propose counter-intuitive assumptions.

Link

Disclaimer: Just Speculation about 'Why'

Counter-intuitive: Senses create desires that catalyze innate drives

Common Sense: Innate Drives such as Hunger are Internal

Most Sexual rituals attractive

Bee/Flower relationship attractive

Human sexual encounters based upon solely ‘innate’ drive are illegal, as rape

Buddhism, Yoga, & Catholicism have institutions to control or deny sense-based desires

Digested Sensory input needs Attention and Data Processor to provide meaning

Knowledge of Data Stream’s features required to predict best direction for success

Dropping below Threshold triggers Internal Drives

Mathematical averaging needed to calculate critical Threshold

Data Streams’ Mathematical Features linked with Emotions

Links