| --- |
| title: "House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12) (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012959)" |
| source: "House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12)" |
| sourceUrl: "https://www.justice.gov/epstein" |
| date: "2026-01-01" |
| category: "House Oversight" |
| eftaNumber: "HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012959" |
| ocrPages: 1 |
| ocrChars: 3170 |
| ocrElapsed: 0.0 |
| parseTier: "external-legacy" |
| engine: "engine undisclosed (ep-nov-12.greg.technology mirror)" |
| externalSource: "greg-ep-nov-12" |
| externalLicense: "not granted" |
| externalCredit: "ep-nov-12.greg.technology" |
| externalUrl: "https://ep-nov-12.greg.technology" |
| --- |
| |
| 3.4 The General Structure of Cognitive Dynamics: Analysis and Synthesis |
| 43 |
| metaphor Kampis uses is that of Lego blocks, combining to form bigger Lego structures. Com- |
| pound structures may in turn be combined together to form yet bigger compound structures. |
| A self-generating system is basically the same concept as a component-system, but understood |
| to be computable, whereas Kampis claims that component-systems are uncomputable. |
| Next, in SGS theory there is also a notion of reduction (not present in the Lego metaphor): |
| lead to the elimination of some of the components. One relevant metaphor here is chemistry. |
| ponent fI, both components are eliminated. Thus, we may think about two stages in the |
| interaction of sets of components: combination, and reduction. Reduction may be thought of |
| as algebraic simplification, governed by a set of rules that apply to a newly created compound |
| component, based on the components that are assembled within it. |
| Formally, suppose C1, C2, ... is the set of components present in a discrete-time component- |
| system at time t. Then, the components present at time t+1 are a subset of the set of components |
| of the form |
| Reduce (Join (C¿(1), .., Ci(r))) |
| where Join is a joining operation, and Reduce is a reduction operator. The joining operation |
| is assumed to map tuples of components into components, and the reduction operator is assumed |
| to map the space of components into itself. Of course, the specific nature of a component system |
| is totally dependent on the particular definitions of the reduction and joining operators; in |
| following chapters we will specify these for the CogPrime system, but for the purpose of the |
| broader theoretical discussion in this section they may be left general. |
| What is called the "cognitive equation" in Chaotic Logic [Goe94] is the case of a SGS where |
| the patterns in the system at time t have a tendency to correspond to components of the system |
| at future times t + s. So, part of the action of the system is to transform implicit knowledge |
| (patterns among system components) into explicit knowledge (specific system components). We |
| will see one version of this phenomenon in Chapter 14 where we model implicit knowledge using |
| mathematical structures called "derived hypergraphs"; and we will also later review several ways |
| in which CogPrime's dynamics explicitly encourage cognitive-equation type dynamics, e.g.: |
| • inference, which takes conclusions implicit in the combination of logical relationships, and |
| makes them implicit by deriving new logical relationships from them |
| • map formation, which takes concepts that have often been active together, and creates new |
| concepts grouping them |
| • association learning, which creates links representing patterns of association between entities |
| • probabilistic procedure learning, which creates new models embodying patterns regarding |
| which procedures tend to perform well according to particular fitness functions |
| 3.4.2 Analysis and Synthesis |
| Now we move on to the main point of this section: the argument that all or nearly all focused |
| cognitive processes are expressible using two general process-schemata we call synthesis and |
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012959 |
|
|
