Threesology Research Journal: The Standard Cognitive Model Introduction 3
The Standard Cognitive Model
Introduction 3

Flag Counter
Progressive Thinkers as of 5/8/2020

FWT Homepage Translator

page 1 intro page 2 intro page 3 intro page 4a intro page 4b intro page 5 intro
page 1
page 1b page 1c page 1d page 1e page 2 page 3
page 4 page 5 page 6 page 7 page 8 page 9
page 10 page 11        

The Standard Cognitive Model

Pentadactyl limb comparisons

The idea of a "Standard Cognitive Model" may imply to some readers that there exists a form which effectively represents a "bare bones" approach to understanding the mental functioning of humans. While in some regards this is true, one must keep in mind that the scaffolding being used may also be dissected. The use of enumeration is one way of doing this. However, it should be noted that a "One- Two- Many" phrase describes how humans may gather, grasp, and relay their interpretations of different perceptions. There are those who prefer singularity in one form or another such as living a life focused on the idea of a singular god or the importance of a singular historical event or person, or recurringly focus all energies and efforts towards the singular task of making money. Their are multiple singularities different people may be immersed in. And then there are others whose lives are focused on some pattern-of-two, be it as a complement, compliment, parallel, series, or duality such as in the case of a yin and yang interest or yin or yin, as well as yin versus yang... though the idea of a two-part yin and yang never enters their mind. In any case, they are obsessed with a pattern-of-two such as in the case of watching a sport, speaking of politics, studying aspects of a research hypothesis, or some other "two" structural formula. Everyone else subserves to a "Many" or multiplicity perspective with various terms such as being an eclectic, being opened minded, enjoying a variety, having different friends from different races, liking all forms of music, movies, sports, etc...

This is not to say that a person doesn't intermittently move from one of these perspectives to another or even combines them, the point is that the "one- two- many" phrase encapsulate all life forms. However, there may be occasions where one equivocates in deciding where the "1" or "2" or "many" begins and ends. For some, their "one" may represent a multiplicity or a socially accepted duality. Indeed, where does one begin counting a "many" if they have only two number words? Hence, theirs would be a one-many pattern-of-two. In other instances, a pattern-of-two focus may be so dominant a daily exercise involving multiple dualities, dichotomies, opposites, polarities, parallels (side-by-sides), etc., their "one-two-many" structure is an all-in-one platform of orientation. Likewise, some may have multiple singular orientations or multiple perspectives, but this does not alter the existence of a one-two-many profile. They simply may view it as a limitation and therefore discard it as some sort of irrelevant consideration because they feel themselves not bound to such a structural paradigm.

If you are one who prefers to count the "many" such as counting all the bones in the hands and feet instead of referring to the collections as "many", there is need then to see how many and what kinds of other subject matter have similar counts. Comparatively, whereas we can count out large quantities since there is a supposed infinity of numbers, life forms are not making use of all the available counts possible. For example, let us say someone could count every single bird in the world on a given day and came up with the quantity of 3 billion. The task would then be to see how often this numerical pattern would show up elsewhere. How often does Nature repeat a usage of this same count? Would we leave the count as a separate item and leave other large numbers as separate issues as well, or would be choose to lump them together under a single label such as "many" because there are few large numbered items which exhibit the exact count?

Using the value of "three" has helped me identify information from lots of (many) different sources that I would most likely not have come across if I were not interested in such a general pattern which has applicable specificity in multiple cases. However, unless you see a collection of different ideas using a pattern-of-three, you will not actually grasp how frequently and valuable such a research tool can be. Likewise, the recognition of such a pattern may well be the impetus by which you train your observational interests towards developing a mental cataloguing system featuring some type of numerical or non-number based formula. While some readers may already do so, most likely it is of a general pastime and not one with a serious intention other than to collect the collections of others, such as in the case where I have come across those with an interest in the number 7 who simply compile the lists of 7-patterned examples made by others, though they may add one, two or more of their own to it.

While some people have played chess, checkers, cards and gambled, the fact that there are underlying patterns-of-three may not come to mind. For example, the origin of the lottery since the late nineteenth century had been developed by those who were said to be running a numbers racket involving the activity of choosing three numbers while placing a small bet (wager) and then waiting to see if the game's owners would randomly select their particular set-of-three. As for checkers and chess, a player can move a playing piece in one of three directions: Horizontally- Vertically- Diagonally. With playing cards we find the existence of three face cards. Similarly, Race horse track betting has Win- Place- Show alternatives, along with a Trifecta. And while you may say there are other patterns to all the games, this is true... but you may not pursue them as a research project which makes a comparison of the patterns to the information found in other subjects. Though I add that there are patterns-of-three to be found in the roulette wheel game, these may be seen while the presence of the "House" (metaphorically herein described as a ship owned by an investment company), the Game controller (described as a 'Captain') and the players (described as a crew), may be overlooked by some just as the trio of a Judge, Prosecutor and Defense attorneys do not come to mind as a recurring pattern-of-three theme. The social drama of the courtroom just like the social drama of any social event may hold more interest than looking at basic cognitive structural forms.

To claim there are other patterns is one thing, but to show the frequency and ubiquity of occurrence in multiple subjects is quite another. Apparently, when confronted by someone such as myself claiming the existence of a given pattern with a large provision of examples, there are those who react or respond by claiming other patterns exist, yet they do not provide multiple examples there of nor appreciate that they play a part in the deduction of a larger cognitive schematic exhibiting a conservation. It is particularly amusing to encounter someone who insists patterns-of-seven are so very important and then listen to their handful of examples; many of which involve either superstition or religion... even though I have encountered several in different categories such as the 7 colors of the rainbow. Typically, I am confronted by someone providing some personal encounter with a particular pattern such as 7, in that they may say they have seven pets, have seven cousins, have seven pairs of shoes, and other similar forms of personalized attributes.

Even mathematics, with its over-burdening reliance on dichotomization (add/subtract, multiply/divide, rational numbers/irrational numbers, etc...), and has a supposed limitless quantity of numbers to choose from, relies on a repeating three-patterned system for organizing ones-tens-hundreds and multiples thereof, by separating the groups-of-three with a point of demarcation called a comma. Similarly, though there are multiple metals humans may use to create coinage and medals, the Olympic games uses only three (gold- silver- bronze), and today's coinage metals are described as being gold- silver- copper.

There are various everyday items which are in groups-of-three or have three alternatives which are commonly overlooked or not known. For example, most countries rely one 3-phase electric service for commercial applications while homes get 1-phase. Two-phase electricity is not used. Both Two and Three phase electricity was once widely expressed as "Poly-phase", which in the present discussion is to be equated with the "many" label. While there are more than three phases available, they are not as serviceable (economical) as three-phase transmission. With respect to wall outlets (technically called a receptacle), there are three ways wires may be attached according to those manufactured for usage in the United States:

  1. Attached directly beneath screws on the side.
  2. Attached by inserting into a hole on the back of a receptacle... sometimes called speed wiring.
  3. Attached by being placed beneath a small washer-like piece of metal through which is a screw that... when tightened, secures the wire in place.

The fact that certain patterns such as patterns-of-three are used repeatedly, is a tell-tale indication that the human mind has an affinity for such patterns. Those trying to exploit others in the context of manipulating them for some purpose such as receiving a financial gain will most likely attempt to use a given pattern such as those involved in speech writing, script writing and writing that which attempts to get the interest of a large enough readership from whom will be received an income. In other words, they may not... on an individual basis... typically engage in the usage of a given pattern, but do so because they come across someone who convinces them that such a pattern may be a viably profitable tool. However, even if a person does not intentionally use a particular enumerated pattern or use a pattern in such a way that there is an underlying enumeration to be found for those who look closely; the fact that writers frequently adhere to the education taught structure of heading- body- ending and that sentences typically use one of the three ending punctuations (period- question mark- exclamation point), is enough proof that they are engaging in a particularly identifiable pattern of writing.

Assuming that a pattern-of-three is a dominant formula which humans are born with or at the very least are enabled to adopt as a survival mechanism just as DNA and RNA utilize a triple pattern and animals from earth worms to humans develop by way of three Germ layers while life forms entitle Diploblastic such as the Cnidaria, and Ctenophora grow from two germ layers and some researchers say that the animal called sponges is a candidate for those who grow from a single germ layer (even though others argue against this); this proclivity towards using a three-pattern might well account for the development of gun power with its three ingredients of Charcoal, Sulphur, and Potassium nitrate (also called salt peter). No doubt the presence of these three items nearby the vicinity of an ancient chemistry experimenter made the development possible. And it is of interest to note that although the Chinese had a dominant two-pattern orientation with the existence of the Yin/Yang idea, the usage of patterns-of-three (or the "three") was not obscured or dismissed as an irrelevancy.

Then again, if history repeats itself as do certain patterns of enumeration, then we should see repetitions of enumerations being exhibited by supposed repetitions of history. We also need to question whether a three theme of organization is merely being impose upon material or if such patterns actually exist due to the inherent structure. If humans have a survival proclivity to put information into certain patterns, then do humans actively eliminated or ignore information segments so as to qualify information as having a particular pattern? In other words, are humans actively "stacking the deck" or running a game of active observation which is fixed to exhibit one or another pattern? For example, is there actually a triplet code in DNA/RNA or do we only think there is because our present research techniques are useful in helping us to create the image of a given cognitive pattern? No less are we on the third planet; do atoms have three-part structures, and do most people hold a pen or pencil with three fingers?

I came across a quote by a commentator (Jeff Wells) of a youtube presentation entitled "When Maths Go Wrong" by Matt Parker stated as: "You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want as long as you're prepared to ignore enough data." Another commentator (camelCased) replied to Well's comment: "In my experience, it often goes like this. A good scientist says: "According to the data we have, this phenomenon can be explained so and so." Then journalists say: "Scientists have discovered this as so and so." And, finally, narrow-minded readers say: "Scientists says so and so, and everyone who thinks differently is a crackpot". Both of the comments have some application in the present discussion, though the question remains whether regardless of how much data we survey, if there is an inherent proclivity to organize or search for a given pattern, then we can be accused of stacking the truth deck. The second commentator used a pattern-of-three explanation.

There are no doubt billions of recurringly patterned expressions, activities and ideas taking place which can be reduced to enumeration which are not customarily subjected to with such an attribution. Simply put, we do not hear, see, smell, taste, feel or think in an established socialized number code. While many a conversation may involve numbers, such numbers are related to instances where numbers are being used as a form of measurement which others talk about, such as the number of a sports jersey belonging to a certain player, numbered jerseys which are retired as emblems of someone's perceived unusual contribution to a given sport, or numbers used as a statistical measure, or measure of wealth, or some needed quantity, distance, weight, height, etc... When it comes to money for example, the current orientation is in categorizing in terms of the three large denominations labeled as millions, billions, and trillions. Retail sales for example deal with ones, tens, and hundreds on a daily basis, with hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands for a given sales period. Larger companies of course have their own valuations of interested orientation that one might group into some recurring pattern of attainment and wished for attainment. While auditors and accountants keep tally on specifics, those specifics may or may not include an overall assessment oriented towards correlating the gains and losses in terms with the cognitive orientations being generated by a sales department. If this were done, a different formula of perception for interacting with buyers would no doubt entail a revamping of company strategy in a reinvestment of its business model with the needed flexibility to adopt the necessary adaptations for survival in a changing global business environment where particular diversifications can be a good or bad practice due to over-exposure creating unrealized vulnerabilities.

In every culture one may look at, there are routinized uses of given patterns which may or may not exhibit a visible form of enumeration. While many a cultural anthropologist have come to describe what they believe to be a dominant usage of a given number pattern within a given culture, they fail to catalogue all such research representation into a singular list and then make the assessment that all cultures typically use single digit orientations, with some using two-digit interests, others three, and still others may have some repertoire in which a one- two- many formula has some level of expressed usage such as in the case where large denominations of money in one culture are equal to much lower denominations in another culture. One might say that cultural anthropologists overlook a practice where a "many" orientation is in full bloom where the attributes of "much" or "a lot" or "lots of" might be appropriately used as referential substitutions.

There were times when I experienced recurring 3-knock patterns on doors, windows and walls, or at least these three items appeared to represent the sources where the sounds were being heard. On one occasion while typing, I heard a 3-tap noise coming from a nearby cabinet and thought to myself it was a friendly ghost saying hello. The sound reminded me of a ball bearing being dropped on a piece of wood. I amusingly spoke up and told the ghost to "do it again", which the sound reoccurred. I then stopped with a greater level of attention directed towards the cabinet and said "do it again", which the 3-part sound was heard a third time. Talk about feeling goose bumps! And though I asked for the sound to be repeated, it did not. I looked in the cabinet and found it to be empty except for a "bolder" size metal ball bearing. The "bolder" reference is meant to convey that it was the size of a large marble that as a child I would call a "bolder". Another non-typical event involving patterns-of-three occurred when I flipped a coin on three different occasions and found it landing on its side. On all three occasions the coins rolled and landed alongside some obstacle. Nonetheless, they landed on their side... which is the third option from front and back. And though I tried to actively make the coins repeat the event, no amount of active (intentional) trying to get the coins to land on their side resulted in the same experience. These coin experiences happened at different time periods, but because they were unusual and I am focused on "threes", I remembered them all and placed the account in a threes list I have compiled containing dreams and day to day occurrences, though the lists represent only a small fraction of the many multiple "threes" events I encounter. No doubt others have similar experiences with one or another patterns. One such person who is well-known for a particular paper they wrote is George A. Miller (1956) of Harvard University, entitled The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two (Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information). The following are his opening remarks:

My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer. For seven years this number has followed me around, has intruded in my most private data, and has assaulted me from the pages of our most public journals. This number assumes a variety of disguises, being sometimes a little larger and sometimes a little smaller than usual, but never changing so much as to be unrecognizable. The persistence with which this number plagues me is far more than a random accident. There is, to quote a famous senator, a design behind it, some pattern governing its appearances. Either there really is something unusual about the number or else I am suffering from delusions of persecution...

No doubt others have similar experiences but do not share their experiences publicly and some may think themselves experiencing a bit of madness whereby they engage in activities meant as an attempt to thwart the occurrence of some pattern, be it a number, letter (or words or phrases), a song, a symbol, a gesture, etc... Activities which dull the senses are sometimes used as a present day version of trephination to remove an evil spirit. If ordinary distractions don't work and one becomes overly obsessed with acknowledging the presence of a certain perception that appears to repeat itself uncontrollably like someone with a turrets syndrome, then a person may engage in some dramatic or drastic measure... unless they seek professional medical assistance who may or may not diagnose their condition as an OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder), because some repetition has become so acute as to interfere with daily activities. In the case of George Miller and his "sevens" obsession, he was able to incorporate his experiences into is work, resulting in a paper that has become widely read and sometimes labeled as a classic. However, the problem with his paper is that many (if not most) readers overlook that it is an expressed three-pattern report. In other words, the "seven plus or minus two" represents the serial equation of 5-7-9. It is a three-pattern ensemble which needs to be incorporated with the perceptions of those interested in basic cognitive patterning. Unfortunately, some readers are likewise obsessively oriented towards the "7" they have blinders on and can not deduce the expressed three-patterned formula, even though "chunks of three" are often cited as a reliable mnemonic tool.

The number seven does "plague" some people while others rejoice in its appearance, though neither of these groups may be inclined to create a list of examples from different subjects, much less come to analyze it in the context of other single, double, and triple digits (such as the three 7's used as an emblem for old slot machines). Whereas some think a given number is special or sacred, such references are likely more in tune with a socially regarded definition derived from some source in antiquity, without looking at the justification for such a claim. In other words, if a given number pattern is so important, then why doesn't it show up in all instances, such as life existing on the seventh planet instead of or in addition to the third planet? Why doesn't DNA/RNA have a seven code system? Why don't computers have seven alternative screen choices in the upper right corner instead of three? Why don't we have a seven code computing system instead of a binary one? Why doesn't electrical circuitry use a seven pattern instead of a two-patterned on/off? Clearly, different number patterns play a part in Nature, with some being used more often than others (according to human perception and organization), yet no one has yet come up with an explanatory rationale for the type and quantity of patterns in use. Whereas it may represent a Fibonacci-like sequencing, such a pattern has not been cited nor authenticated.

Similarly, why aren't patterns-of-three everywhere if it is so important? Is their some sort of hierarchy of numbers being used as well as a hierarchy of geometric figures such as the Line-Circle-Triangle series I have elsewhere spoken of? Why do some numbers stick out in human cultures and a similar patterning can be found in assessments of different natural events? Does Nature engage in a counting scheme as suggested by the Fibonacci sequence? Why then doesn't the sequence occur throughout nature in every respect? Does Nature engage in a developmental process where the one-two-three patterns occurs or a one-two-many or one-many process? If Nature adopts those patterns it is subjected to due to the pressures of a given environment, will we not then be able to pay witness to overt and subtle changes occurring with the ongoing planetary processes of degradation (incremental deterioration) that we might not other be able to pay witness to if we subscribe to the conventions of orientation described as weather patterns? No less, does our current orientations to watch the news and weather express a lingering type of social dispositions created in past eras such as worrying about the weather in regards to an ancient pastoral or crop tending orientation, if not when to take part in a raid or war? Are our obsessions with the present types of social media interests based on ancient practices that we continue to repeat along the same lines as an assumed repetition in history?

Unless we make an effort to catalog the presence of recurring cultural patterns of numbers associated with the same types of orientations, simply saying that one culture utilizes an interest in a given number or numbers does not provide a means to make an accurate one-for-one comparison. If a culture appears to use a pattern-of-four in particular social practices and observations, this may be appreciably different in the recurring number pattern usage in another culture. Simply saying they have a preoccupation with different numbers does not provide us with a measurement of how such numbers are being used within a given context. This is like claiming the number seven is a sacred number because theologians say it is and because those who came before them have written about it in a similar manner. We do not know why it is considered a sacred number nor how or when such a view came to be accepted, and whether or not it was due to some fact about a natural phenomena or merely based on superstition, confusion, illusion or some past person's preference because of a personal experience, and they used their occupation and communication skills to persuade others in accepting the same view. If one culture likes the number four aligned with a frequent orientation to determine what geographical area they are in and thus establish a means of pursuing a direction and yet another culture likes the number six for the same reason though they also reference up and down as well as four directions; and still another culture likes the number seven for the same idea except they include themselves as a point to be included in the system of coordinates all three cultures are using based on their cognitive exercises, should we not see the 4-6-7 orientations as an overall ensemble of human cognitive activity that is dominant to each of the views held separately?

The foregoing situation reminds me of the Gulliver's travels episode where Gulliver landed in the land of Lilliputians where a war was going to be raging due to a difference in perception about the same object which was an egg. One opinioned that the egg should be opened on the big end and the other claimed the little end was to be broken as the proper way for breaking open an egg. Gulliver's perspective of combining the two extremes and compromise to break open an egg in the middle was a suggestion invalidated by a long-standing obsession where a social philosophy had been embraced according to a given standard of thinking. Such is the case when an analysis is taken in different subjects where different labels may be used to describe similar events, making it difficult for some researchers to make useful comparisons between different perspectives based on vocabulary and a given writer's graphically displayed articulation skills. Hence, we need to document how a given pattern is being used in order to assign it as a dominant cultural pattern. Assuming an appearance of frequency is not proof. Nor is the usage of labeling such as claiming a certain number is sacred, evil, great, or some other attribute used to express a distinction of one's ego aligned with a given number, like some sports fans do by wearing a similarly looking jersey formally worn as an identification number for a given sports figure. Researchers are not immune from engaging in favoritism and subtle efforts to promote a given pattern to justify the effort and energy expended on such a orientation.

Sometimes one may find a pattern consistent with a given research area and then find its absence in other areas. Do we consider it a basic pattern in the given era but it is not a universal-level of a given pattern since it is remarkably absent in multiple other areas of research? Hence, we have isolated universals (singularities), comparative universals in a few areas, and yet those which are multi- or "many" present in multiple areas. It is astonishing how one might refer to such existences as representative biological instances of development in different environments. Imagine, patterns which can be viewed as life forms having adapted or been adapted by humans cognitive orientations to "live" in a given niche, because such a pattern(s) is what humans become focused on as being relevant to human interests, and yet may actually be negligible when a larger perspective of multiple "life forms" and their "habitats" (subject areas) are examined. For example, because patterns of three and two are found widespread in multiple subject areas, is this due to the subject matter or simply human cognition using these patterns due to some cult-like consciousness of adoption? And it matters not if millions or billions of humans rely on the same pattern(s) since all of humanity is its own cult in many respects. If we were to encounter a civilization with trillions or more inhabitants, then a civilization such as humanity with a mere 8 billion or so inhabitants could easily be assigned a "cult" group..., that is if we are to use quantity alone as a measuring tool.

Date of (series) Origination: Saturday, March, 14th, 2020... AM
Date of Origination (this page): Sunay, 6th March, 2022... 6:19 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this page): Wednesday, 16th March, 2022... 2:19 PM