Threesology Research Journal: The Standard Cognitive Model page 28
The Standard Cognitive Model
page 28



Flag Counter
Progressive Thinkers as of 5/8/2020


page 1:

(Most current, otherwise sequentiality is to be
interpreted from the last page to the first.)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35    
Old numbering system
(Hence, oldest writings)
1b 1c 1d 1e

While number biases can occur in any profession, the point is that we are overlooking the repetition of a cognitive limitation (and let us include exploration) which appears to be linked to our survivability of a species under environmental conditions which are changing in the direction of a decadence which we can not only plot on a long-term graph, but perhaps anticipate which cognitive will become more dominant as environmental conditions deteriorate.

Here are some references to cognitive limitation:

Cognition has a severely limited capacity: Adult humans can retain only about four items “in mind”. This limitation is fundamental to human brain function: Individual capacity is highly correlated with intelligence measures and capacity is reduced in neuropsychiatric diseases. Although human capacity limitations are well studied, their mechanisms have not been investigated at the single-neuron level. Simultaneous recordings from monkey parietal and frontal cortex revealed that visual capacity limitations occurred immediately upon stimulus encoding and in a bottom-up manner. Capacity limitations were found to reflect a dual model of working memory. The left and right halves of visual space had independent capacities and thus are discrete resources. However, within each hemifield, neural information about successfully remembered objects was reduced by adding further objects, indicating that resources are shared. Together, these results suggest visual capacity limitation is due to discrete, slot-like, resources, each containing limited pools of neural information that can be divided among objects. (Neural substrates of cognitive capacity limitations by Timothy J. Buschman, Markus Siegel, Jefferson E. Roy, and Earl K. Miller)


Working Memory: Eight Core Cognitive Capacities ("Eight" expresses a limitation)

  1. Sustained Attention
  2. Response Inhibition
  3. Speed of Information Processing
  4. Cognitive Flexibility
  5. Multiple Simultaneous Attention
  6. Working Memory
  7. Category Formation
  8. Pattern Recognition


  • Cognitive bottlenecks: the inherent limits of the thinking mind by Anne-Laure Le Cunff
  • Cognitive Limits Mess up Decisions Based on Chance
  • Cognitive Load, three types:
    1. intrinsic cognitive load is the effort associated with a specific topic;
    2. extraneous cognitive load refers to the way information or tasks are presented to a learner;
    3. germane cognitive load refers to the work put into creating a permanent store of knowledge (a schema).
  • Increases in Cognitive Activity (Reduce Aging-Related Declines in Executive Functioning), by Mirjam Stieger and Margie E. Lachman
  • Dealing with the Limits on Human Perception, Attention, & Cognition (part 1), Part 2; (In understanding these limits from a learning standpoint, humans have limits in three key areas:)
    1. Perception: Is the person aware of something?
    2. Attention: Is the person willing to pay attention to something?
    3. Cognition: Does the person retain and use information related to something?
  • The Social Cognitive Theory posits that learning occurs in a social context with a dynamic and reciprocal interaction of three participants: person, environment, and behavior; and that These past experiences exhibits 3 influences: reinforcements, expectations, and expectancies.
  • (Cognitive ability is related to an understanding of Memory. Here is one such article on memory:) Science on Learning: The Limits of Memory by Kevin S. Krahenbuhl, Sept. 14th, 2018: Our mind has three primary elements: sensory memory, working memory, and long-term memory.
  • The Limits of Language by Prakash Mondal (HOB: I view this article's contents as representing 3 separate orientated considerations (not fully explored by the author) presented as a singular idea.)
    1. Thought Influences Can Be Set by the Constraints of Embodiment
    2. Language Altering Brain Wiring and Language Altering Profiles of Reality
    3. Language and Cognitive Reality>/li>

To me, language can have a separate reality from cognition if we view cognition in terms of the three Freudian described levels of consciousness: Unconsciousness, Pre-consciousness, Consciousness, of which Freud also described 3 structures of the mind as the Id, Ego, Super-ego, which to me necessarily suggests we are working with a sizing paradigm (small- medium- large; short- average- tall), or speed paradigm (slow, medium, fast), or some other three-patterned configuration that one might well apply to all three types of consciousness, including the expansion of the idea described as a person having an "Old Soul", thus meaning there are those with a young soul and others with an ancient soul, though some imaginative thinkers may want to embody each with variations, over-lappings/transitional stages and mixtures as well.

However, such a consideration means that some language may be connected to brain activity like a reflex, but not necessarily used to exhibit thinking/cognitive behavior. For example, if a muscle twitches it may or may not induce a memory, but that memory may not influence cognitive activity other than a momentary (short term) impression. The impression may be brain activity, but is it to be construed as cognitive activity? Is brain activity performed reflexively by way of repetition to be defined in terms of cognitive activity, thus describing any and all brain activity as human cognition? Another example is to describe the brain as a muscle that has been trained by repetition and may perform what looks like a complicated task, yet there is no accompanying thought or language... which we may call an unthinking mode of brain activity. Hence, one might argue a case for the existence of what might be described as independent (not necessarily separated) realities of Language and Cognition. For example, if we have a person with two heads that can think separately though connected to the same body, they are separate yet connected. The case of multiple personalities comes to mind. In any respect, we are speaking of limitations of overall cognitive and brain behavior.

And even though humans create fantastical beings with both or either a good and bad/evil disposition towards a person or all of humanity; if you look at all monsters, gods, creatures... or whatever label you prefer, you need to notice there is a limitation to their activities and body parts. While some creature may grow a new head if one is cut off such as in the case of the Hydra, they don't grow an infinity of some or all body parts. In the real world we have lizards who can replace a tail, or a worm that can replace even the severed half of its body or a snake that replaces its skin through a process called molting, or the axolotl which can repair or regenerate different body parts (and is being used by those trying to develop a means by which humans can regenerate a lost limb); in each case we see a limitation. We can not completely kill or destroy any living specie and bring it back to life, though some might think the use of seeds and tubers for plants is a close approximation.

We also have the case where people study animals to find the extend of an animal's counting ability. Yet, though many are amazed that some animals appear to be able to count, they don't also emphasize that the ability of animals to count is highly limited. Indeed, even those humans who use computers to assist them in their mathematical work do not describe their activity as being an expression of limitation. Nor do we describe that most humans are not particularly good at math is an expression of a species-wide limitation of number usage. While there are some who say that math instruction is the problem for so many people having a limited ability to use mathematics, they don't see it as an overall limitation... It is a CONSERVATION OF NUMBER we are looking at.

Take any profession, any interest, and you will see a conservation of number in place. Even if everyone was trained to be a Mathematician, they would very likely settle on an interest for a given discipline and that discipline would be engaged in a particular usage of only a few formulas and recurring patterns. Humans are very much a part of Nature and Nature itself only uses a few number patterns in a repetitious manner. Even if you claim the human body has 3 billion cells, this is a limitation. Does the Universe go on forever or does it have a distinct size, and therefore a distinct limitation? Why is the solar system limited to only a handful of planets? By the same token, why aren't cognitive scientists commenting on the limitation of cognitive patterns they are exposing? Why isn't the limitations of human mental activity being cited as an overall expression of limitation with a few repeating patterns? It is not that we forget history and therefore repeat it, it's that human cognition habitually repeats itself... if not in the same pattern, then some variation thereof, which is itself a limitation.

We don't have human females with an ability to bear 33 million kids. We don't see women giving birth to 101 kids at a single birthing moment, nor with an ability to give birth to some biblically created fairy tale demon. While deformed children were no doubt born in the past and the interpretation of such by illiterate and superstitious people manifested all sorts of articulated atrocities just like we see so very much stupidity being espoused in social media, the fact remains we are speaking of a small quantity, a small number of cases which become outlandishly expressed in gargantuan feats of gossip and story-telling... many born from fear, prejudice, ignorance, and other ulterior-motives (such as taking someone's property by getting them defined as a witch or assistant to some demon, or criminal, or insane), etc...

Not enough has been spoken of concerning the overall limitations humanity is engaged with, which is sometimes expressed by accumulations due to repetition, but even these (take for example in making money), have an express (but unexpressed) limitation. Just because someone is overwhelmed by viewing themselves as a millionaire, some people are overwhelmed by having much less. Yet, there are no gazillionaires. Not only are humans conservation-of-number minded (let me describe them as simple and small-minded), they flip-flop this interpretation as is needed to coincide with their ego and ability to imaginatively rationalize. No less do we find this limitation of pattern expressed by the limitation to which they are described by some (three-labeled) characterization familiarly written as "Omniscient- Omnipresent- Omnipotent". Nope, we don't have some supreme god being described with a million attributes. The human mind uses a process of abbreviation and condensation (otherwise called conservation), which provides for the accepted use of three labels to define such a god-figure. No matter what reason, what excuse may be offered to support one's conservation-of-number behavioral usage, the fact remains we humans are engaged in a type of cognitive behavior which can be described as a Conservation of Number.

Yet, it is not enough to state this without providing some representative reason for this. I believe that humans (let us say Nature) relies on a conservation of Number as a survival mechanism which may well change as the factors change as a result of deterioration in the environment. Indeed, even the recurring three-patterned exhibition of particles and behavior in atomic physics may change as the Universe undergoes change. While I have spoken of incremental (long term) environmental changes, some changes can take place moderately slow/fast (let us say medium-fast/medium-slow), or so quickly that human physiology either cannot adapt to or the adaptations make changes we of today might not be able to recognize the resulting creature as being human in the present day sense of the term.

All cognitive patterns being studied are an expressed limitation. All number patterns on the radar of Numerologists is an expressed limitation. All equations, all proofs, all axioms are expressions of practiced limitations. The word "infinity" used in the present day, is parallel to the word "many" (or much, heap, pile, etc...) used by primitive counters who used such a language-equivalent word to describe their limitation of thinking beyond the use of pairing... or the value of "2".

If I speak of a recurrence of the "three" pattern and you describe the presence of a "7" pattern exhibited by the color spectrum, or the "8" (octet) rule in chemistry, or the presence of dualities (dichotomies, opposites, patterns-of-two, bi-, di-, duo, etc...), or some other number pattern which you think has a high frequency or has some dominant position and role in human consciousness; all of them are expressed limitations and I suspect you have not actually taken the time to catalog examples side-by-side. Instead you have taken a memorized survey and expect everyone to agree with your assessment because of a believed-in reputation that allows you to forego providing any other evidence than a spoken belief, and you have followers who support you because they engage in the same sort of activity. And while there is an octet (8) rule in chemistry, we don't see the same in other subjects. It is an isolated event. Similarly, while the number "7" crops up here and there, it is not everywhere. For example there is neither a 7 or 7 coding system in DNA, nor do humans (presently) live on the 7th or 8th planet. And as for "twos", please note its recurring presence in accord with the "3" and that for all the claimed insightfulness which Mathematicians want to believe they collectively share, they overlook the very many dualities in Mathematics to which we must seriously look at Mathematics and view it as a Westernized mental expression of the two-patterned mental behavior seen in the Eastern-born Yin/Yang list of dualities.

When an Astronomer speaks of a Binary star system, they are giving you an account of a particular observation which may also represent the most prominently developed means of how they count their observations, such as by way of pairing. While they may use other words to describe some other numerical value, the use of a pairing system may be the most dominant they rely on. While Binary stars are most prominent, Trinary stars are not.


Examples of Binary and Trinary Star systems

Similar to the prominence of someone speaking of a Binomial Nomenclature used as the dominant system of naming in biology, where the use of a Trinomial Nomenclature is used below the classification of species.


Binary Taxonomy is the primary standard classification system

Neither of the foregoing two-patterned examples are argumentative contrasts to a "threes" perspective. They are complimentary assets to a larger, more comprehensive profile of human cognition over time. Patterns-of-two are very much a part of a threes perspective, just are all other numbers. There are not "sacred" numbers. More prevalent in some circumstances, yes... but not sacred. The human mind makes use of several different patterns which we label and identify as numbers, though numbers themselves may be little more than symbolic inferences of something more basic taking place. No matter which number is your favorite or preference, we can catalog them and create a list of examples... only to find that the overall quantity of numbers being routinely repeated are very few in quantity, despite having an infinity of numbers at our disposal.

At humanity's present (presumptive) "stage" of evolutionary development (adaptations to prevailing environmental pressures), our means of perception enable us to identify patterns which on many occasions we have attached numbers to. Some number patterns repeat in certain contexts, and in others these same numbers may be totally absent or only show themselves infrequently. And yes, a person can "read into" a given pattern which they desire to see and thus list as a confirmation that such a pattern has some larger meaning either due to frequency of occurrence of it presence in a context which is provided with a label viewed as being special, such as those who define a number as being sacred if it occurs repeatedly in a religious context. Yet, we do not know how many items must share this same numerical pattern or if it is based primarily on the insistence of a leadership few who make such a claim and have influenced such a definition.

If we place the value of a given number pattern by its frequency of occurrence in a given subject, then the presence of 2 and 3 in physics, biology and sociology substantiates such subjects as being more important than religion. Religious texts do not cover the multiplicity of subjects that may themselves not include a discussion of religion. Religious texts to me represent multiple genres of consideration similar to ideas found in novels, fairy tales, mythology, science fiction, history, pseudo-science, biology, astronomy, etc... but to a very limited degree in some cases. Nonetheless, references in religious texts however true or false, or half and half, still represent cognitive patterns being used and must be tabulated with other ideas which may otherwise be viewed an an unassailable truth, at least during the moment in time they appear.

As I will mention later, a person giving an account of a subject, is giving you a count... whether numbers are being presented or not. For example, someone's shopping list may have numerous items which are not themselves itemized, but may contain some internal quantitative references, or be a tool by which one remembers to purchase a certain quantity that may be determined by whether or not an item is on sell or being discounted. Accounts of a topic are systems of counting that may or may not utilize forms of measurement and labels found in the practice of mathematics. For example, we have a place value system in which ones-tens-hundreds are separated by a comma before another single, double or triple value is placed... and so on. While a person's idea may well represent the usage of a set-of-three which are interpreted to illustrate the value of "999", it is also an idea which does not incorporate the usage of some conjunction like a comma in order that a higher quantity of consideration can be taken into one account.

But a problem with this idea occurs when we start to think that some of our patterns actually represent a reality that would still exist even if humanity was not present to acknowledge it. For example, we humans claim we are on the 3rd planet from a source of solar energy and that there are three large particles to nuclear physics which we humans designate as Protons- Neutrons- Electrons. We also claim there are three basic forms of matter which can sometimes be expressed as transitory stages between one form and another, namely solids- liquids- gases. Those who recognize each of these examples as a pattern-of-three may want to conclude that Nature makes use of such a pattern and we should thus say that Nature too gives an account of itself in repeating patterns which some people assign a numerical value to. Hence, does Nature "think" or have a type of consciousness, or is it a deaf, dumb and blind mute that can only express itself with given patterns, some of which are repeated more frequently than others?


3 phases occurring in 1 matter

To put such an idea into a different perspective, let us say we encounter a primitive hominid who can Knapp out a triangular-shaped stone to be used as a club/hammer, spear or arrowhead, yet cannot explain the process, can not tell us where they got the idea from in any way we would describe as being intelligible; yet they can complete a task most of us might find to be arduous, boring, and destructive to our hands. Is Nature such a primitive creature that it can only express itself with basic patterns which crop up in different contexts in different ways, and varied by the use of human vocabulary used for a given subject?

Do the patterns we see occurring in Nature (numerically labeled or otherwise) actually exist, or are they merely artificializations used by humans because the human brain has latched onto certain patterns as a survival mechanism... meaning that as survival requirements change, so may the patterns which humans think they are perceiving? And yet, why have humans latched on to just a handful of patterns which are repetitiously used?

While oral traditions may have transferred certain number patterns such as in the case of threes in myths, fairytales and religion; surely this long-standing oral tradition did not influence the usage of such a pattern (enumerated or otherwise) to be used as a type of "guiding spirit" by those studying other... more serious subjects? How do we see past such an influence to acknowledge a truth that may be different, or is not different but there exists an inclination by some to question authority and tradition? Does knowing the truth matter in all cases, or is it more socially beneficial in a given era to simply go along with the illusions and delusions incorporated as a reality by a given culture? Hence, as societies on the planet move further away from the usage of religious ideology as a potent survival mechanism, will something else take its place because the human animal is accustomed to practice some socially accepted collective perspective... or we become like the biblical figure Lazarus who (for some reason was living in a cave away from communal support) and was thus considered to be (–metaphorically–) dead, thus due to the intervention of Jesus he was (–metaphorically–) brought back from the dead and enabled to rejoin his social group during a period of history where to be isolated from a [support] group often meant lack of survivability). One must put into perspective the day and age of long ago when many a people could be described as "walking on water" due to the illusion of walking on sand in a hot climate. There is no telling how much superstitious nonsense prevailed in a past era when the majority of a populace was illiterate, though even with the high literacy rates of today there are multiple superstitions still prevalent.

The so-called three wise men of Jesus' birth inferred as a quantity which has been anthropomorphized (attached with a human form) due to the mention of three gifts (Gold, Frankincense, Myrrh), though the actual quantity of Wiremen is not known. One must wonder why the value of "7" was not used since this value is often claimed as a sacred number. Indeed, why not seven gospels and seven horsemen of the Apocalypse? The reason for this may be due to a change in human mental processes, where the value "7" can be linked to more primitive views involving star gazing such as the seven stars of the Big Dipper (which, when viewed during the two solstices and two equinoxes traces out the old Swastika emblem... though this correlation remains oblivious to most people writing about the origin of the Swastika), and the seven stars of the Pleiades, alternatively called the seven sisters. In other words, the "7" value, just like its absence in multiple Fairy tales, describes an earlier mental formula of the human brain's processing, which can be seen (or at least inferred) in the primitive number sense of animals. Indeed, why don't we have more myths and fairytales which exhibit a recurring number such as seven (etc.), instead of three... or two... or a three-to-one ratio typically misidentified as a pattern-of-four? Why is the story of Jesus replete with patterns-of-three more-so than some other so-called sacred number? Why use the same predominant number in the life of Jesus as we find in multiple Mythological figures and fairytales... unless we are describing a cognitive change in humans. Let me emphasize that the number values changed from the Old Testament narrations to the New Testament narrations, which described a developmental change in the human brain. We see a similar change in the usage of one and two-patterned naming of people towards the usage of three names, the closer we come to the modern era.

When we encounter Robert Browning's The Pied Piper of Hamlin tale, we find that he used the literary device of "three" by claiming the Pied Piper used three notes. The poem was 303 lines in length and was published in 1842 in Dramatic Lyrics, part of the Bells and Pomegranates series. However, earlier accounts of the event (at least in the list being surveyed)do not describe any particular quantity of notes nor even describe a particular music instrument. Nor do such accounts provide accurate information as to how so many children could have been abducted without the help of adult confederates who may have profited from such an event, either directly or indirectly by parents not having to provide for them. Nonetheless, the point is that we can see at least on difference in how the tale was told with respect to an itemized quantity involving a behavior of the Piper other than the tallied accounts of how many children are thought to have been abducted. Hence, let us ask, is the use of the "three" primarily a literary device which can spill over into a vocal devise such as the 3-patterned "hook" (such as a word or phrase repeated three times) seen in popular songs and as well spilled over into the practices seen in sports such as the use of three medals in the Olympics, and the different triple events seen in horse racing, cycling and the quantity of people who can be individually awarded for a Nobel prize?

A hook is a musical idea, often a short a.) riff, b.) passage, or c.) phrase, that is used in popular music to make a song appealing and to "catch the ear of the listener".[1] The term generally applies to popular music, especially rock, R&B, hip hop, dance, and pop. In these genres, the hook is often found in, or consists of, the chorus. A hook can be either melodic or rhythmic, and often incorporates the main motif for a piece of music

There are many ways to write a hook (in music). However, the general approach includes a combination of:

  1. Lyrical hooks based on a catchy lyrical phrase or verse.
  2. Rhythmic hooks based on a repetitive beat or rhythm0
  3. Melodic hooks based on a memorable melody or instrumental phrase.

Hook patterns described by someone playing a piano. Note the limitation of groupings: (Which remind me of combination lock and credit card pin codes.)

  1. There are certain patterns of notes that occur in a TON of pop songs.
  2. The most common pattern by far is 5 3 2 1.
  3. The 4 other very common patterns are:
    • 3 5 6
    • 3 2 1 6
    • 6 7 1
    • 4 3 2 1

For those not paying attention, what we see in the above examples is a recurrence of an externally viewable (collective) 3 and 4 pattern. Other number values are absent. In addition, the internal values are limited to 6. There is no 7 note being used in this selection.


And here's another reference: 'Simply irresistible' (Recurring accent patterns as hooks in mainstream 1980s music), by Don Traut:


This essay explores connections between the notion of 'hook' and several recurring accent patterns found in rock music from the 1980s. It begins by identifying seven syncopated accent patterns and presents a list of over 150 songs from the 1980s that use one or more of these patterns. It then presents three main ways that the accent patterns help create 'hooks'.

  • First, several songs use one of the patterns to create a strong title hook, as in Rick Springfield's hit, 'I've Done Everything for You', the title of which is set with a syncopated and distinct rhythmic pattern.
  • A second type of 'hook' comes in the form of a 'significant gesture' that usually precedes the chorus. The pre-chorus 'My-my-my-my, ah, woo!' gesture from The Knack's 'My Sharona' is an excellent example.
  • Finally, a third type of 'hook' involves the combination of a repeated accent pattern with a recurring pitch pattern, as in the guitar introduction to AC/DC's 'For Those About to Rock'.

By realizing that these three examples all use the same accent pattern in significant, but different, ways, we acknowledge the prominence of this and other patterns while furthering the discourse on the notion of the 'hook'.

It should be noted that in the (modern era) past where there were large brass bands (like there were multiple gods in a more distant past), that later changed to fewer musicians usually featuring a three -to- one ratio (for rock bands) involving a Base- Rhythm- Lead guitarist contrasted with a drummer. Not to mention the frequent microphone check pattern of "testing 1-2-3" or "a one, a two, a three" or the sequence "a one, a two... start playing".




Date of (series) Origination: Saturday, 14th March 2020... 6:11 AM
Date of Initial Posting (this page): 1st March 2022... 6:04 AM
Updated Posting:Wednesday, 26th October 2022... 7:37 AM, MST; Albuquerque, NM.