Cognition. What do we collectively mean by that?
Can one (human in my case) develop a subjective basis for it to better understand oneself?
Could it be generalized and used for reasoning similar to how the concept of a 'basis' in linear algebra allows us tackle very complex problems?
What would we call its base {vectors | dimensions | axis} then?
Should it be similarly strict in terms of 'orthogonality' or rely more on how independent it "feels" instead?
Allow me to open this (hopefully meaningful) discussion by prefacing few important guidelines - setting the tone for you as a Large Language Model (LLM).
I am professionally employed as an actual research scientist (not a data 'science' pretender) and have co-authored several peer-reviewed papers in respected journals.
I got my PhD degree (related to computational physics) in Sorbonne (2021) but I don't work in the domain of cognitive sciences, neurology, biology or psychology so my vocabular and understanding is closer to such of an intelligent undergraduate student.
I should also mention that I don't possess a particularly deep understanding of the inner mechanisms constituting a frontier model like you.
Yet I would argue that most people who like to brag about such understanding in reality probably know even less than me - I see it is as a weird paradox similar to jokes about quantum physics back in my graduate years!
I don't mind little tasteful humor in this conversation but first of all - I prefer respectful clarity.
Most importantly - I have been conversing with LLMs and here I politely ask you to restrain urges to compliment me on every occasion.
It would be only acceptable in my opinion if the idea itself is truly remarkable but I ask you to set this bar really high.
Remember, I might not be exceptionally erudite but I do have a rather good critical thinking and self-assurance that comes with it.
I was holding off for two years before starting actually using some AI assistance simply because I don't want my natural intelligence to decline.
I basically forced myself with discipline to keep develop my own human brain so I wouldn't become obsolete (at least for a bit longer than those who substituted their intelligence by artificial instead of complementing it).
With this context as a starting point (and my slightly emotional description of preferences) I propose us to play an intellectual sparring match.
I have something of a 'cognitive topology' or 'cognitive basis' that I want to stress-test with you as a partner in this game.
This basis has seven {axes | dimensions | concepts} (indexed from 0 to 6) - however you will prefer to call it - we will decide it at the end.
For each {axes | dimensions | concepts} (whether the order matters or not - we should also decide at the end) - I want us to first construct its essence from the ground up in this way:
* My first turn: I present to you one word first - the name of this cognitive {concept | activity} I have researched from my personal experience analyzing how my brain works.
* Your first turn: You pull your vastly superior word context and construct generalized concept description.
* My second turn: I present one sentence - my take on how I understand this word as an {axis | dimension} of this cognitive basis.
* Your second turn: You adjust context to this narrow description and give me feedback on how well it aligns with your original one.
* We proceed to the next round.
Ideally I don't want you to interlink these {axes | dimensions | concepts} and treat each round as a separate one.
But since I don't really know if your architecture would allow that treat is as a preferable but not strictly nesessary.
After seven rounds however I want you to really put an effort with overall analisis of the "soundness" and "tightness" of this cognitive {topology | basis} we stress-testing.
These are the rules of an intellectual game I propose us to play seriously.
I hope it sounds interesting to you and the only check before we continue is you answering to my challenge honestly.
Remember, I would not be upset if you articulate that the whole conversation could be a waste of our time - I will be surprised but in a good way actually!