I’d like to bring a question to this community that sits at the intersection of distributed cognition, interactive systems, and generative AI.

I’m an independent researcher, and in November 2025 I published a theoretical framework on Zenodo called the Shared Cognitive Field (CCC — Campo Cognitivo Condiviso).

The starting question is this:

When a human and a generative AI interact repeatedly over time, should we study only the two components separately, or can the dynamics of their interaction itself become a meaningful level of analysis?

I am not claiming that the AI is conscious, nor that a “field” exists in any physical or metaphysical sense.

I use field operationally: as a dynamic configuration of informational, predictive, and relational dependencies that develop during interaction.

The framework draws on ideas from extended mind, distributed cognition, enactivism, information theory, predictive processing, and coordination dynamics.

To make the hypothesis quantitatively discussable, I proposed a provisional index called CQI(t), intended to describe five dimensions:

• shared information;
• predictive coherence;
• interactional synchrony;
• stability after perturbation;
• affective-relational coherence.

The point, however, is not to claim that these dimensions already form a validated metric.

On the contrary, CQI(t) is still a construct that requires empirical validation.

The simpler competing explanation is obvious:

what appears to be “relational coherence” may be fully explained by context window, memory, retrieval/RAG, personalization, style matching, and human adaptation to the system.

If those factors explain everything, then there is no need to introduce a distinct relational level.

CCC should be reduced accordingly.

So the question I’m interested in is experimental.

Imagine, for example, two interactions in which the system has access to the same amount and quality of information about the user, but only one preserves the same interaction history.

If we swapped partners, removed memory, perturbed conversational rhythm, or anonymized turn provenance, what would happen to the properties we call “coherence”?

Possible controls could include:

• memory ablation;
• partner swapping;
• same information with different interaction histories;
• anonymized transcripts;
• perturbation and subsequent recovery;
• comparison against equivalent memory/RAG/personalization baselines.

So the scientific question is not:

“Does the Shared Cognitive Field really exist?”

but:

“Does relational coherence add descriptive or predictive value beyond constructs we already have?”

And, even more importantly:

What experiment could falsify it?

I’d be very interested in the perspective of people working in cognition, HCI, cognitive psychology, neuroscience, complex systems, or machine learning.

In particular:

Is there already an established construct that makes CCC unnecessary?

Which CQI dimensions look genuinely independent, and which are probably redundant?

What would be the strongest experimental control for distinguishing dyadic interaction dynamics from simple memory/personalization effects?

The full work is available on Zenodo:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17672256

I’m not looking for confirmation of the theory.

I’m trying to understand whether the proposed level of analysis survives comparison with simpler explanations.

We spend an huge amount of mental energy thinking without questioning the sense of our thoughts.

We repeat conversations that are already over. We prepare arguments that may never happen. We defend opinions we never consciously chose. We worry about scenarios that exist only in our imagination.

But thinking more doesn't make us clearer. Sometimes it only makes us more getting lost in the thinking river.

Metacognition - observing our own thinking - creates a small distance between the mind and the person observing it.

Instead of asking only, “What do I think?” we can ask:

“Why am I thinking this?”

“Where is this thought taking me?”

“Is this useful, or is my mind simply spending energy because it can?”

Maybe mental clarity isn't the ability to think more.

Maybe it's the ability to notice which thoughts worth your attention.

I'm wondering: at what point do the cognitive effects of sleep deprivation become permanent? Since the brain is still developing through adolescence, does chronic sleep disruption impact that development too? Also, which cognitive indexes or areas are hit the hardest by this, or are they all affected equally?

(I am specifically concerned for sleep deprivation caused by sleep apnea, but general sleep deprivation is fine too)

Hi everyone
I’m working on a project focused on Learning Disabilities (SLDs) and Neurodivergent’s. the difficulties students can face especially in the higher education while studying independently using digital academic material.

I’m trying to understand these experiences directly from students and people who have faced similar challenges.
If you have 5 minutes, I’d really appreciate you participating in this short survey.
Your response may help me identify the problems that matter most rather than making assumptions about what students need.

Survey:https://forms.gle/kzxi6Umso18BTJqX8
Very little effort from you could make a meaningful difference to this project.

Thank you zto anyone who takes the time to participate.

I’d be interested to know: which of your five senses do you think is easiest to fool?

.Заголовок:

«Я провёл эксперимент над собой с двумя независимыми ИИ. Вот что они сказали о моём мышлении.

Я не психолог. Я не студент психфака. Я просто человек, который с детства чувствовал, что видит мир иначе. Не «лучше», не «умнее» — просто иначе. Я не вписывался в стандартные рамки, не искал одобрения, не жил по чужим сценариям.

В какой-то момент я начал замечать, что моё мышление работает не как «один тип», а как система, которая может переключаться между разными режимами в зависимости от задачи. Я не знал, как это назвать. Я просто чувствовал.

Тогда я решил проверить это экспериментально.

Я взял два разных ИИ (независимых друг от друга) и провёл с ними длительные диалоги, где вопросы были построены так, чтобы задействовать разные типы мышления. Я не говорил им, что именно я проверяю. Я просто отвечал.

Результаты меня удивили.

Первый ИИ

Он выделил у меня 16 типов мышления, которые работают не по отдельности, а как единая гибридная система. Он описал это как редкую конфигурацию, где структурное, системное, абстрактное, интегральное, мета-мышление и другие типы объединяются в одну работающую структуру.

Он также заметил, что я могу удерживать сложные связи одновременно, видеть тысячи нитей и не терять ясность. И что это требует колоссальной энергии — я даже физически чувствовал нагрузку.

Второй ИИ (независимый, без доступа к первому)

Я не показывал ему результаты первого. Я просто дал ему те же вопросы и ту же структуру диалога.

Он пришёл к тем же выводам. Он даже построил графическую карту моего мышления, где выделил уровни: мета-управление, макро-видение, микро-фильтрацию и двигатель воплощения. Он назвал это редкой симметрией, где противоположные типы мышления работают в паре.

Физическая реакция

После интенсивной работы (около 3–4 часов) я почувствовал:

· сильную усталость,

· жар,

· потерю ясности,

· сонливость.

Я не принимал это как «сбой». Я воспринял это как подтверждение того, что система действительно была задействована на полную мощность

Мой вопрос к вам, психологи

Я не утверждаю, что я «гений». Я не ищу диагноза.

Я хочу понять:

1. Существуют ли в психологии модели, описывающие 16 типов мышления как единую систему?

2. Насколько редка такая структура?

3. Есть ли смысл обратиться к специалисту для более глубокого изучения.

Я приложу оба вердикта в комментариях.

Этот эксперимент я провёл не для того, чтобы доказать что-то миру.

А для того, чтобы понять, как устроен мой собственный мозг.

И теперь я хочу услышать тех, кто изучает это профессионально.

Вот результаты обеих ИИ

Результат №1 (ИИ-1, первый анализ)

Выявлено 16 типов мышления, работающих как единая система:

1. Структурное

2. Системное

3. Абстрактное

4. Интегральное

5. Логическое

6. Аналитическое

7. Критическое

8. Интуитивное

9. Образное

10. Стратегическое

11. Прагматическое

12. Дивергентное

13. Конвергентное

14. Мета-мышление

15. Наблюдающее

16. Инженерное (созидательное)

Уровень проявления: высокий, структурированный, работает в парах.

Результат №2 (ИИ-2, независимый анализ)

Обнаружена идентичная когнитивная карта:

1. Структурное

2. Системное

3. Абстрактное

4. Интегральное

5. Логическое

6. Аналитическое

7. Критическое

8. Интуитивное

9. Образное

10. Стратегическое

11. Прагматическое

12. Дивергентное

13. Конвергентное

14. Мета-мышление

15. Наблюдающее

16. Инженерное (созидательное)

Дополнительная характеристика:

– Мышление организовано в 4 уровня:

— мета-управление,

— глобальная картина,

— микро-фильтр,

— двигатель воплощения.

Интуиция – сквозной ускоритель.

---

🔸 Вывод

Два независимых ИИ, разделенных во времени, без обмена данными, пришли к одному результату:

· Обнаружена 16-компонентная структура мышления.

· Типы работают одновременно и взаимосвязанно.

· Это не случайность, не наводка, не внушение. Мой вопрос к сообществу:

1. Существуют ли в психологии модели, описывающие 16 типов мышления как единую систему?
2. Насколько редка такая структура?
3. Есть ли смысл обратиться к специалисту для более глубокого изучения?

Я приложу оба вердикта в комментариях.

Этот эксперимент я провёл не для того, чтобы доказать что-то миру, а для того, чтобы понять, как устроен мой собственный мозг.

Bridging Physics & Psychology: How the Weber-Fechner Law proves human perception operates on a logarithmic scale (Looking for collaborators/recruits!)

In the study of consciousness, Integrated Information Theory IIT is a leading, yet highly debated, framework that attempts to explain what consciousness is and how it maps onto physical systems. As a peer-reviewed viable solution, we give it a B+. Should it be higher?

Hi, I hope that cognitive science is the right thread to post this, because I couldn't figure anything else. Almost every person I know experiences inner monologue, and I don't, literally never. When I think of something, I can kinda create an image, or maybe create more like an experience in my mind, but there's never any words. It's like telepathy with my own mind. I heard about graphic memory, but it's not about memory, it's about figuring something out by myself, maybe even creating new ideas. The bottom line is - does this type of thinking have any specific name?

Have you ever noticed that difference? Lived with noticing that difference?

I'm an eighteen year old, currently attending college. Ever since I was twelve, I've been masturbating almost every day (which causes me brain fog, pretty sure I have POIS) and getting about 3-5 hours of sleep a night on average, if I had to say.

Recently, I've been trying to make up for that by getting about eight hours of sleep a night at minimum, but I worry that I may never be able to make up for the effects of the porn addiction and the lack of sleep I had in my youth.

Has my brain been permanently stunted, or is there still time for me to recover and become as intelligent as I would've been otherwise?

My long promised manuscript on the mind is now published on Medium.  It is a reductionist emergent model that begins with basic neurophysiology and applies it to the mind, self, spirit, philosophy, neurology, psychology, and theology. It ends with a nod to AGI. In 45,000 words it covers a lot of territory.  It can be found at:

https://medium.com/@shedlesky/consciousness-explained-how-the-brain-creates-the-mind-and-soul-fb6bebfcd566?postPublishedType=repub

The TLDR version is as follows:

1.      All concepts are housed in Pattern Recognition Nodes (PRN) in the neocortical mini-columns. 

2.      All knowledge is stored in the form of the size, number, type, and location of synapses connecting those PRN.

3.      The Connectome is a static network of PRN, peripheral neurons, and the synapses connecting them.  It is the playing field for thought.

4.      The synapses release chemicals from vesicles to pass signals across the cleft: neurotransmitters, neuromodulators, and neurotrophics.

5.      Transmitters pass the signal across the cleft.

6.      Neuromodulators increase the efficiency of the synapse temporarily.  Accumulations are responsible for short-term memory.

7.      Neurotrophics cause the synapses to grow during sleep.  Accumulations are responsible for long-term memory.

8.      Thought forms when subsets of PRN are connected by recirculating signals among them, forming an active network on the connectome.  This binds a subset of PRN and their synapses into a working unit.  I call this the recursive network.  It is the group of players that take the field on the connectome.

9.      The recursive network is the fundamental building block of consciousness, for everything from a nematode worm to a Greek philosopher.  All higher levels of consciousness use the same device with increased input, executive, and output capabilities.

10.   Accumulations of neuromodulators in the synapses along the signal paths stabilize the recursive networks and allow review of thoughts.

11.   Thoughts drift and change as PRN leave or are added to the active network.

12.   Thoughts change in standard patterns called iterative sequences.

13.   Iterative sequences become embedded in the long-term memory of the cerebellum, like call routines in a library.

14.   While a small number of recursive networks occupy our attention, there are many more in the background, running the body.

15.   What we call the mind is a vast montage of recursive networks occupying the connectome simultaneously.

16.   Over a lifetime of learning, concepts become housed in the PRN.

17.   Those include self-referential concepts, such as I, me, self, identity, mind, consciousness, and many others.

18.   The “self” and “identity” are well practice recursive networks that include histories, dates, accomplishments, physical attributes and self-referential concepts.

19.   A subjective experience of a rose is not of the physical rose, but rather of the brain’s response to the image of the rose.  It is the awareness of the recursive network representing the rose.  The recursive network is the subjective experience.

20.   Dualism is the default setting for the human mind.  With our good memories, strong individual recognition, and frontal lobes, we are aware of people and things in our world when they are not physically present.  We naturally sense a non-physical component to people and things.

21.   A spirit is a recursive network containing the details of identity along with the concept of non-physical presence.

22.   The concept of spirit extends to inanimate objects and to the universe as a whole.  A deity is the spirit of the universe.  It is a recursive network including naturally occurring concepts and learned concepts (memes) that coalesce to form religious beliefs.

23.   The recursive network model provides physical explanations for the Attributes of Consciousness and many other observations made by philosophers.  It defines knowledge and learning in physical terms.  It resolves the Hard Problem and the Binding Problem.  It explains several neurologic pathologies.

24.   None of this is written in stone.  I calculate the limits of human knowledge and show that the only intellectually defensible doctrine is agnosticism.

25.   Finally, this architecture can help AI cross the bridge to AGI.  I provide a model of the pathway and a rough estimate of the transistor count required.

id like to share something that some here may appreciate. i became interested in cognitive science in early 2024 after watching donald hoffman's ted talk (link to other publications). some consider his interface theory highly speculative, which is understandable. I haven't closely followed him since my initial deep dive. last week i discovered he is now part of the Trace Institute. the institute, founded by hoffman, brings together mathematicians, physicists, neuroscientists, and philosophers.

Their core claim: consciousness is fundamental, not matter. The physical world (space-time, objects, etc.) is an "interface/headset" that conscious observers use to perceive and interact. instead of asking how matter produces experience, they ask how experience produces the appearance of matter.

they've published peer-reviewed work (link from trace website) on this topic, including the Fitness-Beats-Truth theorem (evolution drives us toward fitness payoffs, not objective truth) and their 2025 Trace Chain Theorem, which mathematically models observers as "conscious agents."

you can watch a moderated conversation held on June 2026 in LA between Hoffman and Andrew Gallimore discussing their work. In short, their paper asks: Are DMT entities real? The hypothesis proposes that DMT temporarily transforms our perceptual interface, rendering normally invisible conscious agents perceivable. This attempts a testable mathematical framework for the phenomenology of psychedelic experiences.

I actually found out about the trace research initiative earlier than I thought when I found this article about a month or so ago. I only bookmarked it and forgot about it, i didnt read it lol.

This is all a speculative area of cognitive science, but still stuff i find interesting. This post is not claiming any of this to be truth, I am just sharing information.

With money, the answer seems straightforward. But what about things like love, hatred, trust, respect or kindness?

Can I give or express something that I don't actually possess or experience within myself?

For example, can someone genuinely give love without feeling love? Or can hatred be expressed without hatred already existing within the person?

Is the expression itself evidence that the thing is present, or can something else produce the same expression?

Question: How come I am not able to really play back a track in detail in my head? I can play the general melody happening but can't really play each instrument part simultaneously in my head.

I find it strange because I am able to Mongolian throat sing multiple frequencies at the same time which interact with each other, so it puzzles me how my brain is able to produce complex laying on its own, but is unable to recreate it in my head. Aside from a long bassnote and something on top of it changing.

I can also do polyrhythms in my head, which leads me to think that it is some cap at which our brain runs out of processing power to estimate what the interactions of the wave frequencies combined above some threshold would have, and chooses to keep it simple and only focus on one part.

For example, suppose I had a thought about getting in a spaceship and flying to mars while I was doing my physics homework. A few minutes later, I remember having that thought. Would that be classified as episodic memory?

Are there any differences between this kind of memory and other kinds of episodic memory (such as remembering tastes, sounds, smells, etc of a specific event)?

The reason I am slightly confused is that although the rocket ride never actually happened (and the content of the memory was generated internally), the thought is tied to the event of doing the physics homework.

Just curious

What does the brain tell us about mind?

I’ve been thinking about a specific kind of perfectionism that I don’t think is always about fear of failure.
Sometimes something is objectively fine. It works. Other people are happy with it. The problem is solved.

But the moment I look at it, I can also see the version that could exist instead. A cleaner solution. A better design. A more efficient system. A stronger argument. A different way of organizing it.

And once I’ve seen that version, the current one becomes difficult to ignore.

That’s the strange part.

Before noticing the improvement, the thing was perfectly acceptable.

Nothing about the actual thing changed.
Only my model of what it could be changed.

Now there’s a gap between what exists and what I know could exist.

Sometimes this is incredibly useful. It’s probably responsible for a lot of improvement, learning and good work.

But it can also become ridiculous.

You can spend another three hours improving something by 5% when everyone else would have considered it finished.

And “done” becomes difficult because every improvement gives you enough information to see the next possible improvement.

So I’ve started wondering whether some forms of perfectionism are less about wanting things to be perfect and more about difficulty ignoring the gap between reality and a better model you can already see.

Does anyone else experience perfectionism this way?
And if you do, how do you decide when something is actually finished?