A model of thought processes

An entity is defined to be any phrase in a language. Thought is assumed to be first structured by the association of two entities. This association is called a relation. For example, suppose the subject entity is x2 = “Jack and Jill”, and the object entity is x1 = “are coming to dinner”. Then the formed relation is r1 = 〈x2, x1〉, i.e., Jack and Jill, are coming to dinner. r1 is then paired with another relation r2 = 〈x3, x4〉. Suppose the subject entity is x3 = “I have to prepare”, and the object entity is x4 = “I will have to go shopping“. This yields (r1, r2) = (〈x2, x1〉, 〈x3, x4〉) = s1,i.e., Jack and Jill, are coming to dinner, I will have to prepare, I will have to go shopping, s1 is called a pairing of relations or a statement. Now to form the next statement s2, the relation 〈x3, x4〉 becomes the active relation. However, the object and subject of 〈x3, x4〉 are interchanged and the first relation of s2, r3 = 〈x4, x3〉 is formed, r3 states: I will have to go shopping, I will have to prepare, r3 is now paired with another relation r4 = 〈x5, x6〉 to form s2 = (〈x4, x3〉, 〈x5, x6〉), where to be specific, suppose x5 = “Jack is on a low fat diet”, and x6 = “I will buy a turkey”. Then s2 states: I have to prepare, I will go shopping, Jack is on a low fat diet, I will buy a turkey. This is continued with s3 which is started with r5 = 〈x6, x5〉. In this manner, a progression of statements is formed. Each individual “I” will create his/her own progression. We assume, however, that there is a pattern to these progressions. That is, if Sam and Sue are coming to dinner, we can predict the thought progression that a particular “I” will follow. It is then assumed here that for any individual “I”, initial relation will lead to a well-defined progression which is assumed finite. The progression creates a connection between the initial relation r1 and the final relation rm. The pairing of r1 and rm is called a conclusion. ructure of these progressions of statements and their interactions are studied here. A progression may be a member of a set of concurrently existing progression which have entities with common properties. “I” may then wish to alter a progression in context of the other existing progressions. Such alterations will change conclusions. We will study such alterations in this paper. clear that we are dealing with “thought structures” in a wider sense. For example, if we consider a biological system B, an initial relation of entities (say, x2 being stimulated or receiving x1) leads to a pairing with another relation of entities, due to the system structure of B. This process continues in a progression of relation pairings in B and finally to a conclusion. Such conclusions are also altered in context of the other existing progressions. tions give rise to interesting structures. One such structure which we call a contradictory spiral has, in the noninstantaneous case, properties which impose coordination and complex periodic patterns on the conclusions of the progressions contained in this contradictory spiral. We study how such contradictory spirals are formed. We also study how conclusions change as new progressions are introduced.