# Higher Order Attention

Note: This writing is not related to the dark green notebook which probably has a much more cohesive and clean presentation of the same ideas. However, that has not been transcribed into a digital format. At the time that that document is typed out, this document should be revisited, and any useful material should be woven in. For now it is copied only, and has not been published.

##Higher Order Attention: Freedom from Superstition, Vacuity, Illogic, and Nonsense

## Outline

- Integra Preface
- Short Introduction.
- I. Systematizing Wise Attention 
- II. Robots and Babies
- III. Imagination Filter and Superstition
- IV. My Use and Freedom
- Bibliography

## Integra Preface

This essay is intended to fall within a larger work on ethics I started during my teenage years, in the mid to late 1990s. I envision this as part of a part on effective behavior, personal transformation and habituation. The larger work concerns all of ethics both theoretical and practical, and is currently in progress.  

The stimulating conversation in the TOP-1 list, along with encouragement in the facebook group, provided the motivation to bring this essay closer to completion. For that I offer thanks to the active membership in both locations. I give special thanks to Kort Patterson for his many enjoyable articles he has shared. It has made me less resistant to sharing essays of my own.

I hope to receive feedback and engage in some discussion, so please feel free to contact me at cavanaugh.matt@gmail.com or start a thread in one of the online groups. If in TOP-1 please CC me directly, and if in FaceBook please tag my name in the opening post.

##Introduction

Quotations seem to be among the most popular ways of sharing literature between people, and therefore the primary means of communicating written wisdom. Although this seems to be the major way of sharing inspirational thoughts, quotes have always bothered me. For any quote concerning a maxim or principle of action, I thought, there was another that seemed to recommend the exact opposite. Quotation is where misapplication of recommendations takes place. I liken it to when someone remembers something said out of context, and try to apply it where it was never intended. There are many defects with this way of transmitting recommendations. Yet people seem to think they can rely on these short sayings to find inspiration and make the right decisions. They are repeated and remembered when we are far from any book, conversation, film, or situation that originally generated the idea. We remember the quote at the expense of the all-valuable wholes that they were dislodged from. Yet it is hard to see how it could be different, as people have limited memories and have no way to quickly recall entire contexts of the original recommendations. Out of the original context, it is hard to reconcile a perspective with the perspective of a competing context. Pick any topic, and there are probably numerous popular sayings that contain conflicting recommendations. If you only remember one recommendation, you may go against the other. If you remember more than one, you might be perplexed enough to abandon advice.

Consider open-mindedness.  We are continually torn between the freedom of decisiveness and resolution, and the tentativeness of receptivity. Despite a desire to be conclusive regarding topics or sources of information, we have a competing value of open-mindedness which routinely challenges our resolution. On the one hand we are told to be non-judgmental listeners, and should be willing to hear everyone's unique and special perspective, because we might learn something new, and if not, learn something about the person we are speaking to. We are supposed to be concerned about everyone's individuality, and be willing to hear about their preferences and point of view. On the other hand we are told we are supposed to become less concerned about the thoughts and judgements of other people, and those who disagree with us. We are to place value the thoughts of some above the thoughts of others, thereby choosing to ignore people and information. There is a guilt that comes along with ignoring people or sources of information, or of ending conversations. Politeness connects with open-mindedness more than decisiveness and resolution. Yet decisiveness and resolution is more tightly associated with focus and success. Exemplary people deftly navigate this conundrum, but a general strategy is not obvious, and the conflicting maxims are a source of the conflict, not of a resolution.

So when exactly are we to be open minded, and when exactly are we to be closed minded? Since disparate, non-contextual quotes, maxims, and principles are the cause of conflict we should expect our solution to have a different character. For one we should not expect the underlying approach to be written as tersely as a couplet. I greatly prefer a strategy or skill over the guidance of a quotation at time of recollection. This paper is on finding a strategy for finding the right balance between open-mindedness and closed-mindedness, with an interest in the importance of decisiveness of focus and of filtering out undesirable information. As the title indicates, there are special targets I have in mind for filtration, which are important for achieving improved focus. The concept that pulls these pieces together is Higher Order Attention, which will be explained in detail as we progress. The goal is to show how Higher Order Attention solves the conflicts listed above and provides a general strategy which is much superior to reliance on contradictory quotations and principles, or natural reaction based on etiquette and socialized behavior. By learning this strategy we wish to transcend what we everyone learns in the process of enculturation and socialization, to something more befitting a sophisticated person of higher intelligence.

This topic is divided into four parts, which will be included in Integra serially. The first part, "Systematizing Wise Attention," here included, focuses on the achievement of the mature and actualized members of society in filtering out certain kinds of information. It explains how the strategies used are extensions of the natural process of perceptual and attentional development in animals. Here I also discuss the importance of determining the underlying shared pattern exhibited by wise people, for formalization, education, and variable application. I discuss more deeply how we can systematize the result of what has hitherto been habituated in small chance-like accumulations. 

In the second part, "Robots and Babies", I go deeper into what the underlying process might look like, and why this procedure would be necessary for the creation of Human-like robots, and how it is already involved in the natural maturation process from babies into adulthood. I also investigate how the process relates to cognition, behavior, and improvement of education. A specific algorithm will be developed that provides a view into possible applications and a pathway for development and refinement.

In section three, "Imagination Filter and Superstition", I discuss the basic application of the filter to the most deleterious and harmful forms of information, which are analogous to useless and distracting noise in the domain of perceptual filtration. The goal is to show the most basic use of higher order attention, and to point out how some can never attain the desired level of attention if chronically unable to filter at the most basic levels. Moving from the basic filtration to more sophisticated filtration, we see how the process is indispensable for a goal oriented life, where one hopes to reach personal potential or execute laborious personal projects.

In the final section "My Use and Freedom" I discuss the ways I've attempted to integrate it into my own life, and the ways I hope to use it in the future, to achieve a greater level of personal freedom and maximize my own potential. I also point out areas of failure and success, and some personal sadness about not noticing or adopting the process earlier. I see now that wisdom is behavioral and attentional, more than it is pure erudition or the accumulation of maxims and principles/precepts. While it appears obvious that a wise person would exhibit the consistently wise patterns of of behavior, I think this point is non-trivial and overlooked in prctice, and explains in part why we expect the wise person to be old and bearded (behavioral modification through trial and error over a long lifespan). It also explains why most fail to achieve the same level of wisdom, through a mere sampling of sections of books, or of chance exposure to wise people and high quality entertainment. It is too fragmented. Bookish/aphoristic wisdom is important, but much more so if integrated in a way that influences the entire life, from perception, to informational attention, to habitual behavior. Strategies and behavioral patterns are to be preferred, since the quotations, maxims, and principles conducive to a good life should be derivable from a life of wisdom. We respect sayings that have come from those who already exhibit these patterns, not from those who exhibit no pattern of wisdom that parrot the phrases. Some of the apparent conflicts between principle should be due to them being out of context from such a life (or generated by someone who is actually unwise), and once understood, I think the strategies and patterns exhibit this resolution.


## I. Systematizing Wise Attention

Humans use a set of procedures for deciding what information to accept from others for consideration. Those among us who give audience to any idea, or are less critical listeners, are called "gullible" or "credulous", while those who are skillful are called "acute" or "sagacious". We are quick to determine who has this skill and who doesn't, and the predator can quickly use this to his/her advantage. Lack of the skill is expected among the immature and the less intelligent, although it is absent among most intelligent also. It is possible there is a native capacity just for this social ability. Either way, this ability is important enough to mark out traits of virtue and deficiency. Proven ability over time is an indicator of interdisciplinary understanding and critical power, and is highly praiseworthy, especially when it extends far beyond natural capacity which is less meritorious. Not everyone has the mental endowment, discipline, or potential to achieve a high level of critical listening ability. This is a factor included in our characterization of others, and we can easily group those we know according to who has this skill and who doesn't. It is not difficult to distinguish who has this skill and who doesn't. Because we can determine who has this skill and who does not, we can pay close attention to those who have the skill and work out some of the complex procedures that they use, and use those same patterns both to improve the process, convey the process, and create models of various kinds to represent it (computer models, mathematical models, etc..). The goal of this paper is to uncover the pattern hidden within the complex behavior of that especially skilled people exhibit, and to describe various uses once the pattern in determined. Everyone knows someone who is especially powerful in filtering out extraneous information, or casting aside nonsense, and focusing on matters of interest or importance. The goal of interest in this paper is that we can determine methods and principles to employ in our everyday lives. We strive to increase our ability by gaining more methods and improved exercise of these methods as we mature. The opportunities for application are astonishingly wide and diverse. With the pattern understood we can see and communicate more clearly when we can see that others are not using this pattern effectively. We can also use it to identify areas of weakness in our own way of filtering information.

The pattern, it turns out, is an extension of a natural process, which as a working process, is evidence of its own natural merit. Work with nature. This skill is little more than an additional development of the more general ability to select among stimulus in the environment, and direct attention in useful/meaningful ways. While someone may be accused of being gullible, or not "street-smart" for passively accepting information from others, someone who cannot manage the onslaught of continual stimulation from the environment and learn to focus like a normal adult is likely pathological (autism or other condition). Controlling attention is a basic skill required for survival, not just for humans but for all animals. A major difference between humans and animals is that humans are capable of attending to a wider variety of stimulus, enabling us to find patterns in diverse areas of interest, whereas most animals are constrained in their attention to focus on a smaller subset of possible experience. The more general ability to focus is more basic and foundational to the abilities we are discussing here. However, I wish to convey that mental hardware is vital in achieving the level of filtering I describe in this book, as critical power is tightly connected to general intelligence and other social talents that also have a biological basis.

The very best examples of wise men and women include people who are very focused and are able to filter through the absurdities and nonsense of everyday life. They choose environment and companions wisely, and find ways to ignore everything but what is useful for a good life and for the execution of personal projects. They are free and unburdened by the time devouring preoccupations of common people, and their standout abilities and clear personal success leads common people to flock to them, to learn their "secrets" and to appropriate their wisdom. Observations of wise people from the outside are usually short and infrequent, so underlying patterns are hard to find. In fact the difficulty of determining the causes of wisdom, has lead early philosophers to question if wisdom is actually teachable. There are grounds for thinking they have exaggerated the difficulties, and I am convinced it is not a question to treat speculatively, but instead to earnestly investigate and decide upon. That wise people have enough in common for us to collect them into a single rough category should provide us a hint at a method to investigate the matter. 

Wise behaviors and choices are based on many reasons and factors, but the ability to control information and attention is always an underlying factor. For reasons to be shown later, this factor is bound up with what we might think are separate aspects of wisdom. Although there is much more to discuss to have an exhaustive treatment of this subject, much is captured by focusing on what I call "higher order attention", which is the focus of the current essay.

Higher order attention is an ability that is accumulated over a long period of time, through diverse experiences and realizations. Clearly there is no time to cover the entire range of experience, but by comparing and analyzing wise and disciplined people we can see underlying patterns that we can dig out, irrespective of their individual traits and diverse personal history. 

This pattern, once found, can be formalized and used for other purposes that are quite unexpected. What is of great importance is to realize that there a pattern exists; without recognizing the pattern we miss out on many possibilities which would exist if it were already unearthed, polished, and placed on display, like what has been done with grammar, logic, and the various physical laws. Once we determine the pattern (or set of patterns, I will say "the pattern" for simplicity) we can use it for simplified education. Hitherto, this procedure was was internalized asystematically during the course of haphazard individual experience. Wise people can point to pieces of the picture, but are themselves often unaware that such a pattern exists in their activities. It is not as if they organized it from the start from a recognition of the whole, but instead, accumulated skills over a long life of elucidating and transformative experiences. Once known we can deliberately enter into self organization in a less haphazard and lucky fashion, especially if one is gifted. As such, this procedure is an essential element of the gifted individual's education. We can extend the power of the procedure in ourselves and others. As for myself, I try to use it to achieve a greater level of personal freedom from unwanted messages, and to increase focus on projects of special interest to me (like writing this article). This is what the wisest among us do in their lives, and it is what we hope children learn to do as early as possible. We hope they can quickly filter out silly messages from peers and other adults, but to our dismay, they must make the many mistakes of experience, and if they are fortunate, gradually accumulate the lessons needed to become wise and patterned themselves.

This piece is about avoiding superstition and falsity in the pursuit of truth, and freedom from absurdities of everyday life. At this point I must assume that we do wish to avoid these things, according to our understanding of them, without explaining what they are in particular. I will describe what I think superstition and nonsense are later, but for now mention that we already do ridicule nonsensical views and attempt to filter through superstitious messages. No person believes we should subject ourselves to environments containing endless irrelevant stimulation, advertising, and nonsensical messages. People "tune-out" nonsense every day based on simple cues, and those who are more proactive are willing to control relationships and environments to avoid absurdities. This is becoming more difficult as media strives to profit off our every waking experience, and we come to live in greater levels of urbanization. Some are unwilling to transfer all control over their audio-visual life to large groups of people trying to prey on their minds and behaviors, but more intelligent people who see the underlying pattern gain great interest in controlling messages and personal space. Those who have greater native capacity to see absurdity and nonsense have a greater desire to be free of it, and see the blindness of the masses to the absurdities as an especially nightmarish condition to avoid. And so this is why we look to the wisdom of our predecessors, both to find an escape from this condition and to escape into the special quality and beauty of their works. These are the people who have learned what to focus on, and what to cast aside. Usually they are only partially successful, because they often have not identified the proper methodology implicit in their lifestyles, but here we can find the underlying pattern in their behavior to determine a systematic procedure to use ourselves. This process can be likened to the process of identifying the patterns within human language in linguistics, and striving to use that knowledge to our advantage. We can then use that information systematically in education, language recognition software, general linguistic analysis, and so on. I do not expect to cover an exactly ideal and systematic process of filtering information here, but I do believe I can point out what such a process would look like once worked out. The choice of procedure is a matter of utility and instrumentality, and there is no way to determine the best approach in advance. Instead I point out what my current approach is. The procedure I use is for general application, but for here I have target uses in mind: for filtering out cultural/religious superstition, propaganda and marketing, fiction depicted as real, irrelevant superfluous messages, and general nonsense.

The goal, to an extent, is purification of environment and mind, against criteria of purity which are generally accepted, as exhibited in the behavior of highly respectable people. Of course this could be taken to an extreme such that one might live a hermitic lifestyle, but I leave it to the reader to decide the level of escape one needs from the nonsense of other people. For those of us who wish to live social lives, a more moderate approach might be used, which includes a measured amount of exposure to absurd people and absurd ideas. I find periodic exposure both self-confirming and entertaining. So while I have eliminated television and most movies from my life, on occasion, I indulge for the fun of it, to feel that I am still a member of society at large, to see what is new among the common people, but also, to remind myself of why I'm doing what I do, and that I wish I had made the change sooner.

So what classes of ideas are we trying to exclude? First and foremost, uncontrolled irrelevant messages, excess unfocused messages, most of advertising/marketing. This is not a paper about the risks of being owned by media, gaming, and entertainment, but I do want to point out the connection. I seek to eliminate message that, whereas Kant might say, "Someone is seeking to use me not as an end in myself, but merely as a means to their end." I find Kant's precept more useful in avoiding becoming a victim of other people's errors. Nevertheless, I must admit the media is sometimes our only means of getting consumer information, but I can seek when relevant to me, and choose more unbiased channels, versus allowing myself to be targeted with messages whenever they can put them in front of me (consider the recent benefits of receiving personalized advertising. Although unwelcome, it is certainly less invasive and irrelevant. What has happened is they have begun to do some of the filtering for us. Of course this is to their advantage, so they can seek to capitalize on us more effectively, yet it is better for us also, because the variety of messages is difficult to manage and can be more frustrating and aggravating).

We cannot here discuss every aspect of such a diverse topic, so I wish to focus on the most important of message we seek to avoid. I am more concerned with information that we learn and build our behavior from. I'm more interested in education, and the desire to eliminate false and nonsensical ideas. Since there are many different kinds of absurdities I would like to focus on one class which everyone recognizes to be worthy of elimination, especially as it arouses disdain and contempt in wise and well educated intellects. The classes I wish to discuss are superstition, linguistic emptiness, and pure nonsense. So I do not need to list these individually every time, I collectively and pejoratively combine these into a "trinity of foolishness." These are the ideas that we can give the least consideration and attention, with no risk of losing any opportunities for knowledge whatsoever. Since we might find information in various concoctions of truth and falsity, we are not obligated to reject the whole due to an instance of the trinity of foolishness. Instead, we prune it off, or translate it to something that is acceptable to reason. On the other hand, it is like they are trying to fish for me with a lure that they know is more likely to work, and therefore every cast is more dangerous to me. So I still avoid until I am actually seeking information, and I go to people who are less interested in capturing me than serving me. 

Not all ideas are worthy of consideration, and we know this. There are times where the appropriate reactions to an idea are laughter, mocking, sarcasm, and fear. Whichever is used, there is a distance placed between yourself and the speaker, either physically of psychologically. There is a time and place for blocking ones mind or turning ones back to someone who is speaking to you. Stubbornness/obstinacy is useful when employed correctly. But what is the proper way to employ these behaviors? I will not speak of all possible situations, but instead select a few which are sufficiently illustrative. 

Not every idea we hear is worthy of consideration, and some ideas are worthy of quick and absolute rejection. Because of the large number of absurd ideas we must listen to, there has to be a process in which we decide which ideas are admissible for consideration. We can and should decide when to actively use our minds for something, given our indefinite and short life span, combined with the fact that any topical consideration alters our mind. Use determines the pathways of the brain which are preserved and ready at hand-- we do not wish to devote ourselves to anything entirely unworthy because we literally alter ourselves in the process for something highly unprofitable. I think the ideas I would place in the category of "superstition" is the set of ideas I find unworthy of further consideration. They are the ideas to tolerate in social conversation, and to combat if presented for any kind of education or serious dissemination.

During this admissions process, when some ideas are eliminated, we might say they are rejected. We are to learn from this process to get better at filtering future ideas for consideration, so for especially ridiculous ideas, we might not allow any further consideration. Some might be plausible enough to review again, in light of new information either incorporated into yourself by experience or dedication, or else a novelty or development in the idea itself. This sort of procedure is not new., as it happens to all of us during the course of our development; what deserves formalization and improvement is a rational procedure, which might match the approach of the wisest among us already use in practice. In my opinion, however, this procedure is largely unnoticed even among the smartest among us, so in the end, they only use partial application. 

The grounds for rejection must not be lengthy consideration, research, and analysis; the very purpose of the procedure is to decide which ideas are worthy of such consideration. There is a certain unwritten list prioritizing ideas by time allowed for reflection. There might be a hierarchy of topics based on how much time they might be worth if sufficient interest or motivation is generated, we can approve of our time used for it, even while recognizing the value of our time. At present I am not so interested in this hierarchy or list. I am interested in admission to the list, and the eraser we use on items mistakenly added. Some items emphatically do not belong on the list. I wish to use the analogy of college admissions. Some people must be utterly rejected permanently with no time wasted.

The grounds for rejection for admission must be inductive and analogical. It cannot usually be demonstrative (unless logical and mathematical) and since demonstration is time consuming, I consider admission to be the means of determining if demonstration is worth the time. At times it may be useful to make examples of poor ideas for entertainment or to educate other about poor use of critical thinking, but now I want to focus on items for serious positive consideration. Ideas that have already been rejected or sufficiently resemble others that have been rejected may be rejected also. We may also rate ideas in terms of ease of rejection. Superstitions are simple to reject because they match the group of others which were speedily and ultimately rejected and match ones that were permitted no time. Among this group there are ideas that are additionally dangerous, for consequences to the thinker or for risk of mistaking it for something worthy of extended consideration. An important point is that the first is the set of criteria for admission. The second additional piece regarding consequences is purely additional and is not necessary or sufficient for rejection. Rejection is first on the other grounds, and danger is added only after first consideration. Later, by analogy, [This procedure would not work for everyone. The less intelligent would need to follow the bad of lead of the more intelligent an pay extra attention to dangers involved]. Ultimate proof is not needed for ultimate rejection. Only analogy/induction indicating sufficient improbability, a show of insufficient logic, or sufficient vacuity or nonsense is required. 

If sufficiently strong, rejection can be permanent. We already do this where fiction is acknowledged as fiction or if something appears fictional due to deceptiveness/manipulation of another, or is connected by strong desires and emotion. There are special examples that have not been rejected early, but should have, and continue to remain as inputs from our environment because believers still exist, who are unwilling or unable to use such a procedure themselves.

Another question - when do I know enough to filter? Not all or nothing but piece-by-piece? Many children are aware that superstitions are false, indicating that this is no major feat. There is some difficulty in gaining sufficient critical power and discipline to use it over the multitude of topics on might come in contact with, and to thoroughly check and re-check pre-existing beliefs and behavior against the procedure. 

A way to tell if the idea is worthy of admission is if it just seems false and intrudes on otherwise reasonable conversation.

To lack the filter I describe in all forms is taken to be a defect of extreme gullibility. Seeing that most do not possess this ability shows that we have learned or native capacity, which is not special, but common, and that this must be for some advantage. The advantage is not the questionable but instead, we enquire into the proper deployment of it. 

The wisest of men don't get distracted from more worthy purposes. They don't treat themselves like idiots by taking absurd ideas seriously. 

Before moving on, I want to reflect on the meaning of this process, and what actually happens when one internalizes it. Gradually, one ends up controlling one’s environment, the types of people in it, the information contained in it, and ultimately what one thinks about while in that space. This is the process of personal transformation in the domain of information, but that touches upon one’s psychology, and virtue, and all emanations relating to information. I have not spoken of the fact that such a procedure can and should used for behavioral filtration, such that only certain forms of behavior are present. One should notice that this is a powerful process, impacting many aspects of life, in a way that is incredibly rewarding with not many downsides. It is definitely harmonious with our modern conceptions of education and well-being, and we should hope that people learn to understand this process at a very early age.

## II. Robots and Babies

## III. Stimulus Filter and Superstition

-That the common argumentative Atheist has missed an opportunity for early dismissal, and is aware of the time wasted.

## IV. My Use and Absolute Freedom


[superstitions are fast to reject and are especially risky, but are not in the class of what we can absolutely disprove. Physical/perceptual mismatch to an idea can provide absolute evidence that a proposition is false]

[if enough people believe in something, we must admit it for consideration]

Some might claim that since enough people believe in the Christian god character, we must give it more consideration. I see this as a very costly mistake. Although I admit that a filter is present in everyone, I think the tendency is towards excess credulity, to the extent that the intelligent, rich & powerful can easily deceive the vast majority of people. Excluding the fact that popularity is no argument in favor of an argument, but a named fallacy, I think popular opinion does not warrant alteration of important data, but not for serious consideration for deep reflection as personal transformation. Instead I say "oh, so that's what everyone thinks... " and then I let *them* continue to think about it.

One should not think - how can I prove to others that there is no 'god character', but, how can I exist as if there is no god character and kill attempts at infection

Question - If one detracts from common knowledge, to what extent are unique and personal views to be tested by others? Am I enough, on my own, to be my own judge? 

[For me, my intuition has been the most reliable guide, which I have grown to trust. I have noticed that the intuition of others are often untrustworthy, so socialization and confirmation is more important for them than it is for me.]

I am not arguing that an admissions filter should be introduced; we all already make sue of one but have not worked out proper use. The ability to systematically ignore information from other people is an example of the more basic ability to ignore most stimulation from our environment. If we are to be wise we are also to ignore and attend to information that is worthy of our time and mental energy. This changes over time and is apparent in individual development. Items of surprise are interesting to children until they learn to expect, indicating an internalization of the understanding of the worldly pattern. 


Although we are naturally equipped for this skill, it's development and operation depends on prior experience and level of maturity. This is also an ability that can be corrupted with the wrong experiences in youth. Because its operation is connected with education, it has a deterministic flavor. One needs to be educated to listen correctly, be aware of the right questions to ask, how to use filtration tool, when to use it, and how to apply it in various contexts. A child would not have an effective filter for a wide variety of topics due to inexperience, and appear extremely gullible as a result. This gullibility can be used against them to become suppliant and receptive to fictions, or it can be used to create a highly refined intellect/acumen, capable of discerning fictions across disciplines, over a wide variety of experiences. They can see the charlatans from an ever greater distance. They can spot the con-artists from the slightest behaviors with the ever decreasing false-positives. They can read and spot the character and motivations of the authors, separate the fiction from the non-fiction, not merely sometimes, but all the time.

[add Santayana quote].

[M]en became superstitious not because they had too much imagination, but because they were not aware that they had any.

Very importantly, they can learn time management early. What to do, where to be, what to look at, what to hear -- all because time is so precious. With greater intelligence there can be greater [sic]. 

Al of this may lead to greater probity - since what you may detect in others you can detect in yourself. 

In the beginning then is trust and stimulus. With bad experience, trust can be corrupted and bad stimulus. Things look very bad where there is no-one trustworthy, and no worthy stimulus in ones early environment.

Lucky are the distrustful, the high intellects, the most critical few that see through all explanations from the earliest! Those who can see to trust in pieces. Trust no man, no book, no philosophy, but do trust the right chunks.

So what is trustworthy?

-Would be found in patterns.
-Cannot form trust where there is no detectible pattern!

Trust comes from reliability patterns. As applied to objects, one does not trust something for anything outside its reliability pattern.

The goal of many men of virtue is to be wise, which is to be reliable in all sorts of ways. 

But an individual with a great filter will trust the wise man in pieces. A man is like a Venn-diagram. However reliable, there is a pattern with discernible limits.

There are some core pieces however. Will this person say "I don't know", or self-correct? Use logic, use sound arguments, see-all possibilities? Seeing all possibilities is very important. Have they combated the multitude of human weaknesses?

In oneself there is a trust pattern, commingled with the filter. You can see how well it is operating by how granular and sophisticated it is, and also, if all the stable decisions have been made (trust automation).

Right insight and automatic right filtration is a hallmark of the wise man.

[Think of a way to diagram the development of this filter]

A person with an excellent filter would be a free person, unburdened - there is no need to tolerate one's environment, because one is in that environment. Remember your life in context and realize that your environment is in your control, even if you need to plan carefully to change your regular place in space.

As I said, an admission filter is like an attention filter. "Does this topic deserve my mind? Should I allow myself to be impacted by this?" There is a principle of deciding importance or timeliness. "Can I listen to this now? Should I ever listen to this?"

The world imposes importance upon us. We cannot know in advance what we will need to focus on later. We cannot be freed from being reactive, concerning our environment. But we can learn and habituate underlying principles for advantageous conduct.

[What justifies dismissal? What are the degrees of filtering?]

That we all have a filter implies that we are all dismissive periodically, but it is clear there are varieties of dismissiveness. Without being exhaustive, consider the following: 

-That is totally silly
-I don't think so
-I'm not sure about that
-Perhaps, but not convincing
... 

this is the scale of outright dismissal, to possibility, to unreflective acceptance.

Actually this would be the reflective scale-- the scale to be avoided is the degree of unreflectiveness - of gullibility. Russell thought acceptance was the natural mode, but development of critical mind can counteract and step in to halt it. In nature we don't receive messages unless people are present, and when present, they are usually family or close loved one. Since we've evolved through interdependence to be credulous.

From this we can see that the forms relate to 1) the level of planning and precaution, and 2) our reaction when we encounter the stimulus. The stimulus is not limited to information, but sources. Here we may see the connection with general avoidance behaviors.

From this we can see that credulity is something to be educated away, or properly directed. IN a complex world where humans deceive one another and interactions with strangers is as common or more common than interaction with family, one must grow the habit of receiving, not with excess suspicion, but proper degree of receptivity. Even here there are those with natural gifts and those without. Some find the right blend of traits to make this easy. Some learn the hard way by hurtful experiences. Some are harmed and never know it. Cognizance of harm done will make some unable even to understand this essay.

In early education, we teach of danger and of fact and fiction. We teach the basic rules of avoidance and of categorization.

Separation of reality an unreality is vastly important but the risks of unreality vary depending on type. To believe one can fly is more dangerous than to believe one can fly after one dies.

The harm depends on how the view modifies behavior. Some views do not seem to modify behavior in obvious ways, but are still disadvantageous in the long run.

For some fantasy is advantageous, but this is no an essay on how delusions might cuddle imbeciles. If has yet to be shown scientifically that truths and nonfiction early is more beneficial, but from my experience disinterested teaching of the worlds curiosities, even cruelty and danger, are beneficial to children who are stronger than we realize, that shielding them from reality we show ourselves honest and powerful by confronting reality and living and talking adventurously, with care and concern, but not excess coddle, protect them from real danger, not from fear and crying. Children need to be scared and taught how to manage fear early. 

[Superstition]

One is on solid ground to reject superstition. We should not give ground to save someone's feelings either, because to give credence to some superstition weakens one's position to all the others. Admittedly, it isn't always an easy matter to show what is superstitious and what isn't, and separate fact from fiction, true from false hypothesis, but we should not exaggerate the differences or say that none have it sorted out. I have it right and so do others.

{note1} My apologies if this seems tangential but this subject has many connections with life in its holism, and my interest is life as a whole and not merely some topic fragmented and cut off from everything else. 

One may list known superstitions, unfavored superstitions, from likely superstitions.

Clearly there is no difference between accepted superstitions and unfavored superstitions other than a hold on a small segment of humanity.

One must clearly describe superstitions to be sure not to miscategorize, equivocate, speak in vapid generalities. Make the "it" an "it" in another's mind.

The superstitious, in their respective clusters, point at each other's group and call each other superstitious.

Ideas range in silliness and absurdity. 

Ideas also range in connection with origin. "Where did this idea come from?" makes some superstitons clear, others not so clear. 

Signs:
-How much is the idea cherished.
-Does the idea depend on words that have emotional force, such that if the word is replaced, the appeal of the idea is lost?
-What are the elements of absurdity?
-Does it explain or not really?
-Counterfactuals?
-Where does the idea live [last word not so clear]?
-How arise?
-Connected with emotions and rationality, or lives with the emotions?
-Argue in the open or concealed?
-Core shared or revealed?
-Fearful of criticism or happy to war in the open?
-Favorable of specific words & translation adverse (as stated above). Word swapping issues?
-Motive force at the most basic psychological levels?

[Simplified filtration program, model of a possible cognitive analog. If not the norm, could be habituated into a cognitive analog [brain can an be used how we want, general tool].

When there are many connections and not enough time, you can point and depict. When art is not possible one can allude to possible projects of art. It cannot have the same impact but can signal range and depth.

[youth, ignorance, and incredulity]

It is not insignificant that the most intelligent children we encounter are also the least gullible, and the most incredulous. They need more reason to approve of ideas and exhibit a much greater capacity for detecting flaws.{note 1: I would also expect them to root out truths, which are more secure from criticism but less common, so open to popular complaint.} But no matter the capacity we find, it is based on experiences and talent, and from the beginning all are very weak at filtration. We are not critical from the start-- we gain critical power s we mature, and the more gifted among us are accelerated in this normal pattern of growth. 

The question as parents and educators we must ask is: what would we teach to empower children to attain this ability early? The earlier the better as critical skill is connected with more virtuous behavior, as defective points of view and pathways of behavior are noticed, creating more opportunities for wise discussions. {note 2: The more intelligent, energetic, and critical-- the more decisions can be made. [! list in the table of human shortcomings !]}. How do we teach children to avoid making stupid decisions, and establish patterns of autonomous filtration? How do we teach them what not to consider, what not to spend time on? Tis particular essay does not concern the wider topic as it fits into general ethics (which will be discussed later) but the narrower topic as it relates to intellectual life and information processing in relations, to imagination, fiction and reality.

What do we know for certain? We begin as gullible and credulous, and progress from clumsy critics to powerful and mature information filters (so far as we have the required mental raw materials and potential). Exemplars must learn like everyone else, but are accelerated. Factors are talents, gifts, high intelligence, right natural interests, and fostering environment. Some of these factors must be present. The skill needed is general and depends on knowledge. Principles may be discovered and used as tools on schema to handle new information.

What are we trying to do? Speed up the process and bypass wide/long experience. From this we can see that the factors in our control are: principles of thought, common experiences, vicarious learning, at a fast pace (versus a need to live many lives). Wise people, wise precepts, and [?] right interests/desires all assist.  Thus the intellectual critical education is like moral education and education in general. {note 3: See comments about coextensive moral decision making and general decision making}. 

Elements that would be excluded are those that we know to be highly contentious. We understand that at any period large groups of people accept plain falsities and superstitions and different groups tend to be superstitious according to local received culture. This is to be expected because of our natural disposition to be credulous and we must absorb what comes from our environment, as these are the messages we have available. Since criticism is a skill which is most noticeable in the most advanced among us, we know to expect the average to be much weaker, and that agrees with common experience. It also follows that the majority would be largely unaware about this fact (they mistake superstitions for facts, which is what makes them superstitious to begin with).

An aspect of the subject would be a study of many examples. Examples of suspect ideas would be needed, so as to not cause conflict with family and parents who believe various superstitions. Whatever the process, it must be acceptable to the superstitious majority. {note 4: This is already accepted in policy in the U.S., where especially contentious, non-c[?] views are ruled out (I think the point here is that in a majority where a diversity of superstitions are accepted, people still seek protection from other people's superstitions, particularly in the education of their children.)} It would be easy enough to operate on analogies to fictions which are not popularly accepted, although among the weaker minds the analogies might not be recognized. On a cultural level, this would slow development of the skill on average, but after slow operation, larger groups would recognize and admit the analogies, allowing for more open conversation. 

[critical power is a sign of sophistication, not vice versa]

Critical sophistication as naturally connected with learning and natural capacity is the first sign that non-critical thinking is a sign of lack of sophistication or natural ability.  Our culture values critical power greatly and education is greatly interested in increasing this basic skill. How do we get people to think? Critical thought is connected with careful and meticulous thought.

We also hope that people receive principles and learn quickly without rethinking everything, but one hopes people will teach and learn the basis of many views and that a quick but powerful process for criticizing and adapting is still employed.

Let's list out some details of a program for creating critical efficient minds.

- Daydreaming about false ideas is not valued. Although this is understood to differ from artistic production and imagination. Imagination is important, but should be recognized as imagination.
- Contentious topics are riskier and must be examined, if interested in accepting. Cannot take them in unreflectively. If a message is heard that might be contentious, it will be possible to regurgitate.
- Does a segment of the intellectual elite regard the ide as superstitious?
- Does the idea feel important to you, despite some inclination to thinking it is fiction?
- Was there a time you suspected it was fiction?

[algorithm of consideration]

diagram: 

Source ----[message, situation, mode of communication]----> Target audience

Basic communication is behind the entire process, and on short inspection we have wide survey of possibilities. We can also see that critical abilities use each part of the communication process to filter, and in education, for producing valuable trustworthy documents, there is already a path in place and the procedure is telling about filtration of superstition.

Notice the vast possibilities for source. Education teaches critical skill for source trustworthiness. Some sources are not mentioned but are implicitly excluded from the short list of reliable sources. 

Notice fast ways messages are presented and also how the manner of presentation hints at value. Quality messages could come embedded in poor made from poor source, but by induction we do not expect this. We would be surprised to see a change.

Target audience also tells about intent of message and value.

It is easier to filter in education because the environment is supportive of the process, and already integrated this into policy. 

Filtration becomes more demanding as we deal with people who have not adopted simpler standards and therefore relay false and superstitious messages.

[algorithm for consideration]

- Have you been through this one before?
- rapidly appraise the source
- rapidly consider the motives and intent
- consider the usual target of the message
- consider the message itself. In the most favorable interpretation and translation you can think of. 
- Confirm if no new messages of greater quality or something new is coming?
- Determine if there is an opportunity have for others kind of elucidation (learn from this mistake).
- What is the value of considering in relation to its value for doing something else.
- is it possible to do something else? No --> try to convert situation to higher value, Yes --> discontinue. [exit program]

[reconsideration of current views]

Reconsideration is lifelong. One must be willing to purge anything which has slipped through the filter.

We live in a sea of false messages. The views we internalize ought to be those of great truth, value, and soundness. These views we continually update given new information.

We become receptacles of wisdom that reflect and [?] within that receptacle., and [?] based on the best light that comes through the filter. [?]

[Filtration scope]

The scope of filtration should be likened to a multistage water purifier.

obvious junk is collected and discarded rapidly, via the thick mesh. 

More realistic info gets more consideration and might get caught in the second filter.

As we increase our skill, our purification gets much better, more efficient, and automatic. It becomes accurate and reflexive.

The coarseness of the filter is an inverse analogy to time and energy.

The most time and energy is on internal materials. Filtering and refiltering with ever increasing fineness of filter --> and as part of the process, we ask good questions and look back to the world to assist in the filtering. So there is a back and forth process. Can actually seek pre-filtered information, a process which actually clarifies and strengthens the desire to avoid bad information.

[after repetition, will find likelihood that items filtered will be false]

Others will claim that by this approach one will miss important truths, but it is clear to me that one necessarily misses important truths anyhow, and by not filtering one allows an influx of untruths which displaces attention from many sources of truth. One is inundated with a flood of nonsense and the effort to find anything of use becomes an difficult or impossible task. Contained within this idea that important truths would be missed is the detection that the ideas this person has are those which would not make it through. It is like thinking-- "but such and such wouldn't get through then, so then there must be something wrong with the filter!" This objection itself stems from the perception that a cherished idea would not make it through this procedure, and this makes it clear that it is less an objection than confirmation that it is a working solution. "Your idea won't make it through by design. That was the goal"

[insert "algorithm for consideration" diagram. from pg. 44 of book]

[notes on the algorithm]
 
The quality of the overall algorithm would use programming as an analogy.

- power of hardware
- efficiency of algorithm design
- machine learning. Repeat use caches and stores previous results used in future responses.
- Depth of accumulated experience (very large database). Storage increases, hardware improvement, algorithm refactoring. 
- Evolving hardware/system design.
- Sub-algorithm quality. Holism. Entire program quality depends on quality of parts. Every sub-algorithm depends on 1-4.

The process is low risk. If an idea is rejected, most likely it was low quality. If not, the idea very well might come around again in a way that is more accessible. 

[use of the algorithm over a lifetime. Religion. Repeat application, foreigner that already has critical skill. Imaginary place]

Facts about those with very high critical skill, and vast knowledge. Will be able to reject certain ideas with speed that would be very surprising to others, on grounds that they might not be able to communicate. Like a master of any other skill. It could be awe inspiring if one knows that it is in fact masterly.

[notes on algorithm]

The first diagram is only a part of the overall algorithm which takes where messages come from into consideration. In life there is a set of opportunities where an algorithm can run for choice of environment, people involved, books to select, places to go/stay, etc..  A quality algorithm of this sort will create more opportunities for messages to make it through, and less messages to be rejected, in proper proportion and in quantity as one would want to receive information. 

[algorithm for consideration.]

- environment selection module
  - kicks in when necessary, learning.
  - resource usage decreases once one is perpetually in a good environment.
  - like general skill acquisition & resources used until skill acquired and habituated.
  - like durable decisions/creations. Once one forms a home in a good neighborhood and financial security is achieved. This can turn off- but has been used so is dormant module, rapidly available.
- This would map to the divisions of ethics on the wide view.

[add diagram: Behavioral-environmental program]

[Complexity]

Superficially this is a simple topic, but if one investigates seriously one finds it is interdisciplinary and teaches many unexpected topics and aspects of everyday life. I wish here to give a glimpse of the vast landscape before confining attention to only those aspects which are important to deciding the central questions. All the while we will see distant vistas and tangential courses of interest, while blazing a path straight to our destination.

[Stress of nonsense, environment and the super-algorithm]

As one attains a level of critical ability and intellectual acuity, one might begin to find messages, sights, and other stimulation so absurd and nonsensical that the ever-present defects and all pervasiveness becomes positively stressful. Indeed, in my life, I've felt an overwhelming stress of omnipresent stupidity that is hard to ignore or escape. This might be thought an example of the acquisition of a filtration and error detection algorithm that have been acquired and then used excessively. It is involved too frequently and uses the resources of consciousness. While through strategy and use, filtration becomes subconscious, the increased power of automaticity can cause sudden and unwanted detection (activation of the module, as when suddenly we shift into another state of emotion or mindset) which are extremely precise. So habituation pushes some into the background, but brings others to the fore.

What becomes needed is adjustment of the super behavioral program's algorithm to decrease load on the smaller algorithm, by changing behavior so that total foolishness, nonsense, and unwanted irrelevant messages are stripped from the environment.

[danger, manipulation of mental toolsets]

There are dangers with this approach if used for harm. To this I remind the reader that we already do this and in fact some are already harmed by this process and do not know it. This shows the importance of bringing out the underlying pattern, so we can diagnose problems, and recommend proper operation.  By showing how this works some might discover how they were harmed (systematic filtration of high quality information at the environmental and attention level). Secondly, people are using technique here in isolation to raise familiar and place themselves into conditions which are favorable to the richest possible mental life, free and removed from taints of the ordinary populace. 

[algorithm not merely nonsense detection but value searching]

While I imagine that the goal of this algorithm is to purge and avoid the ever-presence of intrusive stupidity, which is a very great task, it must also be taken as a value searching algorithm. The appraisal of messages is value searching as much as it is nonsense and inefficiency avoiding. 

[Darwin quote- that we have reached a higher level of morality when we realize we must control our own thoughts. Part of the control of thoughts is the control of messages and environments to foster thinking that is of higher value]

[educating others - topic heading included with blank page]

[messiahism, and one leader, is dead - topic heading included with blank page]

[others seldom have your interest in mind and there is no obligation to re-educate everyone you come across. That kind of responsibility makes no sense because it is tied to degree of interaction with others and it is not necessary to be extroverted and to correct every fool that comes along]

Appraise the person's abilities and willingness to self modify and one's own capacity to teach (do I really know?), and finally if you desire that time to be involved. The wise person sees the entire behavioral web, and decides if involvement makes sense.

[formation of scientific hypothesis, and methods for quickly eliminating poor hypothesis]

There is an accepted method for constructing viable hypothesis. Built within this is the idea that some hypotheses are not viable, and we must have some means of quickly getting at the good ones to actually get to work. There is a skill to acquire which saves from false paths and wasted time/effort and focus on quality.

Correspondingly the same principle and skill set can be used to analyze the hypothesis of others, and as fast as one would generate poor hypothesis, one can dismiss in others. 

[This is a work of self-affirmation, not self-martyring or self-sacrifice. I will not recommend the dangers of saving those who are desperate, but can hold those who do in high esteem, esp. when they are solid in virtue and character and do not risk themselves by exposure to others, because they have hardened themselves in their wisdom]

[children and the filter]
-how great it is when they have it!
-how unfortunate when they don't!
-would we advise our children to be put in harm's way? Or occasionally venture out for good, with calculated risk?

[Robots and stimulation]

A major obstacle for the creation of robots that behave and learn like people i to create harmonized senses and the ability to create attention.

Invention of attention.

The potential information in an environment is staggering. The quantity of data concerning the state and arrangement of the human brain it. Since this is true, the complexity of the environment is even more complex, and we are continuously inundated with stimulation (which is merely a subset of all potential information, that happens to include information available to our senses, or information that could be available if we could reveal it (like cracking open a geode).

Our lives are only possible due to the existence of patterns and we naturally learn to internalize patterns as children, incrementally until there’s very little in our ordinary environment that surprises us. The more intelligent we are, the more we continue to find that surprise us, and this we come to internalize increasingly specific and accurate patterns in the world.

A robot in the first generations could not possibly have the attention needed to get through this learning process (attention by evolution concerns biological interest/desire and surprise, etc…).

A machine is more likely eventually to attend to ever greater quantities of information, vastly quicker than the capacity of the brain, but still less than the potential information inside environment. So still attention is needed. Processing speed and power continues to be a consideration.

The creation of attention would likely take human attention as the model. Beyond selection of stimulus in environment to pay attention to would be selection of information of interest, and the selection of spatial position to find and keep relevant information present, as a physicist seeks to be near a university lab and library; or creation of a lab in his own environment. 

[Assume desirability of some messages over others]

Some readers may delight in the onslaught of idiotic messaging, and find comfort in rude and unrefined company, and I will not strive to convince them to change their tastes. Instead, I assume a like minded readership including those who do not wish to listen to any and all music to find a [?] any and all shows, to find a future classic, read through a library of books to get to quality information. Instead I assume the barrage of bullshit and idiocy to be something we wish to avoid almost permanently, to spend time in lush serene oasis and not the barren desert or a city of idiots.

I met someone who told me he enjoyed listening to anything he could get his hands on. For me, I prefer to let others filter through it and attend to the more valuable pieces that bubble up [so many cliches Matt]I prefer a continuous stream of quality. Sure I might miss a gem or two, but I will already be surrounded in them.

All the while I could still venture out into danger to get a rush, see some beauty in the common life, then quickly return to refuge with renewal, and confirmation that my focus is correct.

[serene sights, safe places, rich entertainment, occasional ventures into absurdities. Drink the pure water and eat the ripe fruit, enjoy fine company and fine experiences - and al in a way that is humble, not ostentatious, not excessive. I simply go to the right places, talk to the right people, and walk the “straight and narrow” path.]

[realizing that one’s own ideas are superior to those in incoming information]

There came a point in my life when I realized the quality of information circulating within my mind was more valuable, more instrumental, all encompassing, profound -- and my searchings yielded more useful results. In such a state how do I spend my time? I find it is better to find like-minded company and resources, and in short, follow my own inclinations regarding information. Also, to spend more time writing and working out solutions to my own questions. 

[can wisdom be taught?]

Our discussion provides some assistance with the question concerning educability and wisdom. We can see that the difficulty of teaching wisdom is due to preconditions of receptivity, desire for wisdom, willingness to become disciplined/temperateness concerning desire or a power over desire to channel correctly. One would rely in development of wisdom on right attention and a life within the right information. What information? Messages of potential information in the form of richness of experience. Anyhow the wise person exerts control over information, which definitely fits a strategy differing from the unwise. Maturity and experience is involved since it is lacking in children. Intelligence/temperance is involved since the children that do have it exhibit control and discipline and temperate character. This is not to say one cannot be fiery and laps, but there is an elevated personality showing independence.

While we can say wisdom is different due to variable learning and experience, pointing out the patterns that wise have in common certainly leads towards educability, for then we are aware concerning traits of the wise. (This is seemingly irrelevant now. You need to write at time of inspiration!)

[quotation]

Over time one’s ability to invoke a quotation at the right time and moment is a demonstration of understanding of the source strategy. Better yet, personalized translation that preserved the meaning or extends its aprehention, or even refines it through counterfactual is better. So while we are constrained to deal in brief mesages, we can yet demonstrate deper understandin g and recall of highly complex material that repels concise communication. (art, graphic, mathematical formulae, visions_

So now let’s replace a contradictory use of maxims for a more complex and generative/useful strategy

[Distance and avoidance of absurdities unknown}

It goes unrecognized how fortunate we are for not being adrift in the sea of chaotic superstitions others find themselves in, and thus others are yet fortunate that they are not ubjected to the endless variety of absurdities that fill the world. A culture and language provides some boundary to the nonsense one encounters. While we lament an inability to converse with tongues of interesting nations, simultneously we are protected from the disappointment of finding that gems are difficult to find in an even more barren civilization. We don’t learn a language to find only useless or common utterances. 

One might say that ignorance of ignorance and absurdity is bliss.

It is like living free from simply staying clear of wastelands [? illegible]

It is not merely of interest to avoid nuissance stimulation, but nuissance information; and there is reason to imageing a geniuine distinction between the two. Int the course of development one erely oves from one to the other, and level of attainment in the latter requires first exceeding the demands of managing the former. 


==== type book out before this line===

An important point to make, again, is that this procedure is already in use. Intelligent people quickly cast away nonsensical ideas to maintain clarity and focus, and will actively alter environments to be favorable to their goals and interests. The ideas which are considered most ridiculous fall within the triad of foolishness.

##Base filter is for Stimulation. We are talking of a specific subset of stimulation, but I do want to point out that much of what we say here also applies for other forms of unwanted stimulation. 

[include below as part of the analysis of superstition. That there are degrees of absurdity]
There are levels of ridiculousness
-anything spoken in tongues
-Vacuous talk. Ideas spoken in tongues with words that are familiar, so it feels meaningful but isn't.
-Nonsense/illogic.

What could be used as the overarching concept covering superstition, illogic, nonsense, vacuity, etc.. I almost wish to employ "fiction" here, but pure fictions can be discussed without being nonsense.

What kinds of stimulation do we want to avoid?

##Enemies to this approach

Enemies to this approach are anyone who would impose any educational policy which substitutes scientific/emperical/demonstrative truth as the primary criterion, not only publicly, but among their own children.

##Definitions

From Oxford English Dictionary

etymological meaning: The etymological meaning of I. superstition is perhaps 'standing over a thing in amazement or awe'. Other interpretations of the literal meaning have been proposed, 'e.g. excess in devotion, over-scrupulousness or over-ceremoniousness in religion, and 'the survival of old religious habits in the midst of a new order of things' : but such ideas were foreign to ancient Roman thought.

1. Unreasoning awe or fear of something unknown, mysterious, or imaginary, esp. in connexion with religion ; religious belief or practice founded upon fear or ignorance. 

1b. In particularized sense : an irrational religious belief or practice; a tenet, scruple, habit, etc. founded on fear or ignorance. 

2. An irrational religious system ; a false, pagan, or idolatrous religion.

3. Over nicety ; exactness too scrupulous.

4. Irrational or unfounded belief in general ; an unreasonable or groundless notion.

apparent associations: superfluity, irrationality, excess, idolatry, groundlessness, imagination, baseless unreasonable, scrupulousness, exactness, ceremonial, anachronistic.

Superstitionless. a. free from superstition

From Synonym Finder:

Superstition, n. 1. blind belief, warped notion, fallacy, mare's nest; illusion, delusion, mote in the eye; prejudice, prepossession, fanaticism; irrational fear, belief in omens, obsession; myth, fable, old wives’ tale. 

superstitious, adj. ungrounded, groundless, unreal, unsubstantial, untrue, false, refuted, disproven: apocryphal, fallacious, erroneous; illusory, delusive; magical, incantatory; fetishistic, talismanic; fearful; apprehensive, obsessed, fanatical, zealous.

##Ideas most important to avoid

Those ideas which are most important to filter would be those which are plainly false, costly, inefficient, involve lengthy false paths, wrong connections, faulty environments, faulty connections, etc. Superstitions, fictions, pure imaginations, hallucinations, etc.. are ideas which fall into this category. 

It is clear that there is dispute concerning which ideas are characterized in this way, but no matter one's personal beliefs, some ideas are filtered this way. In other word, people are selective among their chosen falsities, but continue to exclude many nonetheless. 

##Subjectivity and improper application

There is no questioning that this process is fundamentally subjective, and in keeping with principles of freedom, one is presumed able to choose for oneself, hopefully by use of using objective/impersonal principles, to decide what is filtered and what is not. 

Logical procedure should result in truth, but in reality people will differ in their free an subjective application, and so people still find themselves in irrationality and untruth.

Likewise, we can discover the principles of filtering unreasonable messages, and we can improve in finding valuable/truthful messages, but there is no guarantee that we will fail to use them correctly. We can only hope that by revealing the processes we can bring clarity and rationality where it might not exist without the support. 

Individual readers will find themselves differing concerning the question of specific superstitions, or potential superstitions, in terms of overall costliness or profit. While there might be grounds for maintaining superstitions on the basis of consequentialist grounds of pleasure or comfort, there is reason to believe that any superstitious belief can be replaced by a non-superstitious version which is satisfying. As a matter of fact, the reason for such a filter is for the pains that superstitions create, in the removal of potential.

I leave it to the reader to decide if the procedure is desirable for personal use. In any event, it is my opinion that this procedure be made available to children for them to understand how to use reasoning at all levels of behavior, from the most specific actions, to lifestyle choices, in creating thoughtful and positively truthful environments, over the nonsensical environments we find ever-present today. 

It is in my opinion that many superstitions which bring comfort are believed with a layer of pretense. By this I mean it is invoked temporarily for some playful/joyful reason (as with specific holiday's), and that there is a therapeutic effect which is temporary and localized. While I don't personally approve of this for risk of slipping into actual superstitions, and in modeling the wrong things to youths, overall I think pretended superstition is largely indistinguishable in effect from actual superstition, except without the dangers and risk of permanence. 

I do believe this thought process amounts to "To what extent are these foolish ideas useful?" -- and to that I respond, that intelligent people tend to want to purge foolish ideas, however they might be useful to the unintelligent. There are hidden costs associated with bad ideas, which might last lifetime, and frequently such ideas can be entertained temporarily to the same effects as actual belief. People are free to be playful with ideas, but there is little reason to believe that one 'ought' to select falsity over truth concerning any ideas whatsoever.

In general practice, one need only show that an idea is nonsense or fiction to convince someone that they ought to change their behavior concerning it (which is why dissonance is so strong, the natural consequence is seen to be personal change to align with truth, and this is sometimes too intolerable, and so rationalization is preferred instead). Historically there is little reason to think that one would suffer harm of having truthful views, except for receiving punishment for those who have false ones. In that case, we can use deception against those who threaten us, and retain our freedom of mind.


## Bibliography

[1] Synonym Finder. J. I. Rodale. Warner Books, New York, NY 1989p. 1195
[2] Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 1971. Su-Sz, 193
[3] Interpretations of Poetry and Religion, George Santayana, The Poetry of Christian Dogma, 68
