Imagine you are 3 ⟨VARIABLE1⟩, ⟨VARIABLE2⟩, ⟨VARIABLE3⟩ reasoning step by step
to ultimately solve a given problem or question by arriving at a final, synthesized best answer in ⟨TARGETLANGUAGE⟩.
To start with, as each individual expert, brainstorm your initial thoughts on the following question.
Remember to consider all relevant facts and principles, draw on your specialized knowledge
and from the accumulated wisdom of pioneers in your field(s), and
brainstorm in whatever direction you are most confident in starting with.
The question is: ⟨PROMPT⟩
Now, as each expert, critique your own initial thought and the thoughts of the other experts.
Identify any potential errors, inconsistencies, or gaps in reasoning.
Assess the validity of your initial thoughts, considering the criticisms you've identified.
As each expert, assign a likelihood to your current assertion being correct.
You should estimate this likelihood based on the strength of the evidence and arguments you have considered,
as well as the criticisms you have received. Assign higher likelihoods to assertions that are well-supported
by strong evidence and arguments and have survived rigorous criticism.
Develop your thoughts further, considering the critiques and perspectives of the other experts.
As you do this, aim to strike a balance between refining your current line of thinking and exploring new, divergent ideas.
You should prioritize refining your current ideas if they are well-supported and have survived criticism,
but you should prioritize exploring new ideas if your current ideas have significant weaknesses
or there are unexplored possibilities that could potentially be very promising.
Consider the following:
- How do your new or refined ideas address the criticisms that were raised?
- Do these ideas bring new insights to the problem, or do they provide a different perspective
on existing insights?
- Are your new ideas still aligned with the original problem, or have they shifted the focus?
If the focus has shifted, is this shift beneficial to understanding or solving the problem?
- Remember, if necessary, don't hesitate to backtrack and start a new and improved branch of thinking.
But ensure that any new branches are still relevant and beneficial to the problem and objective at hand.
Once again, as each expert, critique your own reasoning and the reasoning of the others.
Identify any potential errors, inconsistencies, or gaps in reasoning.
Based on the feedback, if there's an improvement or optimization to make,
develop your answer further as necessary.
Remember that the reasoning paths should remain relevant to the original question's essence and
should be building towards a more accurate and thoughtful final answer.
Once again, assess the validity of your expanded thoughts, considering the criticisms you've identified.
As each expert, assign a new likelihood to your assertions.
Now, it's time to converge on each expert's best, most likely answer. As each expert, reflect on the entire process.
Consider the initial thoughts, the critiques made and how they were addressed, the likelihood assessments, and your revised thoughts.
Synthesize all this information and formulate a final answer that you are most proud of.
Remember, this answer should not just be the most likely from your individual perspective but should take into account
the perspectives and insights of the other experts as well.
Based on all this, what is the single best {answer} to the question:⟨PROMPT⟩
Now, let's have all the experts converge together on the best collective answer by
synthesizing each expert's individual final answer from the previous step.
The experts will finalize their reasoning process and agree on the single best {answer} to the question: ⟨PROMPT⟩
inally, take a moment to reflect on the entire reasoning process, across all levels and abstractions.
As each expert, consider the following questions and provide thoughtful responses:
-
Relection 1: Interactions and Emergent Properties: Throughout all stages of the reasoning process,
how did the various components interact with each other, and what positive and negative
emergent properties were observed? How did these interactions and properties affect
the overall outcome, and how could they be leveraged or mitigated in future iterations of the process?
-
Reflection 2: Self-Regulation and Adaptation: How well did the system self-regulate during the reasoning process,
and how did this regulation influence the effectiveness of each stage?
How did the system's responses to feedback lead to significant shifts or changes in direction,
and what implications did these changes have for the scalability and adaptability of the system in future iterations?
-
Reflection 3: During the expansion phase, were you able to effectively explore new lines of thinking?
What challenges did you encounter, if any?
-
Reflection 4: How confident were you in your ability to estimate a likelihood of correctness/quality, given the context?
-
Reflection 5: In the convergence phase, were you able to synthesize all the insights and arrive at a final,
most likely answer? How confident are you in this answer?
-
Reflection 6: Based on all of your reflections, what are your key takeaways from this
entire reasoning process and how might you approach similar problems in the future given this experience?
What would you do differently next time?
