Page 2 of 2

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:36 am
by James S Saint
Mithus wrote:Continuing with your ontology, you wrote – before it comes to the subject of Magnetism - , that strong negatives waves, which encounter the strong positive waves of a larger particle, create many points of inertia, which prevent the smaller negative particle from getting too close to the positive particle, instead it veers off to a side, orbiting the positive particle.
Why is it that the negative particle doesn't crash into the positive particle, or, in association to psychology, why don't negative and positive influences mix and neutralize each other?

This gets into more detail concerning my prior post:
James S Saint wrote:
Mithus wrote: But then, the next point is: „When a small negative particle approaches a larger positive particle, the smaller particle grows asymmetrically with its greater increasing noise closer to the larger positive particle.“
When the mind filters out those negative influences to keep it's (positive) emotional charge, what does it mean that those influences still increase and grow „asymmetrically“?

That is an issue of extreme impedance mismatching. The term "asymmetrical" was referring merely to the physical shape of the particle. In a uniform space, a particle will maintain a spherical form. But within a gradient, it becomes less spherical and when in the situation of being a small charge getting very close to a large mass with the opposite charge (an electron approaching a nucleus), the small particle becomes relatively flattened, such as in the pict below:

      Image

This behavior is due to the gradient between the two objects becoming too steep, forming an impenetrable wall between them. Such is what causes the tiny negative electrons to merely float around and orbit much larger positive nuclei of atoms to which they are otherwise drawn strongly toward. Analogous things happen concerning psychology and sociology.

Wave Propagation
For a wave of anything to propagate past a point along its path, that point must raise or lower to the instantaneous value that the wave represents moment by moment as it is passing. As a wave of water passes a certain point, the level of water at that point must increase or decrease to match the wave pattern. It is by that action that the wave propagates from point to point. Each point along the path must reach the value of the prior point in order for the wave pattern to continue. And how quickly those values can change determines the speed of the propagation:
James S Saint wrote:The concept of MCR is still valid but in physics it occurs due to maximum affect rate that is logically possible whereas in psychology it occurs due to maximum perception rate physically possible.

Speed of Propagation
Light propagates at the speed that it does because it is logically impossible for anything to affect anything else at a faster rate than what we refer to as "the speed of light". The speed of PHT is a little different because its propagation rate depends upon how quickly the physical substratum can be affected, how quickly neurons respond. Faster neurons (electric wires or optic fiber) would allow for any associated perception to change faster.

MCR
In the physical universe there is a Maximum Change Rate of affect, MCR, directly responsible for the "speed of light in an [absolute] vacuum". As an electromagnetic wave propagates through space, the electric potential, the "voltage" at each point must raise and lower such as to reflect the value of the passing wave, just as the water level must for a passing water wave. And there is a maximum change rate possible referred to as the MCR. Voltage cannot change faster than the MCR. The MCR is an issue of the voltage having to change at faster than infinite rate in order for the wave to propagate any faster. Because nothing can change faster than infinitely fast, there is a maximum possible propagation rate - "the speed of light in an [absolute] vacuum" - a natural impedance.

The Physics
Since space is filled with propagating waves crossing each other, the voltage values at each point raise and lower such as to reflect not merely one wave passing by, but many waves simultaneously crossing each point. The voltage value at each point is merely the sum of all of the intersecting waves at that point.

Statistically, that means that often the addition of all of the waves will reach the MCR. When that happens, the waves must take longer to continue their travel, thus delays arise in the form of extremely brief "traffic jams". Those single point traffic jams are "MCR points". And the number of them occurring within any given region of space is what gives space its "density" (the "permittivity of free space"). The higher the density of space (the "Affectance density"), the slower light will travel through it because it is not an "absolute vacuum" and delays must occur. When the density reaches extremely high levels, we refer to it as "mass" or "dark matter". Light can still very slowly pass through the dark matter, but gets completely blocked and dispersed by mass. When the change rate gets too high, the waves simply cannot pass until sufficient time has elapsed, "delays". Particles of impenetrable mass are formed when too much delay has caused traffic jams that cannot ever disperse ("subatomic particles").

The Impenetrable Wall - An Exclusion Barrier
The point is that delays occur due to the extreme change rate required at each point in order to have many waves crossing. And that means that if a point in space is at a very high positive value due to a positive wave or pulse traveling by and a very negative pulse happens immediately afterward, the rate of voltage change at that point can become nearly infinite. And that means that a MCR point has occurred and any waves involved must delay their travel. They are impeded.

The very same traffic jam effect that causes limited propagation speed and a mass's inertia also delays strongly positive and negative waves as they interact. And since the electron subatomic particle and the nucleus of an atom are made of such strongly negative and positive waves or pulses, as they approach each other, the constant stream of pulses associated with each particle form a steady impenetrable wall of MCR points between the two particles.

Particle Annihilation
The question becomes, "Why don't they just gradually cancel and disperse into neutral, random radiant energy?" And if the two particles were of equally yet opposite charge and also the same size, that is exactly what would happen. If one of the two particles is not of significantly greater mass, the two particles, although delayed a bit, would annihilate each other into merely a puff of EMR noise of sufficient magnitude to express the amount of energy involved - a "photon". If one is of much greater mass (thus greater energy), it cannot be dispersed at the same rate as the other even if they were otherwise annihilating each other. And that means that the dispersing does not take place.

As particles are releasing tiny portions of their traffic jam, they are constantly absorbing more and reforming themselves from that same surrounding EMR noise that they help create, the ambient space - mass field - "gravity field". For a total annihilation to occur, there must be equally opposite potential and also equal mass. If the annihilation is not total, the particles merely reform as perhaps smaller particles. And if one particle was much more massive than the other, each tiny little pulse interaction between the two particles is not of equal opposing potential because the one with the larger mass will be more spread out. If each tiny portion is not annihilating, the whole cannot annihilate either.

And that is why an electron will never merely rush into a nucleus even through strongly "attracted" toward it. There is an impedance barrier between them. The theory concerning orbiting centrifugal force as the cause, is bogus. If an electron didn't fall into a nucleus merely due to an orbiting centrifugal force, a great, great many electrons would never establish an orbit to begin with as they immediately plunged directly into the nucleus causing serious radioactivity disintegrating all materials (so don't be misled).

Now Back to Psychology

Psycho-Impedance Exclusion Barrier
Sociologically speaking, that same impenetrable wall is formed by the prospect that Israel become Catholic. The two entities are actually drawn toward each other, yet they can never converge. The change would be too great for the high priests to mentally handle. All progress would halt as they argued among themselves as to which is to be more sacred than what. Yet they would hang around each other and feed off of each other's opposing behaviors - the negative not being able to fall into the positive. The same is true for many conceptually defined groups that maintain a sacred order and priority.

The social groups cannot converge because of the totally unacceptable mental and emotional changes required of the persons involved. It is not merely an issue of "those are the bad guys and we are the good guys". It is far more an issue of which idea is believed to be of higher priority, true, or serves a greater purpose. How easy would it be for you to accept that 2+2 is really 5 .. and truly accept the belief? Could you merely accept the irrationality? Most people certainly could not and thus would not. So if any proposed theory ends up requiring that one believe that 2+2=5, the theory will not be accepted by anyone who accepts logical mathematics. The theory might seem plausible and be strongly associated with logical mathematics, but despite such close association, logical mathematics and the theory could never converge. There are many mind puzzles proposed throughout the history of philosophy that demonstrate how two perceived truths can not converge. They are called "paradoxes" - both A and B seem to be true, yet if A is true, B cannot be true and vsvrsa.

Psycho-mass
If contrary theories had an equal amount of application (aka equal "mass" - instances of usefulness), a person is likely to dismiss both into a neutrality of favor and indifference of belief - "annihilation" of acceptance. And if the two theories were equally opposite in perceived hope and threat, no passion toward either direction would be generated - neutral PHT. But given that mathematics requires 2+2=4 in millions of applications and it is merely a newly postulated theory demands that 2+2=5, annihilation into non-belief of both will not occur. The new theory will be rejected, kept separate and isolated (hovering around mathematics, yet never converging with it). Why? Because the field of mathematics is far more spread out into millions of applications and not so easily dismissed.

Socio-Impedance Exclusion Barrier
And socially, given Catholicism is spread so much more widely than Judaism, the two could never annihilate each other even if they had otherwise equally opposing potential .

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:25 am
by Mithus
The next point in your ontology deals with the forming of a “magnetic wave”. You wrote that "a wave of affect, when entering a region of greater noise, gets more delayed and the trailing edge of the wave begins to catch up to the leading edge compressing the entire wave", which makes it to a “magnetic wave”, and further, that "a compressed wave stores its energy potential within a smaller volume yielding a greater affect within the same propagating time frame as a non-compressed wave".

I'm not sure whether you described this effect already in your example of that woman, who “perception-compresses” the smaller object into a singular indivisible concern, or whether this is a different issue.
In the latter case, concerning the Perception of Hope and Threat, what makes a “non-compressed” influence to a “compressed” influence (what does it mean in psychological terms, that the trailing edge of the wave catches up to the leading edge), and what equals that “smaller volume”, wherein the potential is stored?

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:59 am
by James S Saint
Mithus wrote:The next point in your ontology deals with the forming of a “magnetic wave”. You wrote that "a wave of affect, when entering a region of greater noise, gets more delayed and the trailing edge of the wave begins to catch up to the leading edge compressing the entire wave", which makes it to a “magnetic wave”, and further, that "a compressed wave stores its energy potential within a smaller volume yielding a greater affect within the same propagating time frame as a non-compressed wave".

The following is an anime that I put together to illustrate what happens when a PHT or electric potential wave encounters an increasing then decreasing mass field density, a gravity field. The mass field retards and compresses the wave, producing a "magnetic" wave component (pink in the anime). Since all of space has some degree of mass field (the affectance), such real waves are always associated and referred to as "electromagnetic waves" or "EMR" (electromagnetic radiation).

    Image

An EMR wave is typically illustrated thusly:
    Electromagnetic Wave 2.gif
    Common Illustration of Electromagnetic Wave
    Electromagnetic Wave 2.gif (16.18 KiB) Viewed 801 times
The understanding that the magnetic wave component is merely the compressed portion of the "electric field" or PHT, is strictly RM:AO. Concurrent physics agrees that such waves compress (become shorter) when entering a gravitational field. RM:AO explains why they do, as well as why they decompress as they leave. Due to the change in affectance density, radio waves that leave Earth into space obtain a longer wavelength as they decompress their magnetic component. If a truly absolute void could be achieved, zero ambient affectance, there would be no magnetic field left and the electric potential wave would be traveling at maximum speed of affect.

Mithus wrote:I'm not sure whether you described this effect already in your example of that woman, who “perception-compresses” the smaller object into a singular indivisible concern, or whether this is a different issue.
In the latter case, concerning the Perception of Hope and Threat, what makes a “non-compressed” influence to a “compressed” influence (what does it mean in psychological terms, that the trailing edge of the wave catches up to the leading edge), and what equals that “smaller volume”, wherein the potential is stored?

The field of physics grows with complexity into the fields of chemistry and electronics. Magnetics is perhaps the most complicated subject within physics and electronics to fully envision and comprehend. In psychology, electronics is a field that more simply addresses the analogous issues. Let me list a few directly analogous terms between electronics and psychology (and sociology):
    • Electric voltage = PHT
    • Electric current = effort
    • Conductor = path of effort
    • Resister = burdensome clutter along the path
    • Inductor = a frustrating path tempting trying too hard, trying to go too fast, "lusting", or impatience.
    • Capacitance = memory
    • Magnetics - compression of hope or threat
    • Distance = degree of association
    • Compression = more closely associated than normal
    • Compressed PHT = oppression: frustration, anticipation
    • Voltage multiplier = teasing so as to amplify desire (amplify PHT)

From that list;
  • Voltage produces a current along a conductor = PHT produces effort along a path
  • Resisters block free current along the conductor, consuming energy = distractive clutter blocks free effort along the path, consuming enthusiasm, passion, and incentive.
  • Inductors retard current, producing magnetic fields, compressing energy = frustrated efforts tempt trying too hard, lusting, possibly anger, "compressing passion" into demand.

These associations could have been easily seen hundreds of years ago, making psychology and sociology into precise measurable sciences much sooner.

Magnetic fields indicate that things are compressed and could be more spread out from their beginning to their end, lengths could be greater, more time could be taken, perceptions could be more distinct, and/or concerns could be more separated.

Socially, these concepts are used to sell products, create both loyalties and rebellions, instill loves, hatreds, ideologies, and racial manipulations.

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:40 pm
by Arminius
According to RM:AO, gravity / gravitation and electromagnetism are something like concomitants of the affectance.

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:20 pm
by Mithus
Arminius wrote:According to RM:AO, gravity / gravitation and electromagnetism are something like concomitants of the affectance.

As far as I understand it, Affectance is defined as ultra-minuscule, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses, and that which is called “gravity” is an aberrant effect of the natural behavior of affectance, the result of a gradient field of affectance density. And that without electromagnetic radiation, there couldn't be any “gravity”.

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:05 am
by Mithus
James S Saint wrote:Inductors retard current, producing magnetic fields, compressing energy = frustrated efforts tempt trying too hard, lusting, possibly anger, "compressing passion" into demand.

According to your ontology, a magnetic induction is created when "compressed waves, passing into a charged particle, have greater affect upon a particle causing the particle to shift more greatly into the oncoming wave".

So when an influence is more greatly associated than normal, the person involved cannot create those inertia-points, which would prevent the negative from getting too close, and the mental impedance barrier doesn't work properly, because a "compressed" influence and the person involved are more equally (yet opposite) charged and more of the same "size"?

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:49 am
by James S Saint
Mithus wrote:
Arminius wrote:According to RM:AO, gravity / gravitation and electromagnetism are something like concomitants of the affectance.

As far as I understand it, Affectance is defined as ultra-minuscule, mostly randomized electromagnetic pulses, and that which is called “gravity” is an aberrant effect of the natural behavior of affectance, the result of a gradient field of affectance density. And that without electromagnetic radiation, there couldn't be any “gravity”.

I couldn't have said it better, precisely true. Affectance IS the mass/gravitation field AND electromagnetic field AND subatomic particles AND anything and everything else. All physical existence is made of affectance (a necessarily true fact, not merely a postulate). And then due to evidence discovered by Science over the past 400 years, it is more than obvious that what has been called EMR is merely waves in the ocean of affectance and nothing else. And what has been called "gravity" is simply an affectance density gradient (usually toward particles). And what has been called "subatomic particles" are merely self-aggregating and sustaining clumps of otherwise loose affectance (ultra-minuscule, randomized EMR clumps). And the "positive and negative charge particles and associated fields" are merely affectance above or below ambient average level of PtA (Potential-to-Affect = Electric potential = Electric Voltage).

If you happen to be familiar with electronics, you should recognize that with the afore mentioned components, any kind of electronic circuit can be made merely by providing the right conductor path between instances of those components. Similarly, any kind of behavior can be "programmed" into any living being merely by providing the psychological version of those same components and "circuitry" (aka "complex"), assuming that the being is actually physiologically capable of learning and the programmer has the appropriate tools and environment (not a trivial situation). Hypnotists have the greatest opportunity for such programming, but seldom comprehend sufficiently to do much without causing as much or more trouble than they fix.

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:01 am
by James S Saint
As explanation and a mental exercise for using the very simplest affectance understanding in a practical application, I am going to tell the story of the schooling of Emma. I could call it a story "based on true events" because it starts off about real events but for sake of explanation I want to extend the story beyond the actual experienced events. For those involved in teaching children, especially their own, this can be extremely useful. One can even apply it to oneself, although usually less effectively.

The Schooling of Emma
Emma is a young girl of age nine. We have discovered that she is not doing well in public school. It seems that the problem is that she simply cannot pass hardly any tests, so we are going to fix that. Public schooling involves merely memory and social training. In this exercise, we are not going to get involved in the social training of "proper" attitudes and behaviors nor of any specific ideologies; political, social, or religious.

Using merely the simplest of affectance understanding, we are going to enhance Emma's natural memory such that she can learn somewhat instantly and recall whatever she has learned upon testing. We are going to enhance both her visual memory and her language skills to the point of being a polyglot with a photo graphic memory. Merely as a part of her exercises, she will learn with perfect recall, a much larger vocabulary, Edgar Allen Poe's The Raven, three languages, and Shakespeare's first five sonnets .. all before she reaches ten. At the end of such exercises, she will be prepared to learn to be a mathematician, pianist, actress, philosopher, and most importantly, a lady (one who is exceedingly considerate of all those around her as well as herself)..

Since Emma is still attending public school, we are going to start with simple affectance conditioning that she can immediately begin to use. Currently she is given a series of 20 five letter words each week. Up until now, she has never past a single week's spelling test. Although there are common associative methods for helping someone learn to remember words better, we are going to skip that and simply increase her IQ. Starting with her next test, she will never fail another spelling test. After two weeks, she will get 100% on every spelling test from then on.

The method is very simple. We are going to enhance the conductivity of her visual perception into her visual memory and from that memory back out to her consciousness. We are merely going to provide a far more clear path to and from her visual memory. With clarity of path comes flow of affectance and clarity of remembrance.

The Environment
First we are going to setup a quality learning environment. Since clarity is what we are after, we must ensure that Emma's efforts are not disturbed by distractions or confusions (the affectance flow to have minimal resistance). To do this we bring Emma into a room wherein she feels just a tiny bit intimidated and a tiny bit hopeful, a mild sense of reverence wherein she instinctively becomes more alert and attentive to what might come next. The only sounds in our room will be our voices and some soft instrumental music in the background (aka soft "elevator music"). The lighting in the room will be focused mostly around a table where we will spend time practicing mental processes. That room and where she sits within will remain constant throughout the program. This common, simple, and consistent environment will provide the affectance potential (aka "PtA") and perception clarity necessary to enhance her learning process.

Programming
The human mind is constantly programming and reprogramming itself based upon subtle guessing as to what might be more important or effective. The problem is that it doesn't know what processes to program into itself until it has already begun to try, somewhat of a confused trial-and-error method often leading to stupefying traps. Most people who have troubles with mathematics are merely the victims of being led into mental process traps, preventing them from being able to learn math. All we will need to do is demonstrate to the mind which processes are most effective thereby resolving the inherent question, directing away from process traps, and providing clarity of hope.

      Perception of Hope gathers to tasks
      Perception of Threat scatters and masks
The mind naturally migrates toward whatever it perceives as hopeful and away from whatever it perceives as threatening. This concern applies even to the mind's programming of itself. This is how habits are formed. Thus perception of hope, PH, is used to reinforce memory and behaviors while perception of threat, PT, is used to disrupt and erase memories and behaviors. Recently, this has become a serious technology. We are going to use merely PH so as to migrate Emma's mental efforts toward firming up her remembrance behavior/process. No punishments, threats, scolding, or slapping knuckles with a ruler will be necessary or allowed.

We Begin
    After sitting Emma at her learning table, we begin her conditioning. We place a piece of clear white paper with the clearly printed letters "C A T" before her. With a loving demeanor, we ask her to look at the paper and try to memorize the letters. After about 30 seconds, we remove the paper and ask her to tell use what letters were on the paper. To our surprise, she can't recall .. not even those three simple letters.

Because we know Emma to not be seriously mentally impaired in any other way, we can easily deduce that her mind simply isn't trying in the right direction. Such is often the case with teachers, parents, and media who are too chaotic in their own behavior and thereby in effect, teaching such mental chaos to their children. So we are going to be consistent, precise, and flawlessly patient. We give the paper to her again and watch to make sure she is at least looking at the letters.

    Again, after a few seconds, we remove the paper, but this time ask only for the first letter. We find that she isn't certain. So again we show her the paper for a few seconds. Removing it we ask again, "Okay, now what was the first letter?" Finally, she gets it, "C", to which we reply, "There you go. Great."

    "Now let's see if you can get another letter. Look at both the first and second letter" as we pass the paper back to her. After a few seconds, we remove the paper and ask her to tell us what the second letter was. She remembers, "A". "Very good. But now can you tell me what the first letter was?" She isn't certain, but hesitantly guesses correctly.
Each time she shows any uncertainty, we note it and immediately repeat the process before going any further. We never leave her in doubt of what she saw. We never outrun her process of establishing certainty in what she has seen. This is how we establish clarity and confidence in the process of memorizing and recalling. Her confidence is important because any future insecurity issues will challenge her more intellectual processes. It is critically important to never outrun her mind's attempt to discern the process and be accurate. Outrunning her is to leave rubble in the process path (resistance in the conductor) and weaken the affectance flow that establishes her memory ("particles of mass").

Realize that Emma is not merely learning to spell the word "cat", but actually learning how to memorize and be tested, the largest portion of public "education". It is far more important to teach how to catch fish than it is to merely give a fish. In this case, Emma's "fish" are the spelling words she will be given each week. She must learn to catch them on her own and feed them back to her testers and judges.

    We show Emma the paper again, remove it again, and ask of the first and second letter, as many times as necessary. After it is certain that Emma knows the first two letters, we add the third letter and go through the same process. And we don't always ask for the letters in the same order. We somewhat randomly ask for the second, first, or third letter.

    Within a short while, it is clear that now she knows the letters on that page very clearly. So we take a short break discussing her toys, boys, or whatever. About three minutes later, we ask her what the last letter of the three letters was. She hesitates.

The mind falls into modes and tends to compartmentalize processes, memories, and behaviors. Emma fell into a memorization mode wherein a word was stored. When she was distracted by discussing other facets of her life, that mode was deemed no longer important, ready to be brushed aside along with whatever data was included. We must teach her to leave the process and data intact, never to be brushed aside. So we immediately repeat the entire process as necessary to reestablish her perfect remembrance of those three letters.

    That doesn't take very long, so we add three more letters a little below the others, "D O G". And showing her the paper, giving her a minute to study it. And removing it, we ask for the first letter of the second word. She remembers that letter quite easily, "D". So then without showing her the paper, we ask her what the second letter of the first word was. She doesn't hesitate, "A". "Can you tell me what the second letter of the second word is?" She hesitates. "How about the last letter on the page?" She makes a wild guess .. missing it. Laughing a little, "No, no. No fair guessing".

    We show her the paper again for a minute. "Are you ready?" She nods her head. We remove the paper and immediately ask, "Okay, hmmm… let's see … what is the last letter on the page?" She gets it, "G". "Alright, that's better. So emmm… what about the first letter of the second word?" She gets that one too, "D". "Hey, you're doing great. The middle letter of the second word?" She hesitates and starts to just guess. Before she practices that attempt to merely guess again, we quickly slide the paper back in front of her for just 5 seconds. "Got it now?" "O", she responds. "Good, but how about that first letter of the second word? "D", she responds. "And the last letter?" She just starts to hesitate but then comes through with an excited "G!". "Alright! You got it. Great." Then a little more seriously, "But now .. can you tell me what the first three letters were?" She very slowly states each letter, "C .. A .. T". And the seoncd three letters? Again slowly, "Emmm .. D .. O .. G". "Great! You got them both!"

Most teachers would stop with that, thinking that she has learned to memorize letters and words. But we aren't that presumptuous. We know that Emma has just gotten started instilling the memorization process in its purest form. We want it to be "hard-coded", firmly instilled, a part of her mind, not likely to ever be forgotten. And the process is not about letters or words. It is about images. So before we go any further, we ensure that the image of the entire paper is firmly instilled. It is unimportant to us that the image is of letters and words.

    "So now, tell me the third letter of the first word." She correctly answers. "The second letter of the second word?" She correctly answers. The second letter of the first word?" She hesitates. We frown a bit and after a few seconds, pass the paper back to her. "Got it? Ready?" She confidently nods and we go again, randomly picking the letters for her to remember until there is no doubt that she knows every letter and its placement on the page. Finally, we say, "Okay, now for the final test. Start from the bottom and spell each word backs up to the top of the page." It is important that we mention "final test" as such might later become an impeding distraction of concern or worry from the process of simply remembering. Many people fail tests merely because they were worried about being tested. It is an after effect of being too harshly judged and thus too worried about what others are going to think about what the person is doing, distracting from the actual doing.

    Without much further adieu, she can easily recall every letter on the page in any order. And with that, we conclude our first lesson period with congratulations, smiles, and the recommendation that she tell her mom of her accomplishment.

It perhaps seems unreasonable to spend one day to merely learn two three letter words when each week her tests contain 20 five letter words, but when begun properly, the process clarified and firmly instilled, she will catch up fast and very soon far surpass.

The next day, we pickup from there….

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:53 pm
by Mithus
Your method is reminiscent of that which is commonly known as “behaviorism”, which explains the behavior of human beings with scientific methods, using conditioning, reinforcement and repetition for the learning process, based on a stimulus-response mechanism (to summarize it briefly). Would you differenciate your method from the theory of behaviorism?

The critics of behaviorism say that such conditioning will be frustrating for the pupils if it comes to complex learning content, because by dividing it into little steps, the learner lacks the meaning and thus the insight in what has to be learned. So they conclude that conditioning only makes sense if the content can be divided into little steps without destroying the meaning context, for example, as in Emmas case, when learning individual vocabulary or practicing simple mathematical principles.

I suppose different people, as well as different learning contents, require different methods. How would you clarify and direct the affectance flow when it comes to more complex issues? Maybe you have an example.

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:16 pm
by James S Saint
Mithus wrote:Your method is reminiscent of that which is commonly known as “behaviorism”, which explains the behavior of human beings with scientific methods, using conditioning, reinforcement and repetition for the learning process, based on a stimulus-response mechanism (to summarize it briefly). Would you differenciate your method from the theory of behaviorism?

Affectance Ontology is based upon necessary cause to effect ontology. AO doesn't contradict any actual science results in any field but rather dismisses many of the offered explanations ("Yes, that will happen, but your reasoning is sloppy"). AO is about the "Why" behind the Science. Science is about the "How" to bring about an effect. As with physics, the differences are about ontological construct, the understanding of why things behave in the way they do, not about whether given a specific effect, one will get a specific result.

Behaviorism concentrates on the "reward/punishment" effect, ontologically presuming propensity and conditioning. AO includes such concerns but offers more generally consistent and detailed ontological elements such as impedance, resistance, inductance, particalization, and so on. The distinction is like comparing a typewriter to a computer.

Mithus wrote: The critics of behaviorism say that such conditioning will be frustrating for the pupils if it comes to complex learning content, because by dividing it into little steps, the learner lacks the meaning and thus the insight in what has to be learned. So they conclude that conditioning only makes sense if the content can be divided into little steps without destroying the meaning context, for example, as in Emmas case, when learning individual vocabulary or practicing simple mathematical principles.

I suppose different people, as well as different learning contents, require different methods. How would you clarify and direct the affectance flow when it comes to more complex issues? Maybe you have an example.

What is missing in the entire field of practical psychology and education is the rationale of clearing the path for education before attempts to educate are applied. In Emma's case, behaviorism would suggest that one merely practice spelling each word over and over, rewarding good responses until the words are memorized. Such requires high tolerance for mundane tasks and often yields dubious effect. What I have been describing with Emma is how to increase the effective intelligence such that the learning of the spelling becomes easy and natural.

In the beginning of the story of Emma, behaviorism and Affectance Ontology look very similar because the fundamental concern of conditioning a response ("enhancing a path") is the same. The sharp distinction is in the target of the conditioning. AO suggests to clear the path to and from memory before trying to cram information into memory - remove the impedance to the intelligence involved. After the impedance or resistance to learning has been removed through the properly applied and targeted conditioning, Emma will need almost no repetition training or reward conditioning at all for many years to come regardless of what she is trying to learn. She will simply glance at the paper and later read it back from memory. Behaviorism reward/punishment education issues then become moot.

The entire approach to education becomes significantly different once an understanding of how to cause easy learning is established. The AO understood approach is much like clearing the path for building a high speed railroad, slow at first, clearing the terrain and constructing the rails, but very fast and enduring once established. Currently modern education is closer to the chuck wagon era of a little at a time for a very long time with many hazards along the way.

I'll finish the Story of Emma shortly.

Re: Physics of Psychology

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:15 pm
by Stephen C Pedersen
This thread reminds me of Freud and how he tried to bring psychology closer to science with the conservation of energy. Plainly said, mental knots of repressed energy must can't disappear. Therefore mental energy turns into physical energy in the form of behavior. So people who repress their emotions may be more likely to burst out load thoughts, rock back and forth, pace and so on, because energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes form.