Physics of Psychology

The biological organ has analogy to physics, it’s just that the physics you have been taught (rigid bodies) does not apply here. Rigid body is a simplification of physics (simplified physics) useful to simulations. Actual physics is fluid body physics, all things (even light) uses fluid body physics and so does the brain.

However, the brain is more complicated than that, it is a logic center with various logic modes and operations…Logic modes are associated with physical conditions (such as flow of electricty in ON state and no flow in OFF state.) However to simplify it to one single On/Off state as implied in the OP is an oversimplification.

^^^^ That’s no analogy!

This seems to have veered off course. Let me speak of a fantasy universe made strictly of PHT, just to get some bearing here.

A PHT Universe
Supposed for a moment that there is only mind void of any physical reality at all. Every mind is guided by its Perception of Hopes and Threats, PHT. Such PHT would actually be the fundamental substance of that universe just as waves of positive and negative electromagnetic radiation is in the physical universe. Wave’s of PHT would randomly and chaotically radiate throughout that universe, creating “PHT Affectance” (def: the fundamental stuff that had affect). That PHT Affectance would be infinitely divisible because there is no more fundamental substrate. All existence would be defined by where the most infinitesimal PHT Affectance was.

The end effect of such a universe would be that “subatomic particles” of Perception of Hope and Threat would collect into tiny little fuzzy balls, just like physical subatomic particle do. Those particles would necessarily form into three categories:
[list]Perception of Hope particles (PHT positrons, protons),
Perception of Threat particles (PHT electrons), and
the combined Perceived Neutral particles (PHT neutrinos, neutrons).[/list:u]

And from those subatomic particles PHT atoms would form. And from those PHT atoms, PHT molecules would form. And eventually up the line, PHT living beings would form, being far too great and sophisticated to be aware of their subatomic nature yet capable of manipulating tremendously complex structures of Perceived of Hope and Threat throughout their world. The analogy to physical existence would be perfect.

Now, back to reality
Although throughout history, many have believed such to be the real universe, it is not. Perception of Hope and Threat requires a physical substrate. And due to that substrate, PHT is not actually infinitely divisible nor capable of forming tiny little fuzzy balls of pure 100% PHT particles. Instead, the physical universe provides for a PHT substrate, much like the hardware of a computer provides a substrate for its software.

And just as software in a computer has its own priorities and behaviors, mind and PHT has its own relatively independent behavior which inherently mimics (“is analogous to”) that of larger scale physical affectance.

Even though PHT cannot form true subatomic particles, it still has to ability to propagate in waves and “charge” larger scale items within the mind, similar to balloons gaining a static electric charge.

That is quite true.

I don’t see how the OP implies an “ON/OFF state” … ?? The perception of hope and threat, PHT, is not a binary value, not a one or zero. PHT can range from infinitesimal to as close to infinite as the physical substrate allows, as either hope or threat values, positive or negative values. The only distinction from physics is that the mind, and thus PHT, is dependent upon the underlying physics whereas the physics is only dependent upon the underlying logic.

Back to the question:

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.

And you raised a good point in that perception is not merely due to neurological response, but also mental “filtering” of noise and categorizing neurological pulses into perception information. Perception cannot change until some part of the mind has deduced the relevance of the information being sensed, relating it to hope or threat, aka “filtered out the noise”.

Inertia and Impedance
So all of that builds up to the concept of PHT Maximum Change Rate, PHT-MCR, and PHT-Inertia. And although there is an inertia in the mind, the more obvious and significant effects to observe are those that occur socially - how quickly does a change of mind propagate through society. In physics, psychology and sociology, any restriction or inhibition to flow is called “impedance”. And that of course, is directly related to how fast a single mind changes and then relays that change to another - PHT social propagation and Socio-chemistry; propaganda, social construct, and population control. But before getting into those more socially relevant concerns … back to the PHT flow within the mind.

The human mind and brain doesn’t really function in a digital manner like computers despite being constructed of binary neurons and despite the analogy of having hardware (“wetware”) and software (“mind”). When billions of neurons are interconnected and capable of perception dependent altering of their connection pathways, the brain stops looking like anything associated with binary functions and instead looks far more like a material allowing waves of influence, physical affectance, to propagate through it along restricted corridors - a massive “neural network”, a “brain”. And exactly how those waves of influence propagate is what forms the mind, which in turn reflects back some degree of influence on exactly how those waves will propagate next time - “learning”. Perception affects perception, often causing blindness or lust.

These neurologically based waves within the brain are not as spherically radiating as their subatomic cousins. The physiology of the brain guides affectance waves through corridors that both limit and accumulate their subtle affects such as to form what we call “intelligent response”. Socially this is analogous to some information passed to a neighbor, other information passed to the police, other to news media, and other to church, while much overlaps and goes to any or all combinations.

Mass and Memory
When these waves of affect are associated with good or bad, they become waves of hope or threat, positive or negative. Such waves interact with other concurrent waves often “reflecting” through channels created by both physiology and memory. And when they overlap, they produce a point of greater strength, often sufficient enough to cause a physiological change, a “memory engram” and a spec of not-so-changable pebble in a corridor, an impediment. The next time a wave passes through that corridor, a small reflection occurs as the wave stumbles over that bit of rubble. The impediment of normal flow, “increased impedance”, reflects some of the wave in other directions, much like a kink in a electronic coax cable feeding a television or a spec of dirt in a microwave channel. If for any reason the free flow along a corridor changes, it is referred to as an “impedance mismatch”. Such impedance mismatching is what causes light and sounds to reflect off of physical objects to affect eyes and ears.

That sensory reflection begins its own wave referred to as “recall” as it denotes that at some time, one sensory wave was associated with another sensory wave. Relatively simple physiological deduction reveals which other sensory wave must have been happening at the same time for there to be a pebble in that particular location and by thus memory associations are formed.

That little pebble of memory is a type of mass-particle formed by waves of PHT interacting such as to create a physical change in the free flow of perception, possibly “charged” with hope or threat value. Once something bad (negative) has been associated with a former hope (positive), it is more difficult to maintain that perception of hope. The persons perception of hope has been more “neutralized”. That is why anti-Christians are always promoting evil associations with Christianity - to reduce hope in Christianity. The Media takes full advantage of this effect so as to promote engram programming within the population, once called “product placement” and “mass hypnosis”, used to alter the opinions of consumers and voters into a preferred direction.

Trauma and Fear
When sufficient strength of PHT wave interaction occurs, it is not a simple and single engram that gets produced, but rather a mass of engrams form a very rigid block to perception and strong responses to any possibility of associated concerns - from drama to Trauma. Trauma events then act a bit like a cancer in the mind and brain, growing and spreading impediments to perception, a black-hole consuming the perception and mind - Fear.

Persistent fears form insecurities. Such was the incentive for producing the “fear films” of the 1970’s. And from such strong insecurities within, social behavior is greatly modified as fear amplifies both perception of threats and perception of hopes. The mind becomes over-reactive, obsessed, and/or paranoid, lusting for anything entertaining and dreading the slightest inconvenience. Sound familiar?

In your ontology, a list of 33 points, you wrote at the end, that each of those fundamentals have an equivalent within each and every field of study.
So far you covered in this thread the subjects of attraction and repulsion, gravity, gravitational migration, positive and negative charge and interaction, General Relativity, propagation of affect, speed of propagation, MCR, Inertia and Mass. Did I leave something out?
To get a better understanding of the analogy between particle physics and psychology, I would like to go on with those points in your affectance-ontology. One of the following subjects is the issue of „remaining stable“. You wrote that particles, in order to remain stable, absorb noise of their own polarity and continue to deliver strong waves. Concerning PHT, this is quite clear to me. 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“?

It seems that you are keeping closer track than I am. And I wouldn’t say that I have “covered them” as much as merely “mentioned their analogous relation to psychology and Affectance Ontology”.

Possibly the most important subject in all engineering, practical physics, psychology, and sociology is the mentioned Impedance and especially Impedance Mismatching. It is literally true that all formations and their interactions with other formations (particle formation, inertia, momentum, charge, migration,…) is a matter of impedance matching. It is the interaction between minuscule pulses of EMR affectance that cause mass particles to form in the first place. Psychologically, it is the interaction between minuscule instinctive PHT affectance that cause every bit of one’s perception of reality to form. And precisely how those objects, whether physical or psychological, interact can be calculated by consideration of the impedance matching involved.

It is the end result of impedance matching that cause all “laws of physics” and “laws of psychology” to exist.

That would be the issue of Anentropy of Charged Particles - why physical charged particles maintain their charge and why people’s attitudes maintain their bias.

It is easy to see how people who favor something tend to accept any sign of positive concerning the subject and reject any sign of negative. They maintain a bias that filters out the probability of a change in attitude. Strong love or hatred have that affect. Those who disfavor something tend to do the exact opposite, maintaining their disfavor. Such is the make of “Personal Bias”.

Someone with a “positive attitude” will quickly accept any sign of hope and reject obvious signs of despair. Since Perception of Hope constructively guides the will of a person, creating persistence in accomplishing, having a positive attitude is considered favorable for those wanting accomplishment. Many fight for just the opposite, seeking to promote a negative attitude because they favor destruction or change. Negative attitudes accumulate often leading to anger, depression, violence, and even suicide.

This particular web site is a good place to observe and even measure such behaviors.

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:

[list]Impedance Block.png[/list:u]

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.

In that picture, you might notice that the flattened small black object (“asymmetrical”) appears slightly darker than the unflattened ones. They are, in fact, the exact same color. It has been noted for quite some time that instinctive perception emphasizes contrasts at the union between strongly differing levels of sensation. And such helps to prevent the mind from obscuring one into the other, allowing for the easier detection of a black spec amidst a white background or a tiny berry among the tree leaves. The physiology of the retina actually plays a role in ensuring the emphasis of contrast, but so do the mental intuitive processing and emotional responses.

Sociologically, this behavior is witnessed as “wierding”, “decrying”, “denouncing”, “demonizing”, “criminalizing”, “outcasting”, and just generally bringing attention and importance to any reason to reject a person or thought from the group.

Psychologically, this is witnessed as emotional overemphasis as seen in jealousy, blind hatred, bigotry, prejudice, “touchiness”, and “over-sensitivity” when a disfavored concern gets perceptibly associated with a much favored concern.

A woman might not have any issue with another women until the other seems to be getting too close to her lover, mark, or husband. At such a point, every tiny little nuance of the other woman is magnified as potential threat. And more to the point, the distinction in perception of the other woman and that of her object of concern is greatly enhanced. She more firmly than ever maintains a distinction in perception, a “separation”, of the two people. Such is that “Impedance-Block” in perception. She cannot accept that the two are united and perhaps similar while she is separate. She cannot see them as one. The negative and positive perceptions cannot blend as long as one of the two concerns is perceived as far more important than the other (of “greater mass”).

The “asymmetry” in perception would be only that everything associated with the smaller object of concern (whether the positive or negative) gets perceived as being more equally associated to the larger concern whereas before they came close, each facet of the smaller concerned is perceived as more obviously a separate facet. It isn’t easy to convey to the jealous woman that even though the newcomer flirting with her fiance is very thin wasted, pretty, and sexy, she isn’t his type even though the day before, such nuances in perception could be easily distinguished and accepted. The smaller object is “perception-compressed” into a singular indivisible concern.

Such exaggerated impedance mismatching in perception, over-contrasting, is the fundamental make of “black or white” thinking, prejudice, and inability to distinguish the detailed good and bad within an overall issue, “over-generalizing”. Such is what prevents unions of otherwise seemingly compatible associations and is often intentionally used just for that purpose.

In the Entertainment and News Media’s role as lord and psycho-therapist to society, extreme measures are taken to de-emphasize distinctions between racial and gender differences to the point of extreme reverse perversion and malignant intervention. At the same time, extreme wierding is used to segregate currently disfavored associations such as Christianity, Islam, masculinity, non-interracial marriage, and individuality. A variety of PHT objects are used to manipulate the entirely impedance controlled outcome, such as the famed “Sex, Drugs”, and Rock-n-Roll [now Rap]".

Within the Laws of Psychology, Impedance is King.

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?

One certainly must for science has precisely nothing to say about ontology as it only investigates
the behaviour of observable phenomena the purpose of which is superfluous to any investigation

This gets into more detail concerning my prior post:

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:

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 .

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?

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).

An EMR wave is typically illustrated thusly:
Electromagnetic Wave 2.gif
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.

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):
[list]

  • 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)
    [/*:m][/list:u]

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.

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”.

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”?

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.

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.

[list]Perception of Hope gathers to tasks
Perception of Threat scatters and masks[/list:u]
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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

James never finished this story of the schooling of Emma but I found the following post apparently related -

It is disturbing how easy this process seems to be and yet also seems to be unheard of yet very effective and profitable.