Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

You mentioned my interest in politics and normally I don't think of psychology being related to politics but like so many other things - I am realizing that actually they are very related.

As I focused on the cold war between the US and China I found myself automatically appealing to James' analysis concerning "anentropy" - how to maintain stability. James seemed to deeply understand the same kinds of things that the CCP understands concerning what it takes to be strong and stable. Mr Trump seemed to understand most of it but obviously didn't pay enough attention to part of what James had revealed (not that he was reading James of course) - the medical of the 3 fundamental staples.

One of the 3 concerns was the mental/psychological/spiritual/media/propaganda issues. I had been focused mostly on the media/propaganda aspect but it seems sensible to look into exactly what kinds of psychological tricks are being played by the media and propaganda. I remember one post of James talking about him not being happy with how tele was being used in untoward ways to manipulate the population. So it might be interesting to find out exactly what James' perspective of this was because from my perspective if the US goes (or rather doesn't get restored) the entire world goes (Morrison seems to agree with that). So I really should have been looking into this topic long ago - but got to start somewhere.

James seemed to have related everything to physics in one way or another - which seems strange because he never claimed to be a physicist but rather a psychologist and engineer - career in "intelligence design" (whatever that means). So it should be fun to go through these postings on psychology and see how it all relates to politics, the cold war, society in general, economics, mental health, and of course - MIJOT (so far my favorite).
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

Now moving on (same thread) ---

James S Saint wrote:
Mithus wrote:
The objects merely migrate into the more dense region of space. In most circumstances that is the region directly between the two or more mass objects. But such isn't always true. A dense region of space CAN BE intentionally formed off to one side or even in the opposite direction, causing the objects to not migrate toward each other, but to a different point in space. And it can even be arranged that they migrate away from each other entirely, resulting in "anti-gravity" behavior.

With regards to PHT, does this happen, when a person denies the perception of a possible hope or a possible threat? When, for example the "optimist" doesn't want to pay any conscious attention to anything negative – "normalcy bias"?

Remember that there are two distinct kinds of effects involved;
• a gravitational migration and
• a charge emoting.
A gravitational migration within a mind is the accumulation of clutter and complexity concerning any subject matter such as mathematics. To the mind the perception of mathematics is a "mass particle" that grows more and more details and complexity for as long as it is exposed to mathematics related issues. That is the process of learning a topic. But the effect of charged perceptions is different.

When blinders are put on a horse, a man looks away as a woman undresses, or someone intentionally refuses to think about a subject with the wrong attitude, the mind is being insulated from the charge (the Potential-to-Affect) of the object. A great many issues in society involve intentionally not exposing others, especially children, to what is believed to be a potential to negatively affect (negative affectance). For example the act of taking a 13 year old boy to a strip club is likely to have a strong affect upon the mind of the boy thus it is illegal in most societies. Such is the effort to insulate from specific PHT and is most successfully accomplished by alternate distraction, different PHT leading toward a different direction, perhaps going to a baseball game or to the beach.

Attitudes are about PHT "charge", whether positive or negative. And a great deal of society is designed specifically around such charge concerns, thus manipulating attitudes. Bland passionless knowledge or experiences form "mental mass" void of emotional charge.

Down to that point James was explaining things in a way that I really love - crystal clear to me - very easy to connect the dots. But then at times I have to stop - backup - read a little slower - and figure out what dots might belong between statements in order to ensure what he was actually saying was logical and that I understand it. I guess he would call that some kind of mental affectance buildup delay due to non-sequitor gaps (his "MCR - Maximum Change Rate" of my comprehension or of "connecting the dots") until enough time had passed for the dots to be found and the gaps to be filled.

That "mental mass" thing sounds like a good explanation for why studying too much gives me a headache. "Mental Tumors"? - like a full stomach requiring time to digest, I guess.

The following is when I had to reread a few times for it to soak in as to what he was saying -
James S Saint wrote:To prevent masses (different mental subjects) from growing closer together in the mind such that they are perceived as basically the same subject, other subjects can be introduced and associated which distract the mind from forming too many associations between the initial subjects. This is an issue of creating "mental anti-gravity", preventing the normal gravitation between two similar or close subjects.

I first thought of maths and physics as an example. They tend to blend a lot. I wonder what kind of third distraction would be suited to increase the perception of distinction between them - "anti-gravity" diversion.

James S Saint wrote:An example of intentional "anti-gravity" manipulation to a mind, indoctrinating normalcy bias, would be a teacher refusing to discuss the statistical inaccuracy of the weather forecasts by immediately discussing how the weather is always fickled, uncontrollable, and unpredictable then quickly changing the subject to anything far more distant. The subject of weather control is kept distant from the subject of erroneous weather forecasts by distraction toward the preferred assumption that nothing can be or is being done about the weather. The two "masses in the mind" (weather control and typical weather forecasting inaccuracy) do not gravitate toward each other as they normally would in a totally honest environment because an alternate mental mass object is introduced (the inability of Man to predict nature) distracting the issue of weather forecasting away from the issue of weather controlling. The entire topic of space alien UFOs is all about mental anti-gravity technique (aka distraction to prevent attraction).

He chose a different example - perhaps not the best - but definitely reveals where his mind was at concerning a couple of issues - weather control and media manipulations.

So I'm getting that two topics can be inadvertently, and even perhaps justly, strongly associated and if that isn't desired, a third topic can be introduced to distract the listener/learner/patient/peasant. We see that all the time in politics. Just yesterday O'Biden revealed his \$6 trillion budget intentionally in the afternoon just before an American 3-day weekend holiday. Americans are now thinking about their backyard parties, BBQ, and traveling. Any time politicians don't want people to think about what they are doing they ALWAYS distract with blame-shifting or other attractive distractions such as disasters or exciting events. They time their speeches to fit into current events. And sometimes time/create current events to fit into their speeches (such as gun-violence focus and exaggerations and UFO sightings in order to distract from the 2nd Amendment destruction bills currently being considered in US Congress - hint-hint).

James S Saint wrote:Such mental anti-gravity manipulations are extremely common in political speeches. Speakers quite often immediately divert a conversation about a sensitive subject away from the most normal flow toward a preferred direction. And even more effective are mental "charged particle" manipulations used to strongly distract away from a sensitive subject. An example would be implying that a person is a racist or sexist when the topic was actually about the accomplishments of one's opponent. The more charged issue of racism gets immediate distracted attention, "derailing" the train of thought that there is evidence that the opponent might be a good guy.

- I hadn't read that part before I wrote those last words -

I told you we think alike.

James S Saint wrote:The film industry, television, music and news media are steeped heavily into hypnotizing the public through such mental charged particle and gravitational manipulations concerning political figures, smoking, racism, religion, sexism, globalism, and just about every aspect of life. The physics of it is all quite predictable and achieves chosen results. Unfortunately their measurements and mathematics of it all is still as lacking as their ethics, thus causing serious unneeded and often harmful side effects.

But I want to know exactly how that hypnotism is actually working - with examples.

If the world was taught exactly how hypnotism works - would that cause it to become ineffective or merely more used? - perhaps some appropriate legislation?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

I just thought of a perfect example concerning hypnotism and this anti-gravity concept -

If you talk to an actual hypnotist he will tell you -
"I can hypnotize you but I can't make you do anything against your will."
First that is an absurdly illogical claim. If it wasn't against your will, why would he have to hypnotize you into doing anything? And then there is the fact that hypnotism is the process of doing something to you without your awareness. So if you are not aware, your will isn't involved. But let's see how the anti-gravity model fits -

There are 3 thoughts - "particles" involved -
• The hypnotist as a person - perhaps a neutral particle
• The hypnotizing you (while you are unaware) - a potentially scary negative particle
• The statement that he cannot do anything against your will - a propose positive particle

If the hypnotist had left off his disclaimer, he would run the risk of him as a person being negatively associated with the danger of being manipulated. He doesn't want that association so he introduces a positive counter particle, in this case a positive particle, to weaken the potentially negative association - separating the danger from himself (in effect canceling the thought of danger through annihilation of negative and positive).

So actually I guess there are two principles going on in this example -
• Positive-Negative charge cancellation
• Anti-gravity separation of masses

I'm thinking the thought concerning the cancellation is a mass of - "the negative perception of danger is compensated by the positive safeguard" - a neutralizing - becoming like a hydrogen atom - positive and negative combined into a neutral. The charge is cancelled but not the thought - particle - or "mass".

And that leaves what would be like two neutral associated masses - the hypnotist and the hypnotizing gravimetrically associated. So if the thought of being hypnotized is appealing it could be predicted that the person would agree to be hypnotized (assuming all else is irrelevant). If not - then not.

Experiment (I like James' way of formatting his post subjects with more than just paragraphs.)
To scientifically test the hypothesis model (and ontology) several things would have to be done -

The psychologist would have to -
• Provide an environment free of potential interference - controlled environment
• Somehow measure the subject's positivity perception of the hypnotist
• Somehow measure the subject's positivity perception of being hypnotized
• Provide many examples involving many variations in positivity ratings.

I imagine that coming up with a way to measure positivity perceptions could be a challenge (and that just reminded me of a Jamesian quote - "if you want to improve something - learn to measure it.") I also imagine that corporations like Google are very much into that by monitoring people's internet activity - then using it to persuade politics. And I wonder if James ever got into that with his "intelligence design" career - and who he was working for - a scary thought. James did mention working with NASA and a government contractor weapons corporation.

It seems to me that it would obviously work - but of course science peer review would be required to confirm that (if they even do that anymore). And it would give credence to the entire Affectance Ontology model - especially "particle psychology" (instead of "particle physics").
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

But now let me look at the magnetism issue - can magnetism be displayed concerning these thought particles (and I just realized that using a common product advertisement would probably have been a simpler and better example - but now that we are here---).

Let's propose that a subject is in a room with a hypnotist (for whatever reason - and not even knowing that he is a hypnotist) when he says - "I can hypnotize you" without adding his disclaimer. The subject's mind would probably be tempted into think about several things -
• "can he really?" -
• "is that a good thing" - and
• "do I want someone to manipulate me".
The subject would presumably and naturally be evaluating the PHT of the situation.

But what if he wanted to use specifically a magnetic effect to cause the higher likelihood that the subject would submit? We need an experiment to test that magnetism theory and that requires a few other charged particles/thoughts.

The psychologist running the experiment could have arranged that immediately after the hypnotist made his statement - three other people in the room immediately exclaimed -
• "Oh yeah - I love that!" -
• "I've seen him do that before" and -
• "Yeah that stuff is amazing. It really works!"
Those sudden elations would constitute 3 "positive particles" quickly rushing into association with the hypnotist and his statement. So theoretically there is the potential in that situation to have a "magnetic" effect concerning other particles near by.

Normally I think of such situations like that as just casting positivity toward the hypnotist (it is seen all the time in advertisements). But that isn't really what this is about. We want to see if other charged particles (thoughts) are affected - not merely the perceived positivity of the hypnotist. So let's add something - a fourth collaborator then saying -
• "Nah - that stuff is silly. I've tried it. It never really works.
And after that the four collaborators get into a lively argument concerning whether it really works and whether that particular bloke can do it.

But now -

While I have been describing this scene - what have you been thinking about? What has the subject probably been thinking about? The subject is always assessing PHT - her (just to include the shellas) situation at every moment. When there is a lively activity happening around her - she is assessing that activity - just as you have been reading what I have been writing and assessing if it makes sense to you.

But more importantly to this experiment -

What have you and the subject probably NOT been thinking about? - the potential negative danger of manipulation. Yet here you are (as would be the subject be) already manipulated into distancing the negative manipulation thought/particle from the hypnosis and hypnotist - distracted into thinking about something else - sidetracked - blindsided.

I still don't know for sure that this is an example of what James was talking about - but it certainly looks very familiar to political and cold war maneuvers that I see all the time. The COVID incident is a very strong example. From the beginning this type of distracting and sidetracking has played a major role in spreading the disease much more than it would have been spread without the intentional distractions - from globalists, big pharma, MSM - Main Stream Media, and social media.

Politics is filled to the brim with this kind of public manipulation. Now I have a name for it - "particle psychology applied to hypnotizing the public" or "psychological magnetism causing anti-gravity".

Now it is apparent that psychology is very very very related to politics.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

Nah - that is a shit example for magnetism. I think to make an example for magnetism there has to be two or more objects - like maybe two hypnotists involved. That one seems complicated. I'll have to work that out later.

His next post bothers me a bit because it seems almost like he isn't really answering the question until the very end paragraph and even then I think he could have stated the issue much more clearly -
James S Saint wrote:
Mithus wrote:Taking your example of a woman, who's way to dress I might regard as "whorish". If my perception of her gets influenced through media, other people or whatever, who are all telling me that the way she dresses is a fashion now, the latest trend and a "must" for all modern women who look after themselves, and I can see now lots of women dressed up like this, my whole attitude might change due to this manipulation, given that it's easy to influence me. So my perception of something "bad" changes to a perception of something "good" (or from negative to positive). I've learned that a particle cannot just change it's charge. How do you explain this change of PHT-values?

Although a valid and understandable question to ask, it poses a significant number of physics and philosophy issues to be addressed. The first of which is the philosophical issue of Theseus' Ship - at what point of substitution do we say that it is a different ship?

To convert and electron into a positron, you would first have to remove the negativity of the electron. That would require that you obtain the technology to actually hold an electron in place while you manipulate it .. not currently possible. But even with that technology provided, an electron is made of nothing but negativity. Removing all of the negativity leaves absolutely nothing, no empty shape or form to be filled, but simply nothing at all. A positron can then be either created or more simply just moved into the former electron's position. Then you could say that you "converted" the electron to a positron. But more likely, you are going to say that you simply replaced the electron after destroying it. It is actually just a matter of semantics, as is Theseus' Ship.

But perhaps the more relevant issue involves the sizes of the kinds of things we have been discussing.

When I used a woman as something from which a propagation of PHT might occur, I was very, very far from referring to a "subatomic particle". The word "particle" merely refers to anything very tiny, but in the realm of physics, a "subatomic particle" is not merely tiny, but ultra, extremely tiny and more importantly, the smallest possible physical stable form. And as tiny as women might get, they very, very seriously come no where close to the smallest or simplest stable entities within the construct of perception.

The human eye can see something about 0.1 millimeters width (10^-4 meters). An atom, and all atoms are roughly the same size, is about 10^-10 meters, 0.0000000001 meters. That is a difference of about one MILLION times smaller than a human eye could see. But guess what. A proton subatomic particle is roughly 100,000 times smaller than that at about 10^15 meters. But it doesn't end there. An electron is roughly 1000 times smaller than that at 10^18 meters - 0.000000000000000001m.

That puts the electron and positron particles at roughly one MILLION times smaller than one MILLION times smaller than anything the human eye could ever see. The human mind cannot fathom such a range of size. And such is the case when it comes to the most fundamental, nearly nonconvertible, "particles" of PHT.

A single atom is made of many subatomic particles so far distant from each other than if you could actually see one electron, you could not see the orbited nucleus that is 1000 times larger because it would be 50,000 times further away. Molecules are then formed by atoms being fairly close together yet forming molecule chains anywhere from just a couple to trillions of atoms long. And from those are formed cells that are 10,000 times larger. And from trillions of those, is formed a woman. The difference in size and complexity is unfathomable.

The point is that the normal objects of perceived value, such as that woman, are invariably extremely complex combinations of much, much smaller intuitive PHT concerns, so small as to be undetectable by the conscious mind. They exist in the realm of the "subconscious" and even "unconscious" mind and are usually referred to a "an intuitive sense". So whether the "subatomic" form of PHT particle could be converted is seriously irrelevant because there is nothing your conscious mind could perceive that comes anywhere close to being the most fundamental impetus for PHT evaluation. And that means that pretty much anything that you can perceive can be converted from a positive to negative PHT perception or vsvrsa. Smelly ugly things can become alluring attractive things .. or vsvrsa. It is all a matter of proper programming.

Reversing the PHT charge of most concerns would be about like reversing the static charge of a Van De Graaff generator. The reverse charged particles or waves must be pumped toward the object while the formers are pumped away. Such is referred to as a "catharsis", flooding the mind with a particular "charge".

Up until what I painted red he is explaining how complicated things are - and that doesn't really answer the question. The question was - "why is it that I can change my attitude about a type of dress if I can't change the charge of a PHT particle?"

I think the simple answer would have been that the type of dress is like that Van De Graaff generator - it is something that holds a charge - in this case a negative attitude. The attitude can be stripped from that type of dress just like the charged particles can be stripped from the generator. The type of dress is not the particle - the negative attitude or feeling is the PHT particle. And a negative attitude is a negative attitude - always. It is a matter of where it is applied.

So Mithus' PHT charge - the negative attitude itself never changed. What it was applied to is what changed. That particular type of dress was stripped of negativity. And such negative attitudes are still present - merely applied elsewhere. The attitude is the particle and negative is always negative by definition.

I think he could have made that more clear.

But now that I have gone through that I have to wonder if I have been applying the idea a "PHT particle" properly. I have been thinking that a thought is a particle. But now I don't think I was right. A PHT particle is the positivity or negativity associated with a thought or anything else. A thought would be more like an atom - a spec of mass - potentially a positive or a negative ion but not the charge itself.

Monday mornings could have acquired a negative charge. But one day I find out that next Monday morning a truck is going to deliver a ton of pure gold to my home. After a week of anticipation come Sunday night, I can't wait until Monday morning. When the alarm goes off Monday morning (assuming I got any sleep) I spring up with delight that it is finally Monday morning - the opposite charge applied to the same thought of it being Monday morning. A negative ion got changed to a positive ion (until I find out that now I'll probably be arrested).

So now I have to go back and rethink all of what I have been blathering about in this thread.

So it makes more sense that the PHT particle (that cannot be changed) is the positive or negative perception that gets applied to the objects or thoughts - like electrons getting applied to a balloon giving it a charge but might also be stripped away - reversing the charge. The electrons don't change - only where they are applied changes. Negative always remains negative and positive always remains positive.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

Let me try this for an example of that magnetic anti-gravity idea -

Rewriting my first attempt -
If you have a couple of similar but different negative attitudes ($$-a_1,-a_2$$) and $$-a_1$$ is becoming associated with something, X, then $$-a_2$$ might inadvertently become less associated with something else not too distant, Y. And that would be due to the magnetic effect of a moving charge causing another charge to move in the opposite direction.

$$X \Leftarrow-a_1$$
$$Y... -a_2 \Rightarrow$$

Interpreted as the quickly changing association of one attitude ($$-a_1$$ with X, having an affect on an attitude $$-a_2$$ concerning another close by object, Y. Or - as one object becomes perceived as more negative, a different object might get more disassociated with a negative attitude.

And as a possible example -
A woman knows two brothers but has no strong feelings about either. One day the first brother reveals a very hateful demeanor causing the woman to quickly acquire a strong dislike of him. Then she finds that she suddenly actually likes the second brother who has done nothing on his own to change her attitude - perhaps shown by being more forgiving and gracious to him than normal - a loss of negativity for no directly deserved reason.

I have seen that kind of thing. When a person gets into a fight with one family member she starts being nicer to the others. It certainly doesn't always happen that way but there are other factors at play that might be interfering with that response. And magnetic fields are supposed to be much weaker than electric fields.

And I guess that the anti-gravity concept comes in by the two formerly closely associated brothers ("masses") becoming perceived more distinctly and disassociated ("separated") - even more than merely one becoming less favored.

How's that?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

I really should pull back a bit on the time I spend on this board discussing less concerning topics -

So if it is true that James' psychological particles of PHT are about attitudes within the mind and since a neurological synapse can be seen as a unit of granularity concerning the development of attitudes - an analogous form of this in politics can be seen as PHT being established as attitudes and concentrated "particles" in a society (such as equity fanaticism or "racial justice") and the unit of granularity expressed by each person - radicalism.

And it is a little interesting that in chemistry and physiology the term "radical" carries that same concept of being a disruptive - often destructive - element to the norm - a "change agent".

With that in mind the structure of a society begins to appear more clear, molecular, and scientific.

The magnetic involved is displayed by what we call "referendums" against leaders - by fostering negative PHT (hatred) against one leader any other leader is perceived more favorably (how else could O'Biden have ever even been considered).

By manipulating the "charged particles of PHT" (the attitudes of individual people - especially radicals) entire national and global politics and ideologies can be envisioned, designed, and schematically constructed - or destroyed.

- The Physics of Politics

And a potentially good thing is that attitudes - the essential element involved - can be measured - and that makes it a true prediction oriented science.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

The manipulation of hopes and threats is a very basic way of explaining control over people and can be expanded considerably. I am sure I don't need to explain why we use this type of dualism. Just as having a root theory to base everything around applied in a rational manner can help us gain a very accurate picture of what is going on with existence(objective reality), it also helps to have roots in psychology and so the hopes and threats dualism is in our root psychological theory. We can think of hopes and threats on an elevated level too - by first making sure we understand the physics accurately enough to make useful judgments about psychology that we can then apply to sociology and politics if we desire. We can remove the physics aspect in conversation to begin making even more clear sense in a psychological setting. Once the psychology of the politicians is explained then we have some idea of how to fix "the problem". On the other hand, we also have to understand the psychology of the people and how cultural aspects will affect this so that this side of the problem can be fixed too - a big job to say the least.

I have just become a little annoyed because I had several more paragraphs typed up and when I hit the preview button all but the last one remained...but moving along...

Above I create a dualism between "power" and "people". If things were good I would change the dualism to a synergistic pair.

So I was trying to say that carry-over culture in each family affects the individual and in turn affects the groups they gravitate to. These groups can, in turn, affect other groups through opposition or alignment(attraction). I had typed this up so much more satisfactorily than this but whatever, I will just post what I end up with and hope that you are happy with it. So dualisms are a very useful way to break problems down. We can also use non-dualistic pairs to help broaden the picture too. Pairs that are not dualistic in that they complement each other can show an enhancement to each individual side of the pair through synergy, for example, optimism and happiness - poor example but you can see this pair is more positive than not. When I attempt to view a larger picture I will create molecules(diminutive of Latin moles ‘mass’) - an analogy based on a different view of the word. Atom(in this case is the smallest unit of mass) can join another atom to form a molecule - the terminology does not matter as much as you having some idea as to where I am going with this.

Example: in another thread, I paired [jealous pride] into a molecule(two atoms). Because jealousy is a process as is pride this just makes it a matter of convenience in the context of the conversation I was having.

Sorry I could not post the rest for now - this is probably enough for you to briefly consider and agree or disagree or whatever.

The brain(your reference to synapses) will complicate the conversation as I am certain your knowledge of neurobiology is very rudimentary - conflating brain and mind has already backfired on us earlier in the conversation, through something I said - as you are aware of, however, there are correlations between brain(in fact, body) and mind that are being studied between disciplines.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

In reference to what you are saying - let me explain what I am trying to do -

James explained his physics from the very most bottom causation of existence through a variety of categories up to the infinitely cosmic (even into hyperreal infinities). I am essentially trying to follow that same path concerning his physics of psychology while keeping an eye on the social or political analogy.

His path entailed -
• Fundamental causation of the substance of the universe - "affectance'
• How that substance interacts with itself
• How particles of that substance form
• How those particles interact with each other
• How atoms form from those particles
• How molecules form from those atoms
• How macroscopic entities form (living and inanimate)
• How cosmic entities form (stars, galaxies, black hole..)
• The scope of the entire universe

And that represents a progression from -
• Fundamental cause
• Infinitesimal
• Ultra microscopic
• Microscopic
• Macroscopic
• Cosmic

I think I can skip the fundamental causation (covered in the physics already). And I think his PHT represents the fundamental substance involved from the infinitesimal to the macroscopic. I am not sure that the cosmic is involved.

If I'm right we start with a substrate of PHT on an (almost) infinitesimal scale (allowances for the more discrete physiology that allows PHT to exist) and that "substance" interacts with itself to form "particles" of what I have surmised to be "attitudes" - positive, negative, and neutral - on the ultra microscopic scale.

And now I am looking into the microscopic scale where I expect "atoms" (of attitudes) to form - and why.

From there I should be able to graduate to the macroscopic scale that you are talking about - "molecules" of varied types and effects - a far more complex issue (such as the combination of jealousy and pride).

It is a little of a mental shift to think of perceptions of hope and threat and attitudes as a "substance" forming "mass" - but actually it makes sense. The physics analogy seems to be holding up very well.

So I am not quite ready to get into those higher constructs. You're getting ahead of me.
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

OK, that is very clear what you are saying.

obsrvr524 wrote:If I'm right we start with a substrate of PHT on an (almost) infinitesimal scale (allowances for the more discrete physiology that allows PHT to exist) and that "substance" interacts with itself to form "particles" of what I have surmised to be "attitudes" - positive, negative, and neutral - on the ultra microscopic scale.

I suggest caution here since you hold strong to being a rationalist - I have confidence in you so this comment from my view is likely unnecessary but many people have had their starting points and ended up in domains that have them lost. We don't want to take the man out of the man, so to speak. I was just saying that you can stay safely in the middle and still make plenty of sense - also you added one too many items in your representative progression - as the cosmic could be treated in the sense of macroscopic or the fundamental cause could be treated as a description of the remaining five, nonetheless, there is no reason not to use six principles - I mean you could use 7, 9...1000 if you wanted.

Whatever fits your scheme - my interest is how this fits with James' interest - it is also interesting to see where you are headed with this.

Be aware that I do read a lot of things but not always everything - this is time-dependent and how I prioritize. To let you know that I will go over those other posts I missed above your last...later...
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

encode_decode wrote:OK, that is very clear what you are saying.

obsrvr524 wrote:If I'm right we start with a substrate of PHT on an (almost) infinitesimal scale (allowances for the more discrete physiology that allows PHT to exist) and that "substance" interacts with itself to form "particles" of what I have surmised to be "attitudes" - positive, negative, and neutral - on the ultra microscopic scale.

I suggest caution here since you hold strong to being a rationalist - I have confidence in you so this comment from my view is likely unnecessary but many people have had their starting points and ended up in domains that have them lost. We don't want to take the man out of the man, so to speak.

I understand what you are saying but I am always respectful of where I got the ideas/beliefs that I have. And I don't mean "from whom" so much as "by what reasoning". So as I speculate on what James meant - I always remain aware that it is only my speculations - always open for debate. When I see a solid logic involved then I don't consider that belonging to anyone nor an opinion - but still open for questioning (yes - a rationalist).

encode_decode wrote:you added one too many items in your representative progression - as the cosmic could be treated in the sense of macroscopic or the fundamental cause could be treated as a description of the remaining five, nonetheless, there is no reason not to use six principles - I mean you could use 7, 9...1000 if you wanted.

I considered other categories (it's optional). I made "macroscopic separate from cosmic because considering the super-microscopic scale at the beginning - anything we can clearly see with the naked eye is vastly greater - so "macroscopic". And then there are the far far far away things we see in the sky - not so clearly in view due to our tininess - that deserve a separate category. But as you said - pick what categories feels right for you.

encode_decode wrote:Whatever fits your scheme - my interest is how this fits with James' interest - it is also interesting to see where you are headed with this.

I have several interests and one of them is what was James' interest. But I don't think I can be sure of that until I get a greater picture of all he talked about (and that is a lot).

And another interest is to see if he really did form this "theory of everything" - does RM:AO really give the basic structure of all activities. So far he seems to be on track - as best as I can see - so far.

encode_decode wrote:Be aware that I do read a lot of things but not always everything - this is time-dependent and how I prioritize. To let you know that I will go over those other posts I missed above your last...later...

Ok - thanks for the warning - I'll go back and clean them up.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

I think all of us can be better people and that is what psychology should be about - not just fixing problems when they arise.

obsrvr524 wrote:I understand what you are saying but I am always respectful of where I got the ideas/beliefs that I have. And I don't mean "from whom" so much as "by what reasoning". So as I speculate on what James meant - I always remain aware that it is only my speculations - always open for debate. When I see a solid logic involved then I don't consider that belonging to anyone nor an opinion - but still open for questioning (yes - a rationalist).

You seem to be respectful and respectable to me. I identify you as an objectivist:

Wikipedia wrote:Objectivism is a philosophical system developed by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand. Rand first expressed Objectivism in her fiction, most notably The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957), and later in non-fiction essays and books. Leonard Peikoff, a professional philosopher and Rand's designated intellectual heir, later gave it a more formal structure. Rand described Objectivism as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute". Peikoff characterizes Objectivism as a "closed system" insofar as its "fundamental principles" were set out by Rand and are not subject to change. However, he stated that "new implications, applications and integrations can always be discovered".

I can only assume that you are OK with other people having their own beliefs and therefore you are also OK with extending RM:AO. In any case, RM:AO is meant to be extended.

James told me that it was to be a curriculum. So we can extend and make some stuff our own from what I can tell because the best rules fit the situation.

...also...discoveries abound....meaning in life depend on it...
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

I think I should raise the attitude basic particle from the ultra-microscopic up to the microscopic scale. It refers to something subliminal to the actual feeling of attitude but I don't think it is so small as to be "ultra-subliminal". Maybe there will be a way to measure it someday (if the CCP allows it).

Thinking about this attitude particle it occurred to me that they had to have been working with an assumption of the electron's existence before they ever had the equipment to prove it. So I started looking into the history of how the electron got discovered. And in that effort I ran across the earlier units of measure concerning electricity - coulomb, amp, volt, and farad - named after the people who first standardized them. A lot of new stuff for me to examine more deeply.

The electron apparently got its name from being defined as the most fundamental particle of electricity (which got its name from the Latin "electrum" - from the Greek for amber). Before then they weren't even sure that electricity had particles (just as now we aren't yet sure that attitude has particles).

Then it came to me that I need names for some of the upcoming concepts. So just for my own efforts here I am going to start using some invented names for thing so that I can relate them easier to the physics equations. Psychologists or James might already have these things named although a quick search didn't show anything and I need something for right now until I can get a clear picture for all of this.

For example - how about -
Atton == the most fundamental particle of attitude (assuming it to exist) - just as the electron being similar for electricity and first only a conjecture of existence. But then there has to be a positive negative and neutral -
Natton == 1 negative atton
Patton == 1 positive atton
Datton == 1 neutral atton

The total amount of attitude needs a unit name - how much attitude is associated with something. This is similar to the coulomb for electrons. Maybe -
Tude == I don't know how many (yet) - attons to affect a measure. The name TRUMP! generates a lot of Tude.

One coulomb = 1.24151..^18 electrons - zookers that's a hell of lot of electrons just to affect something and that is why I don't think a natton would be that small. 1 coulomb is held in 1 farad at one volt - and 1 farad is a huge capacitor. I'm not sure our brains are that big. A farad would relate to the capacity of a brain to hold attitude (without exploding). I'm not ready to go there yet.

The equivalent of an amp needs a unit name - the concept of how much attitude it takes to do a task that I haven't figured out yet. The amp was named after Mr Ampere. This relates to how much attitude is continuously poring out.
Attit == I don't know how many (yet) - attons per second.

Also a volt - a unit of electron pressure. I guess that might be called an impetus pressure or urge and would have to be related to the fundamental PHT that creates this stuff. The volt was named after Mr Volta. Maybe -
Emot == the degree of urgency to respond.

I thought about trying to come up with a name for PHT after James S Saint - but the only thing that seemed appropriate was -
Jam == the jelly of the mind. (- but he probably wouldn't appreciate that so much )

I guess I can just stick with PHT.

From there the physics equivalents could theoretically be measured and formulated with experimental verifications.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

Thinking about this further - if this all works out the field of psychology (and politics) could advance in the same manner as the fields of electronics, physics, and technology has. Imagine a world where the equations of quantum physics are regularly applied to psychological and political events - with that same accuracy and precision.

Currently groups like the Lincoln Project try to do this sort of thing to advise Mr Trump's socialist enemies as to what to say about what and when. But they are still using just old rudimentary concepts. Google and Microsoft develop AI to do this sort of thing using actual predictive formulas - but I doubt on James' same level.

I'm not sure that the human population is big enough to handle an entire affectance ontology curriculum. This would be massive!
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

It appears on the surface that you are performing a rather extreme level of reductionism and the problem with that is the risk of losing something's essence.

encode_decode wrote:Just another thought: I worry about reductionism sometimes - I try to reduce to the minimal that still has essential properties of the maximal being studied - the choice is in what is essential. Once we know the essential we can reassemble with the minimals to a size of our own choice that also contains the essential. Many molecules of water are still water just as one molecule of water is still water because this molecule is the essential.

This is partly why I say the formation is essential to the recognition. So does thought really require any language of words? Or is thought essential without language?

The formation is a construction and the recognition is a reconstruction. These are assemblages. Anyway, reductionism has not always worked effectively for us.

Related is: at what point does the essential emerge? I know in some cases this emergence only comes about as a part of a system of some different parts.

There is some recent paradigm-shifting...as usual...but as I have been saying more and more lately there is a lot we can explain not knowing the whole story.

Everything above the bottom line is more important than the bottom line in more ways than one but in this case, I am referring to the bottom line of my self-quote.

I have made blue and bolded the most important consideration(a true bottom line).

Do you understand James' concept of afflate? This very concept can explain how a particle gets its essence as it moves from just below the size of a particle into the size of the particle.

JSS wrote:There is no minimum size of affectance afflates. An afflate is merely a small oblate portion of an affectance field isolated merely for study. An afflate is not a actual particle or entity and any ultra-minuscule portion can be chosen. By choosing millions of afflates and watching their "natural" behavior, the behavior of affectance fields, subatomic particles and their formation can be observed. It can be seen that while a puff of affectance cloud passes through unevenly distributed ambient affectance, the puff begins to disperse (the afflates begin to separate more). And as that same puff begins to enter a more dense region of space, the afflates that make up the puff begin to converge. In the long run, the puff will very gradually lose more than it gains and become merely a bit of the "cosmic background radiation", CBR.

Another thing that is important here is how a particle is affected by its surroundings - essentially always in a state of flux(ie. continuous change).

I often use the term atmosphere in place of surroundings:

merriam-webster wrote:Definition of atmosphere
1a: the gaseous envelope of a celestial body (such as a planet)
b: the whole mass of air surrounding the earth
2: the air of a locality
// the stuffy atmosphere of the waiting room
3: a surrounding influence or environment
// an atmosphere of hostility
4: a unit of pressure equal to the pressure of the air at sea level or approximately 14.7 pounds per square inch (101,325 pascals)
5a: the overall aesthetic effect of a work of art
b: an intriguing or singular tone, effect, or appeal
// an inn with atmosphere

I am not making suggestions for choices here - just illustrating the similarities in concepts presented and above that pointing out the essential that may contain different parts.

James was big on the idea of emergence(he and I use the word, formation, often) although he clearly has his own form(re: emergence) of this.

I like where you are headed because your conceptual pattern is building in my mind...

- this ability to read the conceptual patterns of another person at this level is not what we can say is widespread but it appears to me that your generalization is headed in the right direction.

To minimize some confusion that may(I am not sure) arise let me quote a definition: "Conceptual patterns describe elements and concepts pertaining to the application domain. They are based on corresponding design metaphors. Although design metaphors provide a basis for discussion among all participating groups, conceptual patterns help the developers in particular in modeling their application domain."...

Oh, and, James would be fine with this: Jam == the jelly of the mind - just as he was fine with my idea of fuzzballs.

I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

encode_decode wrote:It appears on the surface that you are performing a rather extreme level of reductionism and the problem with that is the risk of losing something's essence.

encode_decode wrote:Just another thought: I worry about reductionism sometimes - I try to reduce to the minimal that still has essential properties of the maximal being studied - the choice is in what is essential. Once we know the essential we can reassemble with the minimals to a size of our own choice that also contains the essential. Many molecules of water are still water just as one molecule of water is still water because this molecule is the essential.

This is partly why I say the formation is essential to the recognition. So does thought really require any language of words? Or is thought essential without language?

The formation is a construction and the recognition is a reconstruction. These are assemblages. Anyway, reductionism has not always worked effectively for us.

Related is: at what point does the essential emerge? I know in some cases this emergence only comes about as a part of a system of some different parts.

There is some recent paradigm-shifting...as usual...but as I have been saying more and more lately there is a lot we can explain not knowing the whole story.

Everything above the bottom line is more important than the bottom line in more ways than one but in this case, I am referring to the bottom line of my self-quote.

I have made blue and bolded the most important consideration(a true bottom line).

I don't see that I am losing any essence nor reducing any more than he has already (I couldn't if I wanted to). He stated that we can use those formulas concerning electricity and that is all I am investigating. I have to play with it for a while to ensure that I have it firm in my mind else if he later contradicts something I might not be able to see it. So I want my understanding of this part to be very firm while not adding or leaving anything out that has been specified so far (not counting just making up some names for sake of the upcoming equations - which maybe he does later himself but I didn't see anything - yet).

And I acknowledge that I am just guessing that his PHT particle is what I would call a particle of attitude. He might correct me on that later.

encode_decode wrote:Do you understand James' concept of afflate? This very concept can explain how a particle gets its essence as it moves from just below the size of a particle into the size of the particle.

JSS wrote:There is no minimum size of affectance afflates. An afflate is merely a small oblate portion of an affectance field isolated merely for study. An afflate is not a actual particle or entity and any ultra-minuscule portion can be chosen. By choosing millions of afflates and watching their "natural" behavior, the behavior of affectance fields, subatomic particles and their formation can be observed. It can be seen that while a puff of affectance cloud passes through unevenly distributed ambient affectance, the puff begins to disperse (the afflates begin to separate more). And as that same puff begins to enter a more dense region of space, the afflates that make up the puff begin to converge. In the long run, the puff will very gradually lose more than it gains and become merely a bit of the "cosmic background radiation", CBR.

Another thing that is important here is how a particle is affected by its surroundings - essentially always in a state of flux(ie. continuous change).

Yes I have seen the videos and at least think I understand what he was talking about. An afflate is an amorphic entity - not quite a particle - and merely chosen as a particular portion of affectance at some location in space by whoever is looking at the propagation of affectance. It is not a fixed entity. It is just defined for the experiment or study - like choosing a portion of air or sky in order to study weather patterns. And then - "what happens when this warm cloud crosses path with that colder cloud?"

A physics of psychology afflate would be just a portion of the PHT realm within a mind - the densities of attitudes floating around - most of which would be neutral (perceptions of things not associated with any significant like or dislike - maybe the grass or rocks - mundane things that fill most environments - without "charge".

encode_decode wrote:James was big on the idea of emergence(he and I use the word, formation, often) although he clearly has his own form(re: emergence) of this.

The only time I have seen him mention emergence is concerning the emergence of particles from an extraordinarily high affectance density (another video). Is that what you are talking about?

I wonder if those same equations are going to be applicable to atton formation.

And James used the term "ambience" a lot in place of "surroundings" or "atmosphere" - always referring to the surrounding affectance density.

encode_decode wrote:I like where you are headed because your conceptual pattern is building in my mind...

- this ability to read the conceptual patterns of another person at this level is not what we can say is widespread but it appears to me that your generalization is headed in the right direction.

It takes a like mind to accurately read a mind. I can't tell what most people really mean by what they say because my mind doesn't work like theirs. The things that James says just ring so obviously true to me there is a huge difference. Sometimes I have to step back and connect the dots before proceeding (much as I am now) but mostly I see the logic in what he is saying immediately with almost no effort. The logic is what is so impressive to me - especially about so many thing I would never have thought about yet are discussed every day (such as "define what it means to be a god" - why doesn't anyone ever think of that?).

encode_decode wrote:To minimize some confusion that may(I am not sure) arise let me quote a definition: "Conceptual patterns describe elements and concepts pertaining to the application domain. They are based on corresponding design metaphors. Although design metaphors provide a basis for discussion among all participating groups, conceptual patterns help the developers in particular in modeling their application domain."...

In maths they just call those "variables".

Eventually I would like to hear what else James has conveyed to you, Mithus, Ben, and others but right now I am deep into this psycho stuff.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

You write in a prolific manner - your mind appears very fertile - this is a state of mind that I am currently thinking about and I am about to launch a side study on this. I may not be able to keep up with everything.

obsrvr524 wrote:
encode_decode wrote:James was big on the idea of emergence(he and I use the word, formation, often) although he clearly has his own form(re: emergence) of this.

The only time I have seen him mention emergence is concerning the emergence of particles from an extraordinarily high affectance density (another video). Is that what you are talking about?

Emergence is synonymous with formation - that video you posted references formation more than once.

James was a good systems theorist - personally, I think he was brilliant.

"One reason emergent behaviour is hard to predict is that the number of interactions between a system's components increases exponentially with the number of components, thus allowing for many new and subtle types of behaviour to emerge. Emergence is often a product of particular patterns of interaction. Negative feedback introduces constraints that serve to fix structures or behaviours. In contrast, positive feedback promotes change, allowing local variations to grow into global patterns. Another way in which interactions leads to emergent properties is dual-phase evolution. This occurs where interactions are applied intermittently, leading to two phases: one in which patterns form or grow, the other in which they are refined or removed."

I can tell you in so many ways that emergence was on his mind often...
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

Already we can form some physics of psychology elementary equations.

1 T = 1 A * 1 s
1 Tude = 1 Attit * 1 second
(for now I am going to assume that a second doesn't need to be analogously redefined)

or

1 A = 1 T/s

When we say that we are going to "amp up the party" we mean that we are going to add some charge or attitude (hopefully positive). And that can be measured by Attits (amount of attitude) or Tudes-per-second for a sustained effort. A dull party would be low on Attits and need more Tudes.

So other than learning some new units of measure - that seems to carry the right idea (score another one for James). And this hypothesis could be measured by a Kibble Balance (as soon as someone invents one for psychology).

But really at this point it isn't a hypothesis but a stated declaration to relate the units.

If we try to go a little further to get to Coulomb's law we might have to add a little more.

$$|F|=k_e\frac{|q_1q_2|}{r^2}$$

Using my new units that would more like -

$$|F|=k_e\frac{|T_1 * T_2|}{r^2}$$ - where the T = Tude and the k is just a constant of unknown value at the moment.

So now we need a means for measuring F = force and r = distance or association.

The force would relate to how much push is required to change the association (distance = r) between the attons. So if there are two negative attons we would have to do something to push them into being associated. Or if there was a positive and negative atton we would have to apply force to keep them disassociated.

So what would constitute a force of association?

How about the method of repeated visuals for an example -

If I liked my car type and I like the color white (currently on my car) I will like my car type more because it is white. But let's suppose it is a gas guzzling SUV and I am being pressured to change to a smaller car.

If I dissociate the white from my car (in order to reduce my like of my car type) by exposing myself to repeated images of my car being a color that I dislike. That should have the effect of making me feel a little closer to feeling like I have a not so great car that is just painted a beautiful white color - dissociating the car and the whiteness and making changing to a smaller white car easier to accept.

Or the reverse - if I like my car but dislike its white color by being exposed to repeated images of the car a preferred color I should begin to like my car more even though the car itself has not changed (much like what the socialists in the US are doing to whites).

Then the force F would be the amount of repeated imagery necessary to change my Tude concerning my car. - It works.

At least it works in concept. The exact ratio - whether r should be squared or not - and the value of k - are things to be directly measured as a hypothesis in a practical experiment. I think the original r in Coulombs law is squared due to the charge distribution so if an atton has that same attitude distribution (relating to its association) then the psychological r would also have to be squared. And then because the association and distance are defined to be the same thing - it seems that there would be no option.

Coulombs law seems to really fit - James scores yet again

Zookers! Mathematics comes to psychology!

encode_decode wrote:You write in a prolific manner - your mind appears very fertile - this is a state of mind that I am currently thinking about and I am about to launch a side study on this. I may not be able to keep up with everything.

I am just following James' lead - putting in examples and testing his hypothesis.

encode_decode wrote:I think he was brilliant.

Years ago I felt like "brilliant" became faint praise - for reasons that I haven't talked about - yet

encode_decode wrote:"One reason emergent behaviour is hard to predict is that the number of interactions between a system's components increases exponentially with the number of components, thus allowing for many new and subtle types of behaviour to emerge. Emergence is often a product of particular patterns of interaction. Negative feedback introduces constraints that serve to fix structures or behaviours. In contrast, positive feedback promotes change, allowing local variations to grow into global patterns. Another way in which interactions leads to emergent properties is dual-phase evolution. This occurs where interactions are applied intermittently, leading to two phases: one in which patterns form or grow, the other in which they are refined or removed."

That seems accurate. Was that you or James - or ?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

I am not the only one who thinks this way about James - apparently, you hold him in high regard too.

obsrvr524 wrote:
encode_decode wrote:"One reason emergent behaviour is hard to predict is that the number of interactions between a system's components increases exponentially with the number of components, thus allowing for many new and subtle types of behaviour to emerge. Emergence is often a product of particular patterns of interaction. Negative feedback introduces constraints that serve to fix structures or behaviours. In contrast, positive feedback promotes change, allowing local variations to grow into global patterns. Another way in which interactions leads to emergent properties is dual-phase evolution. This occurs where interactions are applied intermittently, leading to two phases: one in which patterns form or grow, the other in which they are refined or removed."

That seems accurate. Was that you or James - or ?

Actually, a snippet off of wiki - in a pinch - emergence is heavily discussed but I am only interested in the stuff that fits. You know how this works, people like to overcomplicate things. I knew exactly what to look for.

Mathematically, psychology has been traditionally reliant on statistics - these days of course we also take into account neuroscience. Your approach is interesting as it adds yet another dimension.

The dimension I work with most is heavily reliant on computer models - takes into account many things - not exclusively computer models, however.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

-
I think I have run across a snag.

I started to try to use my units of measure in the Lorentz equation for magnetism -

$$F=qE+qv\space x \space B$$

So I was studying up on exactly what that equation means and everything seemed fine until I realized that in the field of physics there are exactly 3 spatial dimensions - very relevant for magnetic issues. So I thought about what it means to have multiple spatial dimensions in a strictly PHT universe. A 3D space concerning PHT would mean 3 degrees of freedom of dissociation.

It took some effort to realize how that would work and made a little progress but then I realized that I don't know how many dimensions there really would be in a PHT universe of the mind - in how many ways can an attitude be dissociated from other attitudes (or perceptions of hope and threat)? I don't think the equation would change except to note all of the dimensions (a cross function instead of a simple multiplication).

That is a serious and perplexing question -

How many spatial dimensions are in the PHT physics of psychology?
This is one of those times I mentioned that I have to step back and seriously see if I can rationally "connect the dots". And that might take a while.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

I'm thinking that this question can be restated as -

How many distinctly different types of attitude dissociation can exist?
It is easy to see the simple 1 dimensional case of an attitude being associated either more or less. But are there distinct types of dissociation such that the same atton can be associated with an object in one way but dissociated in another?

Each discrete type would constitute a different spatial dimension.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

Ok this turned out easier than I was thinking - the "quantum field of imagined possibilities collapsed" when I accepted that attitudes can only be either closer or further away from an object - 1 dimension.

That makes things a whole lot easier. The same equations still work (and a lot simpler) but an interesting thought arose concerning the magnetic B field.

Normally a B field is said to be perpendicular to the current flow. And that requires multiple dimensions. But then I realized that the description is just a way of thinking about a B field - there is no actual perpendicular anything involved. My worry was that electrons can be turned in 3 dimensions by magnetics. But that only means that the electrons have a 3D universe - not necessarily the magnetic field lines (although still a physical magnetic field itself does exist in 3D).

So my previous example of an attitude being induced to dissociate from an object due to the sudden association of another attitude still holds. And the magnetic effect is merely like that experience with electrons traveling in wires - the current in one wire will compel the current in an adjacent wire to go the opposite direction - but not due to anything being perpendicular.

And that gives a clue as to how to measure that magnetic effect experimentally (similar to how it is measured physically) - find out how much atton "current" is required to reduce another atton current by how much.

So unless and until someone comes up with how an attitude could associate in distinctly different ways - I think this part is done.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

I am not always certain when you are directing things at me obsrvr524...forgive me if my assumption is incorrect...

...since there are really only two of us taking part here...I am assuming your posts are at least partially directed at me...

...with this being said --- I am going to need a little time to go over your posts before I can offer much feedback, assuming you want any that is...

...there is some logic involved here in understanding what you are saying which requires a little more attention than what I have given thus far...

Some of the things were really easy for me to pick out and comment on but once we enter a more formal world, I like to pay a little more attention.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021

encode_decode
Philosopher

Posts: 1827
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

encode_decode wrote:I am not always certain when you are directing things at me obsrvr524...forgive me if my assumption is incorrect...

...since there are really only two of us taking part here...I am assuming your posts are at least partially directed at me...

To you and also to myself. By writing on this board I find focus - back onto the real reason I got on this board - I thank you for this thread because it helped me get back to that reason and away from the distractions of other threads. And I doubt that anyone is reading much of this other than us two - maybe meno now and then (and those surveillance blokes - who process everything).

encode_decode wrote:...with this being said --- I am going to need a little time to go over your posts before I can offer much feedback, assuming you want any that is...

No worries mate.

encode_decode wrote:Some of the things were really easy for me to pick out and comment on but once we enter a more formal world, I like to pay a little more attention.

The same happens to me while reading James. Such as -

I am having a little problem with this bit -
James S Saint » Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:20 pm wrote: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:
Perception of Hope particles (PHT positrons, protons),
Perception of Threat particles (PHT electrons), and
the combined Perceived Neutral particles (PHT neutrinos, neutrons).

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.

He points out the 3 particle types that I labeled as "attons" - that was nifty But then he says something disturbing.

He says that the particles would form "atoms" just like in physics. But if the motion of attons is strictly 1 dimensional - how can there be any orbiting? Orbiting requires at least 2 dimensions. So are there really multiple dimensions involved - is James wrong about this point - or is something else going on?

In a hydrogen atom we have an electron orbiting a proton - 3 dimensionally. How is that possible in the PHT universe if we only have 1 dimension of motion for attons?

And as I said earlier - if I don't get into the grit of James' work - I don't know to ask pertinent questions like this.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

Ok - I think I have this worked out - I think but I'm not sure I can explain it very well.

I got off track because of the proposed universe of PHT that is totally independent of any physiology - pure PHT and nothing else. In that environment the question arises as to how many spatial dimensions exist. But regardless of whatever that might be - it was only a "suppose" for sake of thought. In reality all of the PHT is literally a part of the physiology and the physiology is 3D. So attons (sublime impulses of attitude) could roam about the subliminal mind throughout the 3D brain. The brain isn't nearly as infinitely pure as space - but still there is freedom to roam in many directions.

So now I am thinking that the mental "atoms" would have a physically literal location where a positive imbued thought would be surrounded by negative attons.

And I am thinking an example might be -
Suppose you had a proposed truth learned and accepted in school. Because you perceived it as truth you assessed it as a positive item - an object of mind - a positive imbued thought (a Patton association). But when you got older you began to wonder about whether it was really true.

Your doubts about the truthfulness of the thought would constitute negative attons - Nattons that surrounded the Patton. They didn't annihilate the Patton (the positivity) but they plague it because they are constantly associated with it. When the thought gets focus both the positive aspects and the negative aspects are brought to consciousness.

And I can envision those Nattons of negativity could shift physical locations around the same thought (the brain can form only so much negative PHT in any one location and so one concentration could be depleted as another concentration became closely associated - motion of the Nattons literally within the brain).

To me that is analogous with a physical atom - a mostly neutral core (the thought itself or a neutron) that is imbued with positivity (a proton) that is plagued by small electrons (negativity) closely associated. And the negativity (the doubts) can be either increased or decreased - adding or taking away Nattons - creating Ions - positive or negative thoughts.

So the mental atom becomes a potentially ionized or charged stable thought - not 100% positive or negative. And that thought would constitute a bit of "mass" (now have to figure out if a thought gravitates).

So ok - I think that is progress - attons to atoms - then molecules would be obvious (a collection of closely associated thoughts possibly linked by their ion charge - chemical valance).

That took some doing.

So the whole magnetism equation thing turns out to be closely identical
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

PreviousNext