Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO

[obsrvr524]

@Physics of Psychology - WendyDarling

What does your mind entail? Science, biology/physiology, name the brain as the hub of the mind in the biological body. I say the brain, the central nervous system, is a relay station for the soul, our body of consciousness, where emotions are derived. The soul is the actual hub of all conscious activity which can exist apart from all the biological aspects of existence. Biological existence seems to revolve around the emotion of fear while spiritual existence revolves around the emotion of hope.

I noticed that James didn’t respond to that post. I am guessing that he might have wanted to avoid the issue of “soul” in that thread. James defined “soul” to mean the inanimate fundamental definition of a person. He distinguished it from a person’s “spirit” - the animate portion of a person - their behavior. So the soul would be the seat or foundation of the spirit and gets altered by the behavior of learning.

Also (somewhere) he had defined “mind” as “the functioning of the neurological system” (which would include the brain and nervous system).

@WendyDarling

Biological existence is threat-based 24/7 which is why people rarely if ever experience the emotion of peace. Calling emotions charged is very accurate, I simply call it emotional energy. A biological existence is “not natural” to our spiritual existence, so there is a learning curve there for folks/souls once they engage the natural environment of Earth Proper.

I would argue that the brain and the five senses limit our perceptions by simplifying what gets processed from exterior/interior biological body to brain, to soul, back to brain, back to biological body.

Rather than saying “threat based” James references both threat and hope based - “Perception of Hope and Threat - PHT”). I guess that would be the same as “threat assessment”.

@"[url=https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2658287&sid=3d9d31e59e0a034b8248726c58ed0445#p2658287

Physics of Psychology - James S Saint » Sat Mar 04, 2017 7:39 pm[/url]"]Physical distance is due to the degree of indirect affect one object has on another, how many points of space must be affected in order for the affect from one to propagate to the other. Being close means that fewer points must be affected than being far.

Mental or emotional affect is similar although the “distance” is formed from the degree of indirect affect one perception (a mental “object”) has upon another within the mind. For example, no matter what perception you have of Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman might be an independent issue, even though they are married. But if your perception of Cruise is being affected by your perception of Kidman, then within your mind, they are “connected” or “close”.

When it comes to “charged” hopes or threats, you will find that how emotionally close objects of hope or threat are is subject to your perception of their independence from each other. And your own perception is what causes independent hopes to be close or far apart.

This bit seems to be drawing the analogy between closeness of physical objects and closeness of emotional objects - probably to be used later. The implication being that the closer objects are, the easier they can affect each other. I’m thinking that might be similar to liking a person so inclined to initially like that person’s family, friends, or associates (or before you find out otherwise) - perhaps more willing to forgive minor discomforts from them.

Also I image that concept would apply to why it is that a sexy woman can wear trashy clothes and after a while the trashy clothes seem sexy. (or maybe that is just me )

Some people would gauge it the other way and feel that the woman was trashy because of their taste for the clothing.

The point being that feelings about things bleed onto associated things. I know a woman who hates many songs only because of how she was feeling in her life when she first heard the song even though the song is a happy feel-good song.

@James S Saint

PHT Attraction
Emotional focus and energy comes upon a hope that addresses a perceived threat. A star is brightest in the midst of a dark sky and your attention is captured by the distinction. Equally within the mind, it is amidst danger that an avenue of hope is given focus and energy. And that star of hope is mentally “attached” to the threat that it addresses because it directly affects the threat. Similarly, given a bright hope, any threat to that hope is quickly given attention. By thus, perceptions of positive and negative are “attracted” to each other and associated in the mind. If you hope to keep your computer running well, attend to the threat of viruses. The two concerns become directly associated in your mind, especially after traumatic experience.

Ok - an analogy between close emotional associations forming due to a positive-negative attraction just as positive and negative charged particles attract and come closer together - maybe a bad thing reminding you of a good thing or visa versa.

@James S Saint

PHT Repulsion
Positive-to-positive or negative-to-negative separations also occur within the mind as a function of their perceived independence. As emotional focus is drawn toward one object, focus is drawn away from others. Such “focus” is what forms independent perception, objects are seen more as separate concerns, more distant. As a man focuses more on the love of his wife, he more dismisses his love for his mistress. As the telescope of his mind amplifies the image of one star to fill the aperture, the other stars fade out of sight and out of mind. The more positive each star of hope, the more emotionally independent they are to the mind. And similarly with threats as each gains focus upon itself, it is distanced from any other.

And here the opposite reaction with similar analogy - distance or disassociation caused by being strongly focused on or, I guess involved in, one of two emotionally charged thoughts. One thought gets mentally separated or distinguished from an other while the mind concentrates on it.

In both of those it seems an emotionally charged thought is to be treated as a charged particle (or visa versa I guess).

@James S Saint

General Relativity
And also in this regard, the physics principle of General Relativity is exactly analogous. The distances and even the time perceived is a function of significance of the object (the mass density and thus gravitation) and the focus of the mind (closeness of the observer).

Here he is relating the significance felt concerning a thought to its “mass”. And in general relativity the greater the mass - the closer objects (or thoughts) are measured to be (if the observer is more objectively far away). I guess if a person reflects back on important issues he will sense them to be a close group even if at that time he didn’t associate them. I think that would be like thinking - “back in that troubled (or happy) time in my life.” And perhaps that has something to do with why older people feel that time has passed so quickly - just a few group-objects rather than the thousands they actually swam through.

@James S Saint

Emotional Distance
Measuring emotional and mental distance is a challenge. But being understood and measured properly, the Coulomb and Lorentz equations can be used to very precisely predict emotional response, although gaining detailed information of a subject usually makes that task very difficult.

So now to more directly answer your question, many stars more brighten your sky just as more electrons will more lighten your lamp. The hard part is keeping them all in focus together. Just as the many children of a single mother, each demands its own attention.

I have no idea what “Coulomb and Lorentz equations” are or how they relate - maybe I’ll research that later. I assume for now they have something to do with charged particle behavior in physics.

[encode_decode]

@obsrvr524

@James S Saint

Emotional Distance
Measuring emotional and mental distance is a challenge. But being understood and measured properly, the Coulomb and Lorentz equations can be used to very precisely predict emotional response, although gaining detailed information of a subject usually makes that task very difficult.

So now to more directly answer your question, many stars more brighten your sky just as more electrons will more lighten your lamp. The hard part is keeping them all in focus together. Just as the many children of a single mother, each demands its own attention.

I have no idea what “Coulomb and Lorentz equations” are or how they relate - maybe I’ll research that later. I assume for now they have something to do with charged particle behavior in physics.

The equations are only descriptions of descriptions, so to speak. What he suggests in the quote as a more direct answer is pretty good - just don’t overthink it.

Read the following two introductions on Wikipedia to get the gist:

Coulomb’s law

Lorentz force

Just the info above the Contents, should be sufficient.

If these are not clear enough and Wikipedia gives you no real idea where to look, let me know - I can build two summaries for you unless of course, mathematics is your thing. I am offering information in plain English.

[obsrvr524]

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

Oh - that makes it perfectly clear.

So I guess that the q’s are a measure of the emotional charge, the r is the degree of association (“distance”), and F is the strength of the association. Something like that.

So if I was interested in precisely testing the bond between two people I might use something like that along with many other things I assume.

( F=qE+qv\space x \space B )

– haven’t a clue

But let me try this -

If you have a couple of similar but different negative thoughts ((t_1,t_2)) and (t_1) is becoming associated with something, X, then (t_2) might inadvertently become more 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 t_1)
(\space \space \space \space \space \space t_2 \Rightarrow Y)

Interpreted as the changing association of one thought having an affect on another thought’s association with another object and away from the first. Or - as one object becomes perceived as more negative, a different object might get more closely associated with other negative thoughts that had been more associated with the first object.

It seems like an enhancement of bad feelings about a group of things because a new bad feeling was discovered about one thing in the group - an embolden growth in overall negativity - like - “Damit that is the last straw! I’m getting sick of all this crap! No more! Forget it! Just drop it all! Goodbye!”.

I don’t know. I could be totally off base with that (will probably never know).

[encode_decode]

Oh, you have more of a clue than what you think.

there is this:

@Quantum Physics Lady

Coulomb’s Law is a formula that allows us to calculate the electric force generated between two electrical charges. Specifically, it allows calculating the strength and direction of electric force. This equation takes into account the strength of two charged pieces of matter (called “charges”) and the distance that separates them.

The electric force is greater if the strength of the charges is greater. It is also greater if the charges are closer together. The electric force is weaker if the charges are weaker and if the distance between the charges is longer. Specifically, regarding distance, the electric force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two charges. This, like the force of gravity, is called an “inverse square law.

and this:

@Study.com

Our universe is filled to the brim with forces. These forces can be responsible for mundane things like you pushing the keys on your keyboard. They can also accomplish extraordinary feats such as keeping our planet spinning around the sun, or allowing atoms to exist by keeping the atomic nuclei from flying apart.

No matter how mundane or extraordinary the force, they all fall into four different categories. We call these the four fundamental forces of nature, and they are the gravitational force, electromagnetic force, strong force, and weak force. Let’s look a bit at the electromagnetic force.

When you read the word electromagnetic, in your mind you probably break it down into two parts; electric and magnetic. The electromagnetic force governs all electric and magnetic forces, but how are electric and magnetic forces related to each other? It turns out that we can couple these two forces together through something called the Lorentz force law.

It also helps to have a basic understanding of the Inverse-square law

I am busy working right now - otherwise, I would have whipped up a couple of summaries for you - just see how you go with this.

I have briefly read over your post and I can see that you have pretty much sufficiently nailed it. I will read over it again later and see what else I can offer, perhaps tying up this business with Lorentz and Coulomb. It is just a matter of not letting our minds fly apart. Stability. I came up with a simpler solution that alarmed James to the point that he sent me a PM about it, asking me what plans I had for it, to which I simply replied, that I had no plans for something of that nature. Some of this type of thinking can be dangerous. I presented my solution in logic with some accompanying information.

EDIT: I only noticed after I posted this that you added to your post - I had a really quick look at it - it seems pretty solid to me - let me take another look after I finish work. I am happy to see you embracing this.

[obsrvr524]

Edited ^^^

[encode_decode]

@obsrvr524

Edited ^^^

Me too…

I added the line down the very bottom of my post.

[obsrvr524]

And it just occurred to me that the magnetic thing could explain traumatic, cathartic (“shock and awe”), and surprise enhancements in jokes (the laugh response from unexpected shifts in narrative). The magnetic field B would represent the magnitude of the changing association - a fast and very significant association creates a notably significant response compared to more gradual forming associations. I wonder if comedians understand any of this kind of analysis (probably not).

[encode_decode]

I have a bit of a headache right now so it is a little difficult to think effectively. I did not want you to think that I am not committed to this conversation so I just whipped up this post.

With any luck the headache will be gone within the next few hours, otherwise, it could be tomorrow when I respond again - I am trying to avoid taking pain pills.

@obsrvr524

And it just occurred to me that the magnetic thing could explain traumatic, cathartic (“shock and awe”), and surprise enhancements in jokes (the laugh response from unexpected shifts in narrative). The magnetic field B would represent the magnitude of the changing association - a fast and very significant association creates a notably significant response compared to more gradual forming associations. I wonder if comedians understand any of this kind of analysis (probably not).

Everything you have written makes good sense to me - let us re-evaluate the goal. Our progress thus far is not perfect but we are headed in the right direction. RM:AO explains science, and physics is a science, just as psychology is a science. We are making connections between philosophy and science. Science should be there to help us with everyday concerns. Understanding how this knowledge helps us with these concerns is what is most important. Being able to make rational decisions is what this mainly comes down to - to do this we need to be able to accurately evaluate reality. The reality, as we see it in our mind, does not always align with the external reality - if ever these days.

Your picture of reality is going to be a little different than mine.

@obsrvr524

@encode_decode

James was still able to analyze and comment on psych with a very high degree of accuracy well into his old age - perhaps this hints at something with RM:AO.

You sparked my curiosity with that.

If it is not too long of a discussion - what are you referring to?

This is where we started.

@obsrvr524

Ok. I think I see what you are getting at. Do you have a link reference to that discussion (would save me a lot of search time)?

You became interested and wanted a link to this discussion.

From this, it seems like you are actually more interested in how RM:AO fits in with psychology or how it explains psychology, rather than the analogy between physics and psychology which James has already given us.

So I have to ask, what is your actual goal or interest here? Were you just impressed by the idea that RM:AO could so accurately explain the brain and the mind - and therefore just wanted to see some proof?

I don’t know if you have a deeper interest here or whether you see a knowledge of this helping you with other things like politics.

[obsrvr524]

@encode_decode

I have a bit of a headache right now so it is a little difficult to think effectively. I did not want you to think that I am not committed to this conversation so I just whipped up this post.

With any luck the headache will be gone within the next few hours, otherwise, it could be tomorrow when I respond again - I am trying to avoid taking pain pills.

I always say - “wife, work, and wealth” but maybe I should add “health” to that -
- wife, work, wealth, and health mate

@encode_decode

let us re-evaluate the goal. Our progress thus far is not perfect but we are headed in the right direction. RM:AO explains science, and physics is a science, just as psychology is a science. We are making connections between philosophy and science. Science should be there to help us with everyday concerns. Understanding how this knowledge helps us with these concerns is what is most important. Being able to make rational decisions is what this mainly comes down to - to do this we need to be able to accurately evaluate reality. The reality, as we see it in our mind, does not always align with the external reality - if ever these days.

Your picture of reality is going to be a little different than mine.

I’m sure everyone has a different bubble of belief. How they handle it is probably a good psychology subject.

As far “the goal” - my goal in being involved in any of this hasn’t really changed. I have always intended to go through and try to fully comprehend everything James has posted. Unfortunately for me that became a much harder task than I was expecting - due to an unfriendly brother in law. So this topic of Physics of Psychology is something I was going to eventually get to anyway - you just opened the door - giving me a little focus. So thanks for that.

@encode_decode

From this, it seems like you are actually more interested in how RM:AO fits in with psychology or how it explains psychology, rather than the analogy between physics and psychology which James has already given us.

I have already read most of what James explained about physics - starting with his original debate with Carleas years ago (I was actually watching that take place at the time but didn’t get to see how it ended). So at this point any association with physics comes naturally. I don’t have to go to any effort to connect the dots (yet anyway - unless it gets into too much maths ).

@encode_decode

So I have to ask, what is your actual goal or interest here? Were you just impressed by the idea that RM:AO could so accurately explain the brain and the mind - and therefore just wanted to see some proof?

I don’t know if you have a deeper interest here or whether you see a knowledge of this helping you with other things like politics.

How did you put it - “maybe you’re over-thinking”?

Other than trying to grasp all of the enormity of ideas that James put forth, the only “deeper” interest for me is - why was James posting on This board of all places - and who was he really talking to - because there are clear indications that it wasn’t merely these blokes. All in all - it is just a hobby that I have allowed to get perhaps too occupied with - “wife, work, wealth, and health”

[encode_decode]

@obsrvr524

Other than trying to grasp all of the enormity of ideas that James put forth, the only “deeper” interest for me is - why was James posting on This board of all places - and who was he really talking to - because there are clear indications that it wasn’t merely these blokes. All in all - it is just a hobby that I have allowed to get perhaps too occupied with - “wife, work, wealth, and health”

OK, well, that is some hobby.

James had a focus; I can tell you that James was working on a “Grand Unified Theory” relating to physics, psychology, sociology, and economics.

While he was alive, there was an overlap between his interests and mine. Like a lot of people, he wanted our world to be a better place - the best it could be.

He wanted people to be the best that they could be…

There is probably nothing in this post that you do not already know and thank you for your interest in James’ work - I am sure there would have been a lot that you and he would have discussed.

[obsrvr524]

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).

[obsrvr524]

Now moving on (same thread) —

@James S Saint

@Mithus

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

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

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

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

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?

[obsrvr524]

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”).

[obsrvr524]

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.

[obsrvr524]

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

@Mithus

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.

[obsrvr524]

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?

[obsrvr524]

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.

[encode_decode]

I have only read your last post obsrvr524.

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.

[obsrvr524]

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.

[encode_decode]

OK, that is very clear what you are saying.

@obsrvr524

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…