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).
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.
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.
Ok - thanks for the warning - I’ll go back and clean them up.
I think all of us can be better people and that is what psychology should be about - not just fixing problems when they arise.
You seem to be respectful and respectable to me. I identify you as an objectivist:
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 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.
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!
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.
From another thread:
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.
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:
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.”…
…your 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 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.
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”.
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.
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?).
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.
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.
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…
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! =D>
I am just following James’ lead - putting in examples and testing his hypothesis.
Years ago I felt like “brilliant” became faint praise - for reasons that I haven’t talked about - yet
I am not the only one who thinks this way about James - apparently, you hold him in high regard too.
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
No worries mate.
The same happens to me while reading James. Such as -
I am having a little problem with this bit -
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.
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
With the formation of thoughts or ideas as molecules with a degree of valance (mild charge) structures would naturally form as happens in the physical world. Collections of associated (valance influenced) thoughts come together to form things like maths and language.
So clearly it isn’t just a matter of the logic involved in maths or sentence structure but also the PHT charge associated with thoughts. Certain math equations gain impressiveness and influence both within an individual mind as well as society (“2+2=4”, “(\pi r^2)”, “F = ma”, "(E=mc^2) and others) not because of their logical truth but because of their reputation - which often translates to the reputation of a scientist or mathematician (a thought-to-human valance).
Try saying “black-killer” in the MSM. Then say “white-killer” and see the difference in response. Certain words and thoughts carry “charge” (positive or negative influence) and so get associated with other thoughts to create entire beliefs - larger scale attitudes - and my “bubbles of belief”.
So the truth or logic involved in basic ideas has to compete with the PHT charge values while larger scale personal beliefs, ideologies, and social belief systems are formed and get played out.
I think it is fascinating that he went from necessary microscopic PHT elements (I dubbed as “attons” of attitude) logically all the way up to the formation of language, maths, and bubbles of beliefs.
And all of this happens both within an individual mind as well as within social development and politics. And gives rational decision making for political speeches and religious sermons. A computer could give more effective political and religious speeches than humans - zookers.
This really is a science - complete with rational testable structure based on necessarily true axioms. And that makes mental and social things very exactly calculable (assuming the valance issues could be measured accurately).
It really is what he said it is - a serious “Physics of Psychology” (and society and politics). It should be able to be used significantly in mental health issues - not to mention social/political health issues.
Now this has led me to some very disturbing thoughts.
At first I was contemplating how it all could be applied to social and political activities and conflicts. Then what society would possibly be like if this was taught in all the major universities. I had to leave that one as very largely unknown but I suspect it would be much like Galileo’s postulations back in Catholic society. But then I started thinking - James apparently knew not only this but even more -
What must it be like - or was like for James - to look at a person and not merely see a person as we do - but more as depicted in that American movie The Matrix when Neo became enlightened and saw everyone as a group of streaming codes - seeing the very elements causing their behavior to be what it is - beyond what they could see themselves - and perhaps being able to speak just the right words to alter a bit of their programming to result in a very precise, predictable, and chosen change in their spirit - perhaps even being able to see their very soul - standing right in front of you as you watch them playing out all of the internal mechanisms that compose who they are in real time.
And even though that seems like a superpower - there is something more relevant.
James made mention of what it must be like to teleport back in time to ancient Rome and try to have a discussion about physics - pointless - no reason for anyone to believe a word you said. Even the idea of science and experimentation would be completely foreign to them. And imagine that you had to live for the rest of your life in that environment. Neo had the advantage of being able to pop back and forth between being completely one way or completely the other. But what if you didn’t have that luxury?
How much more lonely could you feel than to know not only so many things that conflict with current popular belief but also know that all of the struggles going on at that time will soon be irrelevant - and those that newly arise - equally as irrelevant because of what comes after that - centuries of suffering and pointless struggles due to so many false hopes and fantasies only to eventually get up to what you already knew was going to become the future - and you didn’t just guess - you absolutely knew - because you had been there - yet no one would have any reason to believe a word you said. Yet there you are for the rest of your life - endless days of not being able to converse with any significant impact.
And if you also knew precisely why everything was the way it was and what it would take to make any difference - perhaps you would know that there is nothing you even want to change in any significant way - because the codes just have to play out - perhaps.
But even without going back in time - if you could see the inevitable sequence of events currently in process and knowing them to be fact - even where they were going to eventually lead (which he mentioned) - isn’t that the same situation?
I have gone from being fascinated by the things James said - to wondering what he knew and when - to who he was really talking to - now to a deep feeling of sympathy - almost tears as I imagine what he must have felt every day. What does a person like that do with themselves?
Having merely tasted what seems a red-pill - I question whether I should continue down this red-pill rabbit hole or back away and just enjoy the blue blindness of popular life (as tragic as it seems to be getting).
I can already feel myself seeing people differently - the inevitability of their behavior and the influence maintaining it that way. I find myself less willing to just blindly step into a conversation - even with friends - a twinge of hesitancy to lend comment or argue - or even to agree. Where will it lead? What actually comes from deeply “Observing JSS’s thoughts on Psychology”?
After some more thoughts concerning just this much I tried to just continue with the next segment of James’ Physics of Psychology thread but thoughts about the possibilities of what has been said so far kept coming and coming. The applications of just this much seems endless - and very very relevant. Now I can’t even remember all of the thoughts that have crossed my mind.
Just in the field of public policies - perhaps concerning drug use - precise calculations of benefit could be made to predict the outcome of one policy over another. And with accurate statistical data (hard to obtain for reasons also associated to this subject) they probably wouldn’t even need a computer to do it - despite having hardcore equations involved. But the issue would still be - as always - the “benefit to whom” question. I already know that James addressed that in his governing methods analysis - finalized with his CRH proposal with MIJOT being the mandated priority. And trying to compute policies in that environment could probably be done without computer as well - as long as the leaders in the small - extremely small - groups were reasonably competent.
Even on this board it is easy for everyone to see behaviors that lead them to speculate the character of the people they are reading but most of their speculations are very charge related - biased, speculative, and presumptuous. Most people today make very poor observers for that reason (yet don’t realize how bad they are - how many clues they miss because of the over charged concern for other clues). But with an elementary understanding of just this much physics of psychology - I can’t image their observation skills not improving. They (we) would be inclined to realize our own charged attitudes while we were trying to assess those of others (more so than currently being displayed). It would be like a self-realized psychologist more carefully and skeptically analyzing other people.
And then when public policies are accurately calculated - international policies would instantly become far easier to precisely calculate. And again with public understanding of how these calculations are being made (much like in science) the public would be far less suspicious of maleficence. The entire world would become trustable and that means much happier people and far less impulse to violence (socialists would hate it).
It is sad to think that the state of the world could be so dramatically improved merely by public education on what has been discussed so far. Perhaps the globalists are leaving far too much calculation up to Google and Microsoft.
James - in his governing methods analysis - predicted that “even if a global socialist government got established - it would soon fall apart”. He was obviously using this kind of analysis to discern that (which is answering one of my early questions about - “how did James know what he knew” - it is appearing that he merely calculated it based on his RM:AO - what would have to happen because of the basic way everything works.
He then goes into a review of the physics pertaining to why it is that electrons don’t crash into the nucleus that they orbit - an "exclusion barrier " due to the “impedance mismatching”.
That bit seems to be about how contrary devotions or priorities (stemming from PHT attitudes) can develop an impenetrable wall of impedance mismatch between them - analogous to the physics principles.
Zookers - I feel like I am getting an overload of realizations and revelations pertaining to the history of social conflicts, conquerings, mergers, and dissolutions - allowing for a precise calculation of at what point any of those events could and would occur. And since those things are currently still happening - applicable to current international events (James would have already known all of this).
This is going to take a lot of digesting. It involves the entire history of mankind and current events - as well as the formation of political news items.
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).
(- but he probably wouldn’t appreciate that so much 
)
