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.

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 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. :-k

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.

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.

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? :-k

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

This is starting to get fascinating because -

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”. :smiley:

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”? :-k

Perhaps another unrequited question for James.

.

“almost tears as I imagine what he must have felt every day.”

Bro I know exactly what u mean. I cry almost every time i come to ILP.

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.

But he had more to say -

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.

_
You could just read them here…

It’s hard to search, copy, and paste from a book. O:)

books.google.com/books/about/Ra … yeDwAAQBAJ - go to… Table of Contents link, on the left.

…you’re welcome ; )

I didn’t find the “Search” button that allows me to search for word use.

My effort isn’t to just read what James said about things but to deeply scrutinize it for credibility. I have to look for any contradictory claims - for intended word use - for intention for the entire effort. Try just reading a book on quantum physics and see how comfortable you feel about your understanding of it. Could you testify to it as fact? To understand it - you have to get into the minute details of the intentions - look for contradictions - work out whether you understand what was really being said. It takes a LOT of searching and thinking extemporaneously - imagining examples - seeking out whether it all really makes sense and is consistent throughout.

So far - it all seems consistent, legitimate - and a little scary.

I have to point out that this is messing with my MIJOT.

I feel torn between the concern of what could be done - and isn’t likely to happen - and the temptation to just largely ignore it all and enjoy the ride. Do I climb over this mountain - or just leisurely stroll around it in the shade.

I am just going to write something freely - not really get logical about anything for the moment.

Meh, this is just a forum man.

I don’t know what your world outside of this forum is like but I do know that trying to change the world from within the world of a philosophy forum won’t happen. Most of us just come here to bounce ideas off of each other. Philosophers are the worst in that they mostly just disagree about everything. Philosophers are influenced by the world like anyone else and that just makes the disagreements even more intense when the world outside any conversation is already an awful place. I appreciate why some people here want some really awesome debating - they want their enemy to be as strong as them. One of the first things James said to me was “welcome to the acid bath” - I knew from that point I would like him - he jumped in my threads really early - I miss his acid testing. As you know though, the outside world has made it into this little world of ILP and diluted its appearance of being anything serious.

Many great times have happened here over the past but it is like a shell of what it used to be. These days it seems the religious talk is the most interesting. The political talk always sees some action too…but…well, what do I say about that? The political realm is something that made me tired over fifteen years ago, so not much I guess. I am only surprised now how degraded that atmosphere has become - people throwing labels and not really getting into the heart of anything. Such a shallow seascape in that regard. I spend no time worrying about this place - we are who we are. I don’t really want to hurt anyone’s feelings by anything I say but sometimes that is outside my control when people invest too much of their own heart in an online community. I just don’t do that - invest my heart in this place - I did to an extent with James because his connection to the world was older than a lot of people here with the exception of maybe one or two people that is - I mean, I don’t know anyone here - there could be fifteen older people - but I knew for sure James was older. That deeper connection to the past gives older people who are still alive an advantage over the younger people - not that the younger people respect that much anymore - I was brought up to have the utmost respect in my elders so perhaps it is a cultural thing for me - this is not to say that there are not any bad older people, just that their experience does count for something…

…I could go on but the post would become quite long…so I will close this post with this - this is just a forum…yep, just a forum…hardly any of us really know each other.

It is not really worth investing too much of your heart around here…not gonna lie though - Meno_ is really cool, so yeah, I still have a favorite or two here.

What would satisfy me more is knowing that people are happy outside this place but I mind my own business so I don’t really get into that too much - I don’t really know how happy anyone here is.

I can certainly understand all of that - but I was referring to the mountain of things that are going to be done - things that actually could be done - and things that actually should be done - across the entire world - not at the microscopic realm of this little discussion board. O:)

.

Yes, and you will notice a kernel of that in what I said.

.