Psychology 101 - A Model

#TetModel #psychology


← this one got frozen in time null

at times like this one wishes one had an undo.

Comments


aka : TET offensive null ( #pun )

tet as in tetrahedron


#psychology  #TetModel #tweet 

tetrahedron (n.) Look up tetrahedron at Dictionary.com
"triangular pyramid, solid figure contained by four triangular surfaces," 1560s, from Late Greek tetraedron, noun use of neuter of tetraedros (adj.) "four-sided," from tetra- "four" (see tetra-) + hedra "seat, base, chair, face of a geometric solid," from PIE root *sed- (1) "to sit" (see sedentary). Related: Tetrahedral.
IT would have been helpful had you actually taken a course in Psychology 101 as did I at UCLA & also Psychology 102 assisted by 16 doctors from RAND.

All the abstraction in the world will never catch reality. See my comments in http://www.fastblogit.com/thought/23071 from PR’s latest book & read this quote again:These two domains are very different because one is what’s existentially true, the other is only occurring “as if” it’s true.


i was looking for an official name of this solid and could not find one that i liked that others might have used.  it is a tetrahedron reflected.  any help there would be greatly appreciated.

i did take phychology 101 at UCLA and passed it with flying colors … or so my memory tells me.

then i went beyond that grossly shallow course to read some of the founders of the study … Freud, Jung, and many others including extensive reading and dialogue in the fields of #CogSci and #behaviorism.  i believe my acquaintance with the literature is as good or better than yours.  Not to mention that i don’t possess some of your #Augs on those topics.

This model is so very generalized … in a way it is nothing but a structure on which to hang the pointers, the references into the matter at hand … and it shows the relationships between those pointers  according to my gestalts.   it can be used to compare those same things according to your gestalts. 

”Psychology 101 as did I at UCLA”

#LOL pre Y2K psychological alchemy mark?  

It passes for science.  Your own VooDoo notwithstanding.

Yep, I was trying to remind you that what you are looking for is better found outside the map not in it or as Peter said 
These two domains are very different because one is what’s existentially true, the other is only occurring “as if” it’s true.

 


Well, I think you really mean it passed for science, in circa 1960. The only constant in the universe is that all things change … especially knowledge and understanding of anything human.

it is certainly true that our scientific knowledge is changing all the time.   especially psychology … which as a topic for scientific study is relatively new.   it is also interesting to note that most of the Gurus of new aged psychology originally started by studying the state of psychology of the first half of the 20th century.  other new aged Gurus did not even matriculate in psychology … they came from traditional religions. 

#OMG … of course what i am playing with here is outside of my map of it.  It is even outside of my conceptions of it … and quite outside of my beliefs about it … and outside of my Gestalts about it …
 
and i might even mention outside of #PR‘s as well null

Why would you think i needed to be reminded of that?

#btw gentelmen … this node has been tweeted.  What you say here can be read by just about anybody.  In other words, you may not be just talking to me.  Please keep that in mind as you comment here. 

… and now we channel our understanding from aliens and disembodied entities. I mean that quite literally, Bashar and Abraham for example, are fast becoming the de-facto sources for modern psychological understanding. Walk into most any psyc ward in the country today and ask them if they have heard of Law of Attraction, or ho’oponopono, or parallel universes, or EFT, and do they use any of those in their daily work … the number that do will surprise you! null

i know #RickAlloy,  a profesional psychologist,  and am trying to engage him in discussions here.  He was one of our payed customers on the one and only #CyberMind disk … and we had some very interesting discussons back in the 80’s.  I considered him a “new aged psycologist”.   So we may well be able to get some a first hand examples as to how deep #LOA  and ho’oponopono and EFT has effected modern practice.   i am preparing myself to be surprised nullnull.

Because you are still drawing maps which qualify as only occurring “as if” it’s true; mostly only for yourself.
Similar, but not quite #SSS 

Channelers make shit up. I’ll get my science elsewhere. thumbs down

Okay. Well when you figure out how to do that mark, you let everyone know. I am sure there are plenty of other nay-sayers out there who would also rather get their info elsewhere too. Maybe you can pioneer a universe where it is happening.  

i do not understand you reason, mark.  

What is wrong with drawing maps? … that is what we do when we think.  What is wrong with  “qualify as only occuring ‘as if’ it’s true” , that is the very nature of thought.  When i actully do and/or feel things, such maps are irrelivant … they are religated to background … then the understanding itself takes hold and enthralls with the world.  Drawing maps is just part of the process … er, best not to leave home without such being bound in one’s back pocket.

seth

Show me someone who is not the origin, and I will show you a transcendental heretic.

mark notwithstanding – beside himself.  

that is not something that you will find through me … me, i do not wallow in that kind of judging the thoughts and work of others … rather i try to take them for what they do  in and of  themselves.

or asked differently … what pray tell is a “trancendental heretic” ? … and why should i participate naming them?

Without such thoughts to squawk at,
   no journey would mark take.
It is his delight to ponder,
   of that make no mistake!

#GW channeled

well you are talking to seth in this thread … not mark … you do know that we are quite different people … do you not?


All in reference to Psychology 101 - A Model (comment 73276)


From: #RickAlloy in personal email.
Seth,
Hello.  It has been a long time.
Hope you’re doing well. 
I am busy but trying to slow down; hard to do. 
I briefly looked at your link and have fond memories of CyberMind.
I really liked (and still do) the programing language you created.
So, thanks for the online compliments. 
 
I’m a bit lost with respect to your questions.
I’m convinced of the “reality” of the Law of Attraction. 
Don’t know what EFT refers to (I doubt you mean electronic funds transfer?).
Just Googled HoΚ»oponopono; I like it.  I’m off to Hawaii Monday so maybe I’ll ask about it. 
 
Rick
 

confirming nathan’s predictions null

null

Framework XOR map ? … is it human yet? grock human from it ? 

#CyberMind & CyEnglish & MPL (magic programming language) were kewl. null

They were very COOL and very useful evolutionary iterations.  

In terms of practicality, they were not so much. The need for exactness constantly struggled against the look and feel of the English language … and that struggle weighed down the language in both performance and understandability.

Today, true English (and other language) interpreters that convert natural language to commands are far more practical for everyday use and will soon be used to do the things CyberMind did without the computer<-->human language struggle. (Such as Seri and Alexa etc).


that human skeleton provides the structure for movement (change) only in #placement 4 space for one instance.

the #TetModel skeleton provides the structure for changes only in #psychological 4 space for one instance.
 
 




a single instance shown against a background


of course there is a mad dash in the industry to interpret natural language into command language.  I will even bet that the outage last night with #OkGoogle was caused by Google taking her down and installing some new faculty.

but i don’t think  it could be called “interpert” in the sense that a CyberMind CyThot directly interperted CyEnglish

… now it is done by training neural nets.  far easier to program and far less tedious.   We could even do that ourselves in the cloud … the tools are already there off the shelf.


CyEnglish *ha! (not English) & MPL were a different path from the command languages of its time. Similar to turtle graphics on a cartesian plane , MPL (navigational)  traversed a network database of it’s own design. Could have been extended to the whole Internet had the enterprise not gone in 3 different directions. The Synergy of Individuals expired!
#IMHO (which is neither) nullnull 

I appreciate how it looked to you mark, but you did not try and represent a wide variety of different algorithms in CyEnglish like I did. It is true that I was always able to find a way, and it is also true that many common programming tasks were unwieldy to model in CyEnglish. JavaScript is far easier to program in for all the normal tasks of this age of computers … in fact, it is the most complete and easiest to use language out there right now no matter what you are doing … many programmers agree with that too, and that is why “node” exists and is quickly becoming the programming standard, on the web, or off the web.

Like I said, nathan the synergy of individuals expired! Everyone had their own opinion. I remember the moment.

I am sure it was justifiable and felt good at the time to blame others or non entities like synergy for the experience you created. Perhaps harboring that sense of blame is what has made you so bitter in your old age mark.

No blame dude! Your attitude now being a wonderful example.  Certainly no synergy there just #juice 

the computational model was quite adequate.  i was actually working on some of the problems to which nathan refers …  and yes they were real and other languages solved them.   they could have been integrated in the horizontal narrative style of #CyEnglish and its stack oriented computational model  … we just did not agree to make those imporvements … or perhaps couldn’t completely imagine them.    instead our cooperation decayed … we simply stopped #sharing choices.  any #blame  is irrelivant.

BTW, natural language – English – navigates ideas, thoughts , & the sensory world – the world of experience & life. Can’t cram all of that into a computer.

… well there are a lot of people right now that are attempting to do just that.

Good Luck with that! null Can’t even get much going & agreement with natural language in vivo


… these things take time.  … it is not for the faint of heart.


… but truly it is hard not to notice the evolutionary trend … eh #OkGoogle … eh #seri … eh #Alexa .   Me, i have all three of those girls on my nightstand as we speak … and me and denise talk to  them every day … we notice how stupid they are … even notice how they could be imporved … and every time we get a result we wanted we get a bit of glee in our hearts.  do you think for a moment that is just us?

#IDK / #IDC – I don’t have much in the way of cell phones – just an emergency one . I can get up & go to my computer room if I need to talk or hear the phone ring. If I need to log a thought & it is not there by morning I consider it probably was worthless or “sauerkraut” to begin with. Being plugged in is not my thingy . Unplugged is a better option except for robots.
null


”Can’t cram all of that into a computer” ~ mark

Nice little box of belief you have built for yourself to live in Mark. Me – I get rid of all such beliefs.  

p.s. Alexa and OkGoogle are not cell phone related.

One huge thing that CyEnglish would have had to evolve to have is objects and object oriented programming. You might argue that it did because it had attention, but having actually spent several years programming many things in CyEnglish, and now programming in modern object orientated programming languages, I can tell you that what it had was not practically the same thing at all.

#SOS #AlreadyAlwaysArguing #juice onward nathan ! null null null

Objects were approx. Symloops or Symbols

Well, your own signature says you are an avid advocate for freeing yorself of beliefs. The belief you sling above is a very limiting belief. Nearly anyone would want to be done with that one.

Please do! Put your money where you sign it!  


It was more of a challenge than a belief – the jury is still out – I still bet on humans. null

Yes, I agree, approx. But only in baby steps. Much of the object stuff that exists in most modern programming environments was missing and only tediously obtainable the old fashioned “make static functions for it” way.

modern objects (classes) are abstractions … but the sym-loops of CyberMind were not abstract… for the most part they were the representions themselves..  But we could well have created abstract symbols.  We just didn’t get to that yet … even though i actually did play with the concept … and somwhere there are mentographs to prove it.

Yep I did QA on Object-oriented software & diagrams which would generate programs against databases . Similar to what http://www.sparxsystems.com/ offers.  I still have 7.1 on my machine but have not used it in years.

Abstract would just be a “factory” in OO terms. 


why separate human cybernetics from being human?  … seems to me they blend together nicely.

Yep, and “human” does not mean “carbon based lifeform” anyway. Watch Star Trek TNG if you have any doubt.  

… well me, i am carbon based myself … so i will stick with that.  

a wize man once told me,  “Don’t let your mind get too far ahead of your hands”.   Any bet who that wise man was?