Through the glass darkly v2.0

12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

1 Corinthians 13 is the thirteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It is authored by Paul the Apostle and Sosthenes in Ephesus. English version.

The title of this paper is one interpretation of Corinthians 12, with a long history of expressing the human situation beginning with the allegory of the cave by Plato. In this paper I seek to give this romantic expression the depth and precision of science and show it to be the exact epistemological structure of all observers. In so doing lay the foundation of an improved science of people.

“Science must lead to ideas that prove useful in practice”. Private communication with Karl Popper, circa 1982.

Abstract

There is no general theory of psychology. Nor is social science close to building one. This paper highlights the poorly understood methodological issue that has resulted in lack of progress in building a general theory of psychology. In short, the problem is the failure to adequately distinguish between variables and the values of those variables.

This paper addresses an in-depth intellectual issue that does not appear to relate to any practical or human issue. That is a mistake. This paper lays the foundation of all knowledge and the relationship of that knowledge to the objects of that knowledge. It offers the fundamental epistemological structure of our relationship with the external world, with understanding ourselves, and with our knowledge and what that knowledge is and must mean.

We can only interact with a perceptual field. We can never interact directly with the external world. Values of variables and the variables sit on different sides of a perceptual field through which we can only ever deduce the nature of those variables and their interaction, reflecting the flow of change in the external world.

The paper outlines a general theory of the observer in their environment, showing that this epistemological position inescapable if causal relations are to be maintained.

The paper draws the conclusion that this manner of solution to developing accurate and predictive social science theory represents a significant shift in thinking. This shift, a paradigm shift in terms of Kuhn, will be difficult for much of the global scientific community encapsulated in the historical but flawed methodology itself sustained by habit, education, comradeship and politics. This will require leadership of stature if we are to adopt an objective science with the potential of greater scientific verisimilitude.

Through the glass darkly

The start point is “we are unable to see without photons”. With precisely comparable positions for all other senses.

In summary, the analysis states we do not and can never in principle interact directly with the external world, we only ever judge the nature of the external world from our interaction with perceptual fields. This position is demonstrated empirically in clear air white out, in modern virtual reality, and tested and explored in the laboratory in the Ganzfeld experiments. It is very simple to verify this start position and to demonstrate empirically that our image of the external world, our reality in mind, that we use to judge and determine our actions, assumes totally that the perceptual field with which we interact is congruent with the external world generating that perceptual field. When in circumstances where we know the two are not congruent, such as virtual reality, and Ganzfeld, then there is no behavioural issue. But in situations where we do not know, it can be devastating, such as when the Air NZ jet flew into the side of Mt Erebus and 257 people, including the pilots were killed with a major cause declared as clear air white out.    

The fundamental platform of this work depends on reasoning. That is, if the start point is correct and the reasoning correct then the conclusions must be regarded as correct. If this theory leaves any person uncomfortable, then they need determine where the reasoning fails, since mere rejection because it does not fit with what they currently think is ego based science, not objective science, and is a major point of this paper.

Understanding the machine behind the glass

No observer can ever, no matter what it does or thinks it can do, escape from this epistemological structure of its relationship with Reality.

In fact, the theory goes further, and argues that this is the necessary and essential structure of the relationship between all observers and Reality since for the observer to know anything of Reality then there must be a causal link between that observer and Reality. No matter what that link may be, no matter the nature of the perceptual receptors of the observer, no matter the nature of the observer, there must be a perceptual field as the mechanistic link between internal processing structure in the observer and Reality, no matter what the nature of the observer.

If that is not thought so, then one must argue that some observers can ‘see’, ‘feel’, taste’, ‘hear’, ‘smell’ the external world, Reality, have data points in relation to it without interacting with it in any way. Such may be possible, but such would be a contradiction of the causal circumstances noted by humanity for all of its recorded history. For humanity, there is always a mechanism!

Understanding the glass between us and the external world

Imagine a perceptual field, now imagine it as a piece of clear glass.

To the left is the observer, with the perceptual field interacting with the neural structures in the observer’s brain, and those changes in the observer’s brain being ‘interpreted’ within the mind of the observer to form the ‘image’ of the circumstances, what I define as the reality for the person (small r intended). The reality is largely the person’s interpretation and when being used to decide actions is psychological. Accounting for how it is formed, where the ideas come from how they are shared, etc., is in my book The Origin of Consciousness (referred to in this paper as ‘Origin’, available free of charge in PDF at my LinkedIn profile). These psychological issues and the relationship between them and the neural functioning of our brain will not be explored in this paper, which is devoted to a short summary of key methodological issues derived from the necessary process Reality (capital intended) → perceptual processing → interpretation → reality and the consequences of that on the selection of variables.

To the right of the glass is external world, I refer to as Reality (capital intended). Reality has internal mechanisms whereby change occurs, driven by entropy, with one change influencing the next step, and so we can imagine the flow of change in Reality determined by its internal mechanisms (refer 'Origin' for full discussion of the idea of the 'flow of change').

The term mechanism refers to the details of how a change at point A results in a change at B, thus refers to the detail operation of mechanisms across all Reality and is therefore general and non-specific. To specify some set of mechanisms, I use the term machine, intended to encompasses the set of mechanisms as the set of coherent processes whereby the inputs into the machine are converted to outputs (refer ‘Origin’). For example, we can think of a TV set as a machine processing inputs into outputs, and with detailed internal mechanism about which most people know nothing. Each step in elucidation of the mechanisms with the TV can themselves be seen as smaller ‘boxes’ processing inputs into outputs…etc. Equally we can think of a person in their environment as a ‘machine, with internal processes converting inputs into outputs.

At first thought it would seem as if what we ‘see’ through the glass is the external world.  But that is a major mistake.

The psychology of ‘looking’ versus 'seeing'

The difference between 'seeing' and 'looking' was verified in an elegant social science paper in 1978. Two researchers Anderson and Prichert (refer 'Origin') took 50 people and told them to look at a house from the point of view of buying it, they then bought them out and sat them in a room. They took another 50 people and asked them to view the same house from the point of view of burgling it then bought them out and sat them in a different room. They then asked both groups to write down all they could remember about the house. They produced list that were totally different, one would not recognise they were the same house.

We ‘see’ with our mind not with our eyes. What we ‘see’ depends on what we use to ‘look’. That is, what we ‘see’ depends on the ideas we apply to the situation. I adopt the terminology that the set of ideas people use to ‘look’ is defined as the ‘game plan’ for that person in that situation (refer ‘Origin’).

We can 'see', that is observe carefully what is there, what is embedded in the perceptual field, with the assumption that what we see via our interaction with the perceptual field is congruent with what is 'there' in Reality. It takes psychological effort to put aside the habituated ideas that immediately come to mind we use to 'look'. Certain ideas are linked in our psyche to our environment, and it is these that will immediately arise giving us our 'interpretation' of that environment. It requires strength of mind to 'see' objectively without the intrinsic prejudice of the ideas in mind we apply to 'look'. I use the term 'objective' to describe the act to 'see' independent of pre-existing ideas which immediately shape one's perception. 

There are now two definite ‘objects’ between us, humanity as the observer in this case, and Reality. First, the glass itself generated by changes flowing through the mechanisms in Reality, and second the theories used to describe and understand those mechanisms, theories we write or better project onto the glass. In ‘Origin’ I show how this structure is the very nature, and mechanism of our psyche, which I liken to a power point frame (I shorten to just frame).

We can now use the glass analogy to describe the situation as follows: There is a Reality which we can only ever know via perceptual fields. We can understand a perceptual field as a piece of glass between us and Reality. Imagine the glass a millimetre thick, what is 'inside' the glass is the exact perceptual field generated by Reality. We can now imagine our prior reality, what we knew of the situation (the thoughts, emotions and attitude to them) being projected onto the glass by us, and so being the manner in which we 'interpret' what is in the glass.

The structure of our psyche

Imagine the game plans of people looking at the house...they projected their idea of buy or burgle onto the glass, and that is all they 'saw'. Imagine a box of power point frames directly behind your forehead. We can now imagine when we think 'buy', up pops the frame with 'buy' writ large and what we 'see' through the glass relates to that idea, and similarly with burgle. We do NOT instinctively 'see' what is there, what is in the glass, we see only those aspects of what is in the glass determined by what we project onto the glass.

The box of frames behind our eyes is the structure of our psyche (refer 'Origin'). What is on a frame is 'us' our personal views, thoughts, integrated with our emotions, all shaped by our spirit (refer 'Origin') We always have a frame, when we seek to look through the glass, there are always two objects, the glass itself generated by Reality, and what is on our frame we project onto the glass to ‘see’.  

What is on any frame is our 'borrowed knowledge' relating to the situation (derived from Ashby, refer 'Origin'). That is knowledge about that type of situation gathered by us from prior experience, education, culture, etc. We can describe what is on our frame as our personal theory of the situation. That is, the set of ideas and our feelings about those ideas we use to ‘interpret’, make sense of, that situation.

When in any situation where we have no previous experience, there is no immediate frame we can apply, we are likely to seek 'similarities' with what we know and apply those ideas to 'make sense of it'. Or we may accept we do not know, and it is a new experience for us, and thus we tread with great care to ensure we 'see' what is in the glass and hence gain accurate knowledge of Real situation. We carefully avoid projecting any of our prior assumptions onto the glass.

Science as theory on a frame

Now, science on a frame is exactly psychologically equivalent to what someone has personally on a frame. Both may apply to the exact same events, the same machine.

Scientific theory is of the exact same psychological status as a personal set of ideas toward some events. I define a person’s set of attitudes/ideas on a frame as the person’s ‘personal theory’ of the events, hence scientific theory is of the same psychological status as personal theory (refer ‘Origin’). This leads to the idea that all people are scientists, seeking to match their personal reality with Reality and so enable judgements and decisions resulting in their greatest life experience.

We are accountable for our mind

I define the set of frames and associated emotions as our mind. We have total personal accountability for what is in our own mind. What we think is totally our choice and no person real or imagined can have any accountability for what is on the frames we apply to understand and order the world in which we find ourselves. We and we alone determine our personal theories we apply and allow to shape our mood and conduct.  

Being trapped in our own devices

We can now imagine a person ‘looking’ by projecting onto the glass ideas from their own frame, hence we can understand how people can become trapped by their own thinking and not ‘see’ what is there, but reinterpret what is there to fit with their prior thinking.

Prior thinking is what Ashby defines as borrowed knowledge, that is ideas or thinking not implicit in the current situation but learned historically, and bought to the current situation by the observer. In our modern world this is highly evident in political ideologies, and deep divisions over such things as evolution, and abortion. This analysis places culture in relation to Reality and the scientific understanding of the Reality, and shows how scientific understanding of Reality is not culturally dependent, hence deals conclusively with such things as the ‘science wars’, and offers explanation for the events of the ‘Sokal affair’ and the false paper he published in Social Text in 1996.

This paper argues that this exact process will cloud acceptance of these ideas and group politics deflect away from verisimilitude. These ideas have already been subject to this deflection for near a decade.

‘Seeing’ ourselves on the other side of the glass

Any system under study defines a unique set of events, themselves defined by unique data points being generated on the left (observations) by the mechanisms of Reality with the grouping of mechanisms defined as the ‘machine’ under study. Please, when applied in social science, and to people, there is no naivety here, and no ‘mechanistic’ assumptions are intended nor implied about people. It is helpful and convenient terminology carefully defined designating aspects of Reality and separating that designation from all current knowledge of Reality, thus providing terminology to discuss two distinct objects, Reality and its internal mechanisms, and groups of mechanisms defined as machine or systems, and what we may already know of those mechanisms.

A person is a single conceptual unit containing processes, mechanisms, that convert both environmental and mental inputs into outputs determined by the nature of the input and opening state of the mechanisms. Within the theory ‘environment’ can be neural mechanisms not directly involved in the current ‘reacting part’ (refer ‘Origin’ and a later section in this paper), thus inputs into the any set of processes converting an input in an output can be from other neurons carrying thoughts or emotions as inputs into the that part of our psyche currently active (the reacting part as defined by Ashby).

Standing as we must on the left, and never able to see or get to the other side of the glass, including ourselves, we can only seek to identify variables and link them in chains that reflect the flow of change in the machine such that it becomes predictable. The methodology developed in ‘Origin’ provides clear structure to the circumstances involving looking both at the glass, and through the glass providing tightly defined process (Ashby tools producing Ashby diagrams) whereby humans can conceptualise the variables and their interaction and so can build theories of the flow of change through any machine such as to reflect the operation of the machine. Understanding of ourselves is included in looking through the glass, since we are part of the external world, Popper’s World I, as much as a tree or mountain.

We can only understand ourselves through the glass

The glass is NOT a mirror.

We ourselves exist in the external world, so we can only ‘see’ ourselves as we see all else, through the glass.

We have access to our own minds in a manner not available to anyone else. However, as discussed in ‘Origin’ we need be very careful as to what and in what way we can generalise such private understanding lest we fall into the trap of the methodological point being made in this paper.

We can only ‘understand’ ourselves through the glass as described in this paper. We can ‘know’ ourselves, but knowing ourselves is not ‘understanding’ ourselves, knowing ourselves is knowing the values of the variables that shape our actions, only by looking through the glass do we understand the variables themselves and their interaction that offers ‘understanding’ of ourselves.

When we look inward, it is crucial we understand the difference between variables, seen only through the glass, the conceptualization of theory that reflects the flow of change through the system (machine) under study, and the empirical value of those variables expressed in our thoughts, and emotions, etc., which make up the expression of the theory as expressed in the exact state of our psyche.

It is not possible in principle to generalise our internal thoughts or feelings to any other person. Any such generalisation is merely the statistical distribution across some selected group, and says nothing about the underlying theory that offers understanding of each unique empirical example of the theory as in each individual in the group.

It is crucial to understand the distinction being made, that is to clearly distinguish between conceptualisation and empirical measurement and not continue to confuse the two. Conceptualisation is our inherent human advantage, our nature, that we do better than any other known species, whereby we can assess through the glass the system of variables offering greatest insight into any machine, and then relate those variables such as to reflect the flow of change through the machine and offer us theory of how the machine works and enabling us to predict it (Ashby tools giving rise to Ashby diagrams, refer ‘Origin’). The values of those variables always lie to the left of the glass, including our own mind, and is always empirical measurement of the expression of theory in specific situations.

We can picture this by imaging drawing on the glass opposite any machine the variables and their interaction, the Ashby diagram, with the result of that flow through those variables being expressed in the empirical values we measure on the left.

Understanding observer interaction with perceptual fields as events

Imagine a painting. Now imagine living in a painting. No matter where ones looks and no matter when one looks it is static. Without change there is no dynamic universe. This is illustrated in Ganzfeld experiment and clear air white out, where a uniform perceptual field interacting with the neural system will cause images in mind incongruent with the external world.

Further, that unless any changes in a perceptual field, in front of which all observers must stand, result in changes in observers perceptual and interpretative systems, then for that observer there is no change, the environment remains static.

If we now consider the right side of the glass, then we can state that for perception of a dynamic environment as perceived by any observer to occur some aspect of the mechanisms in Reality must change and that change must generate change in the perceptual field, which in turn must generate change in the perceiving apparatus of the observer. Further consideration of the nature of response in the observer is beyond the scope of this paper, refer ‘Origin’, suffice to say, that it is substantially based on the Ashby concept of ‘borrowed knowledge’.

I define an event as a change in Reality, the field generator, resulting in changes in the perceptual field resulting in changes in the receptive perceptual and neural structures of the observer. It follows that that the key assumption in any event is that the perceptual field is congruent with the field generator, Reality. In clear air white out, Ganzfeld effect, and in virtual reality, this assumption is false.

Defining systems to study

Science usually studies specific phenomenon, therefore imagine the observer drawing a square on the glass aiming to study the events within that square. A more formal definition is ‘conceptual unit’ namely a square drawn on the glass with the objects our study being events within that square, and the relationship of that square, both inputs and outputs, with all other parts of the glass.

Science as our writing on the glass

We can think of science as us writing on the glass, writing down the variables, linking them via ultimate and immediate effect relations such that the theory reflects the flow of change through the machine and enables prediction of it. When we write on the glass it is shared by all who wish to look.

In practice when we ‘look’, we are ‘seeing’ Reality via perceptual fields from which we can abstract variables and link them via Ashby tools to form chains whereby change flows through the system of linked variables. This process of conceptualization produces theory of machine operation, and we measure the success of our theory by first the measurement of the values on the left of the glass as predicted by our theory on the glass, and second, by the congruence of the theory with what we can perceived of the machine behind the glass to which our theory applies.

We know that without change the environment is static as in a painting. Therefore, we postulate that our theory (the system of linked variables) reflects the flow of change through mechanisms of Reality and thus offers us insight and prediction into the operation of those mechanisms. Thus far, humanity has found this postulate to hold true, to be useful. It is typically referred to as science.  

We can imagine science as transferring our theories from mind and writing them on the glass opposite each and every machine to which the theories apply. By writing them on the glass we make them available outside our mind, they become socially shared, and as an object of Popper’s World III, they take on a life of their own where even we, their author, may sit back and objectively assess them. When we reflect on our theories so, we are reflecting on the state of our own understanding. (Refer ‘Origin’ for a discussion continuing this path and considering the structure of scientific knowledge, growth of science, and growth of understanding.)

The universal mechanistic postulate

Ashby diagrams are the conceptualisation of variables linked by arrows in ultimate and immediate effect chains, with the arrow meaning ‘has an effect on’. I define such a diagram as a ‘theory’ and when applied to Reality, a theory of the mechanisms which produce the events in Reality. All theory is part of our reality, our understanding of Reality on the right, and is our understanding of what is happening in the machine that is producing the data points we perceive on the left.

This epistemological position separates conceptualisation of theory from observation/perception of data. Further, this epistemological positon is unavoidable, and is fixed for all observers under all circumstances, and as such can be presented as a general theory of the observer in their environment. This difference between observation and conceptualising, specifically the degree of conceptualisation, is precisely the line drawn between humans and all other known species (refer ‘Origin’ for a more detailed discussion).

An Ashby diagram is precisely a set of linked variables offering understanding of the flow of change through the system when a perturbation applied to any variable. Ashby calls application of a perturbation to a variable ‘primary operations’ which can be done empirically, or can be a thought experiment.

A machine can be considered as a ‘box’ in which inputs are converted to outputs by processes or mechanisms within the box. Each process within the box yet another ‘smaller’ box…this leads to the infinite mechanistic regress and the universal mechanistic postulate which is summarised in the statement there is always a mechanism. Refer ‘Origin’.

Separating cause and necessity

The aim scientifically is then to select variables judged to best reflect the operation of the machine, namely the flow of change, such that the machine becomes predictable. The system of variables linked by Ashby immediate and ultimate effects is then our theory of the machine, and can be said to be our causal understanding of the machine.

There are now two definite ‘objects’. First there is Reality with its internal mechanisms, grouped by us into machines for study. Second (after Popper) there is our knowledge of the mechanisms, in science our theories of linked variables offering description of the flow of change through the variables offering insight into the operation of the machine.

We can now state that the mechanisms inherent in any machine are the necessity of that machine (the mechanisms being the process whereby inputs are converted into outputs).

Our understanding of necessity is the theory reproducing the flow of change, reflecting operation of the machine. We can now state that our theoretical understanding of the flow of change in the machine represents our understanding of necessity in Reality.

In our understanding of necessity, we have the cause of what happens in Reality. Cause is knowledge, it is our understanding of necessity but not itself part of Reality, it is part of our reality (refer ‘Origin’ for a more precise definition of cause).

Cause, as knowledge, is not necessarily scientific in mind, and can become entangled with political and cultural bias as much as any idea can become so embedded in people’s minds.

The demand for congruence

Accuracy of theory depends on the accuracy of the answers/predictions it offers plus the extent it offers understanding of the operation of the machine, and that understanding is implicit to the variables and does not need to be an added ‘interpretation.’

Congruence is when the variables in theory, in reality, projected onto the glass, are directly perceived in Reality.

Personal congruence is when the ideas used to ‘look’ are appropriate and map onto that which is intrinsic in the glass, so ideas used to look are congruent with the implicit nature of the perceptual field which is assumed to be congruent with Reality.

Compare to quantum theory and the necessity to interpret ? at the 1927 Solvay Conference in Copenhagen. The epistemological position of all observers as discussed in this paper raises many questions as to the epistemological status of quantum physics.

If quantum physics is knowledge, which of course it is, then interpretation of quantum physics can and must be a detail within the understanding of how all knowledge relates to the objects of that knowledge. And seeing people produce knowledge, then knowledge itself must be a detail within a general theory of psychology. This position is inescapable unless one wishes to argue that quantum physics is not knowledge, or if one wishes to find some other escape from facing that our greatest scientific theory which lead to this technology, is not understood, and we do not know its relationship with the external world. We have interpreted the equation that give the accurate answer as ‘probability functions’…

We have significant epistemological questions in why the universe would necessarily follow our mathematics. Due to this epistemological structure we know that our knowledge as mapped onto perceptual fields, mapped onto the glass, is fundamentally mathematical being in the form of Ashby diagrams. We do not know if that congruence is also between the perceptual field and Reality, and we have no way of finding out with any real certainty. The most productive line of thinking is to build theory that first, gets the correct answer, and second where the variables show strong congruence with factors evident in the underlying Reality (and do not require ‘interpretation’ as for ? at the Solvay Conference).

The epistemological position stated in this paper suggests quantum physics is a very, very clever system of statistics and managing probabilities such as to deliver highly accurate answers, in relation to events, but that we do not know the nature of those events or the underlying mechanisms.  This paper suggests Einstein’s instincts were right, and Bohr’s operationalism that has dominated the interpretation of quantum physics reflects only the state of the perceptual field and we do not know if it reflects the mechanism in the machine behind the data points, and generating the perceptual field. For understanding modern quantum physics, we have not got beyond the writing on the glass.

The aim of science

Science will be complete when the glass is fully covered and there are no machines to the right of the glass which we cannot accurately predict with theory fully congruent with all machines. Note, there are embedded in this statement many issue on ‘reductionism' in science, and the question of whether or not knowledge is continuous, or exists in domains (refer ‘Origin’ for detailed discussion on these issues).   

All people are scientists

Science is the search for congruence between our socially objective reality (Popper’s world III) and the mechanisms that drive Reality (Popper’s world I).

Our personal quest is to build congruence between our personal reality (Popper’s world II) and our Reality (world I) enabling our success in our life. Science is merely the social extension of our personal search for understanding on which to base our judgement and choose effective actions.

It follows that all people are scientists.

Illustration of the theory ‘observer in their environment’

The issue now is selection of variables, and this is discussed in ‘Origin’, and supported by the development of Ashby tools. There is no a priori way to determine the variables, it is an act of conceptual analysis and experience leading to judgment. Vision and instinct play their part as in any such decisions.

The final selection only proved in practice by theory in reality fully congruent with the machine in Reality, and accuracy of prediction. As with quantum physics, accuracy of result is not sufficient to determine correctness of variable selection, and congruence must be validated by independent means.

Now we can take an actual example. Consider the pendulum T= K√L, T being the time of the swing, L the length, K being 2pi over the square root of the gravitational constant. Assume simple pendulums at sea level, so we can ignore the gravitational constant. 

Now imagine the perceptual field, the glass. On the right we have pendulums. On the left we have observers collecting data on length (L), weight of the bob (W), stiffness of the pendulum (S), etc.

Can there be any ‘theory’ be applying statistics to the data points? What in fact do the data points represent?

We now understand the data points are values of variables, and not themselves variables. Therefore, seeking generalities among the data points is a methodological error and any discussion based on this methodological approach disregarded as it is based on wrong methodological assumptions and no matter how appealing and no matter how persuasive the writer, the fundamental intellectual position is wrong.

The variables are the generalisations generating the unique data points, so the variables are L, S, W. We need conceptualise the variables to the right of the glass with the values of those variables to the left. Precisely, applying Ashby tools, we conceptualise the variables judged to be those that most reflect the operation of the machine behind the glass.

With clear thinking, thought experiments and by matching and graphing the variables to build a theory of the machine and explain the data points, there emerges T=K√L.

Applying the epistemological analysis to a general theory of a psychology

The methodological approach is now clear. We need note the data points being measured, we need abstract from those a framework of variables that reflect the operation of the machine under study, and/or select other variables to resolve difficulties in theory construction. A definite indication of the variables lies in what is often and typically measured, and/or in the issues and problems surrounding measurements and/or variables accepted as pertaining to the system under study. Then by applying primary operations either in thought experiment or by empirical study, we need identify the flow of change through the system enabling theory to predict the system.

A personal story

To explore further I swop to first person to describe my search applying the tools for a theory to match the flow of change thought the system ‘person in their environment’. It is wrong to think that the approach was understood prior to my quest for variables and their links. Rather the two emerged together, and the above analysis is not actually prior to the theory but IS the theory. This is essential if any theory of ourselves is to have any validity, since it must not only show us what/who we are, describe us as looking through a glass darkly it must be congruent with us looking through the glass.

Under all circumstances we can only understand any aspect of Reality, any machine, by first empirically observing the data points, second judging the variables to best fit the operation of the machine giving rise to the data points, structure theory into the flow of change through the variables generating the data points, then test the theory as to accuracy of prediction of data points, and judge congruence of the theory with the machine as assessed through the glass. (Note, in viewing any machine through the glass we always perceive more than the variables in theory, which are only ever abstractions from Reality managed in reality to provide understanding and prediction of Reality. Refer ‘Origin’ for further discussion on variables as abstractions from Reality used as the basis of scientific understanding.)

The issue is ‘seeing’ the general theory of psychology but also living that which one is seeing. Currently your glass through which you must ‘see’ is this piece of writing, it is through this you must ‘see’ yourself, and to do that you must adopt the ideas congruent with you ‘seeing’ yourself through this glass (the full theory is diagram 8 nested in diagram 6, refer ‘Origin’).

When I first embarked on the search for the variables, I selected such things as values, beliefs, positive emotions and negative emotions… I also selected neural functioning, attention, attitude. I explored many, many combinations. I became aware of W Ross Ashby tools around mid-eighties, and wrestled to apply them to get a breakthrough in the variable structure and their relationships.

After Ashby, I did understand more clearly what I was doing, namely seeking the variables and their relationships that would accurately reflect the operation of the ‘machine’ that was a person in their environment. Early nineties, I made a change, I had been using Popper three world theory and looking to fit that within the theory of the person. I made a complete conceptual shift and decided to fit the theory of the person into the Popper three world theory. This got much easier, but by mid-nineties I still did not have the conceptual breakthrough I felt was ‘right’ and I began to doubt I had the capacity to solve the problems. Then at the point of giving up, I discovered I had solved the problems in a manner I had not realised.

The theory that finally emerged was built along the lines of Ashby ‘Design for a Brain’ (Chapman Hall, London, 1960) and then refined based on his model. Late nineties it emerged that the core conceptual structure was multiple in people, and I developed the concept of mental set. The final theory was then developed, interpreted and in 2012 I began writing it up in the book The Origin of Consciousness.

The variables that finally emerged are attitude, attention, knowledge, emotions, brain structures, body, reacting part (a term drawn directly from Ashby theory in Design for a Brain), and environment with definitions and linkages discussed in full in ‘Origin’. The full theory then expressed in diagram 8 nested in diagram 6, in The Origin of Consciousness, which is the expression of the variables and their interrelationships, with the diagrams representing merely a small part of the highly complex and subtle structure of the psyche of a person.

The theory has frighteningly effective reach and while significantly interpreted, there remains much detail on all aspects of education, mental health, social and economic policy, social structures, etc., and people managing themselves to improve their life experience.

What does the structure of the variables mean?

During the first two thirds of the nineties, I could not make the method work despite I was convinced the method was correct. The eureka moment was the result of another major shift in my conceptualisation. I shifted from trying to build theory using variables such as values and beliefs, and shifted to what I called a ‘flat-pack’ definition of all variables. So all emotions were just one variables, and all knowledge (defined as ideas able to be expressed in language) just one variable.

This meant that no variable had an ‘internal structure’. So belief and values for example, were exactly the same status in psychology, both knowledge as ideas, but vary in importance for a person depending the emotions the person associated with each idea. This meant that there was no general issue across all people called ‘beliefs’, and for all people a belief was an idea with associated emotion, so each person’s belief structure was unique to them consisting of a combination of knowledge and emotion, which were the two variables concerned giving in combination the unique values expressing the uniqueness of the specific person.

Second, the range of values a variable could take was unbounded. When laid alongside human evolution unbounded variables were appropriate, since with just limited research it was clear that humanity itself created the structure of emotions by combining words with emotions, and defining internal states. The theory strongly suggest that say, 100,000 years ago, on the first emergence of humans they did not have the range of emotional subtlety we have today, and theories that contained modern subtlety did not work 100,000 years ago. Shakespeare for example, added words and phrases to our vocabulary as to give nuance and subtlety to emotions and to words associated with emotions. Hence I settled in my mind that the flat-pack was the correct variable structure.

It worked, the flow structure worked and the ‘whole’ emerged from the conceptual shambles as it had been. It fitted elegantly into Popper’s three world view which represented the extended application of theory of the person to groups and to broader human structures such as organizations and societies.

The variables sensibly reflect the operation of the system ‘person in their environment’. The theory has strong predicative power, at this stage there is no situation where it fails to offer insight and explanation.

Logical summary

The method and intellectual tools dictates the nature of the theory.

1. All observers can only perceive the external world via perceptual fields. To deny this is to argue that an observer can interact with an object without any communication channel between the perceptual/receptive/interpretative structures of the observer and the object. This is currently judged impossible. It is regarded as a fundamental of the universe that if two objects influence one another there is a communication channel between the two.
2. It then follows that the ‘glass’ separates observer from object, that no observer can interact directly with the object. The external world defined as Reality, the perceptual field generator, is to the right, and the reconstruction of the external world within the interpretative/perceptual structures of the observer defined as reality is to the left.
3. It also follows that the generation of perceptual changes able to influence the observer is to the right, and the understanding and response to those changes is to the left. That is, changes in a perceptual field is the result of changes in the mechanism of Reality. The impact of those changes in Reality are the empirical events perceived by the observer on the left.
4. All objects can be considered ‘machines’ whereby inputs are converted by internal processes to produce outputs. Prediction of the object can only be by way of identifying variables that reflect the flow of change through the object.
5. A machine to the right can only be understood by conceptualising the variables that reflect the operation of the machine, and then arranging those variables linked such as to reflect the flow of change through the machine. Such a system of linked variables is called a theory of the machine.
6. This necessary epistemological structure of the observer dictates separation of theory creation via conceptualisation from empirical observation. Judgement of accuracy of theory must proceed by first empirical data collection, and second by applying judgement as to whether the chosen variables in reality are congruent with operation of the machine in Reality. Note, a theory may not at first generate the correct answer, but it may be on the appropriate creative path and require adjustment of how the variables interact, or changing of one variable, or …Verisimilar theory is one with most accurate prediction of the result, and with greatest judged congruence between variables in reality and the machine operation in Reality.

Any person uncomfortable with the theory must face the logical structure, to deny the end theory is to deny the start point or deny one of the key steps, as for example summarised above. We, as scientific, reflective elite, must decide leadership by example, and approach the issue of understanding ourselves in the manner we would ask of all people. But the manner of our approach to understand ourselves can only be a detail within science overall, itself a detail of how all knowledge relates to objects of that knowledge, itself a detail within a general theory of psychology.

In adopting this leadership by example, people asked to apply reason in adopting their ideas the basis of judgement, and to move away from merely adopting cultural preferences or other historical and irrational choices (such as religious choices). Human salvation lies in the intellect and better choices then acted out with integrity.

Some consequences of the methodology and flat-pack structure of variables

The methodology produces theory with far reaching application. But, there are intellectual and associated political issues. For example, the structure of the theory is very different from traditional theory, with the only line of thinking being that involving the work of Ashby, and a small number of associated papers. In short, the adoption of the method rules the vast bulk of historical discussion on psychology as failing to reach an adequate standard of methodology. Discussion failing to reach the standard is discarded as inadequate other than chance remarks made by accident as almost everything possible to say of people is stated somewhere in the literature.

These occasional insights have not been sought, since the search has been for an intellectual position offering in-depth coherence and applicable across the full range of human outputs. Second, the search has been to build clarity and consistency within a strong and transparent methodology which apples not only the social science but to all science. The emergent theory of psychology must explain why such a methodology and intellectual tools exist and work (refer ‘Origin’ for more detailed discussion on this reflexive criterion any theory of psychology must meet).

There are several key areas where the methodological issues most impact understanding, for example.

1. Historical scholarship: The theory rejects all historical discussions which fail to meet the methodological standard outlined above. Namely, that there must be clear understanding that data points are values of variables and not themselves variables. The theory must account for its own existence, the reflexive criteria, part of which is it must be able to locate all science within a general theory of knowledge and show how the general theory of knowledge is itself expressed in creation of the theory of psychology. It must provide detailed structure on the exact relationship between a person, their perceptual receptors, and the external world. It must integrate cause. If any of these criteria dismissed, then one is arguing that for example, knowledge is not produced by people, and/or perception can occur without any link between the observer and that being observed…
2. Theory of knowledge: All discussion of epistemology based on multiple aspects of knowledge independent of a general theory of psychology whereby knowledge is created is superseded. Issues of truth, status of mathematics, justification, issues of knowing how, knowing that, etc., are all superseded by the in-depth understanding of the role of knowledge and its relationship and derivation from perceptual fields, and in the creation of ideas and the role of conceptualisation in human psyche and human evolution and dominance.
3. Questions previously in philosophy: Various issues in philosophy, such as free will, choice, universals, ineffable knowledge, etc., all superseded by scientific positions that in many instances simple show the historical concern with the issue as invalid. Knowledge is defined as ideas able to be expressed. Therefore, there can be no ineffable knowledge. Knowledge unable to be expressed such as intuition, is an emotion. If an idea is able to be expressed, but the source unknown or not able to be verified other than it is the view of the individual, for example, acceptance of God, is knowledge within the individual, it is an idea expressible by the individual, it can be written on the glass by the individual, but it is opposite no known and socially agreed system or structure or machine in Reality. It is a choice unique to the individual, an idea accepted by them, and may be associated with strong emotions, so they are committed to the idea, but the idea has no structure to the right of the glass able to be social shared, and hence it is a choice of an individual with no necessary relevance to any other person. Such an idea is a personal choice, it may be shared with others who also accept the idea, and may share much of the emotional commitment to the idea, but it remains an idea prevalent with a group, but not one necessarily of general application, and with no congruence reality with Reality.
4. Choice: People are accountable for the ideas they accept to shape their judgement of Reality and hence to shape their behavioural decision. All on a frame, no matter how habituated is known to involve multiple synapse connections, therefore is available to internal processing and selection and moderation with the will to moderate it. Refer ‘Origin’ for full discussion on choice, free will, and the application of the attention mechanism to moderate neural flow and so alter reactions to circumstance. Second, a crucial aspect of choice is that due borrowed knowledge, that is what which was learned previously and applied to some current situation, means that prior learning involves historical choice and historical ethical views. It is ONLY in applying the attention mechanism to assess the ideas to be applied to ‘look’ and ‘see NOW, only making the choice today that the ideas being applied remain the preferred option is current choice exercised over historical choice.

Conclusion

The theory states that a core driver of human mood and conduct are the ideas people hold and the emotions associated with those ideas. What does the theory then predict about the issues above?

The issues in points 1-4 above are major shifts in accepted thinking. If the theory is correct, and if people have been inculcated in the ideas for decades, and those ideas challenged, then there will be significant adverse reaction. There are parallels in political ideologies, quite unable to reconcile due differences in thinking.

Scientific truth in the form of greater verisimilitude will emerge in due course. The issue in this paper begins with irrefutable start, and follow a stepwise reasoned path to an end likely to leave many uncomfortable. But the discomfort more due preference, habit, historical studies, status, and funding than verisimilitude. With the ideas being more restricted by politics than scientific truth.

It will require well managed leadership to move the globally influential intellectual community forward toward greater objectivity and so set the example for the general population to move toward greater understanding and hence improved personal and social management of itself.

In clarity, accuracy, and ideas that better reflect the Reality, I hope we can find better choices enabling each person to accept personal responsibility for one’s actions and the treatment of each other based on full understanding of our choice.

Graham Little, Auckland, New Zealand, May 29, 2016.

Quoting the paper

Please apply useful scholarship standards when referring to this paper, or using the ideas offered within it. The paper is at: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/through-glass-darkly-graham-little?trk=mp-reader-card. To access the paper, it will be necessary to be a member of LinkedIn, and if not to join LinkedIn, but that is free, merely requires name, and some other detail to set up a profile. There is much other work at my profile, including free in PDF, the core book, The Origin of Consciousness, and the book on society Why Work, with many posts on issues relating to psychology, organizations, management and leadership. Please feel free to distribute this paper, or any other work at my profile, to anyone you judge likely interested. I would be pleased to exchange on any of the ideas.