Where Bashar's single sequene stops working

Beliefs ==> Perception ==> Interpretation ==> Emotional reaction ==> Thoughts ==> Action



… sorry i love you and all but i cannot deny the signals comming into my eyballs … the vibrations commeing into my ears … and the touch of your body on mine …. those help form my perceptions just as very much as do my beliefs.

Note that the arrow world → sense → perception is not modeled correctly. We perceive the world, we don’t sense it. We sense hot and cold, color and light, sound and touch. We don’t sense world … we perceive world. And this distinction is very important to getting the model on the right foundation.

well it is true that “hot and cold and color” already name perceptions. 

but “light, sound, and touch”  happen in the world.  these can be recorded on instruments quite independent of human perception. they are sensed through organs from outside a being.

That knowing doesn’t help this model.

Perception is how one models the world they are perceiving. Sometimes it is based on sensory information, often it is not or only loosly so. Hardwiring sense between world and perception is misleading and also puts perception on a node where it should be on an arrow.

Well i’m glad you at least acknowledge that “somtimes perception it is based on sensory information” null.

The #TetModel is accurate .. there are 2 things that have the relationship of effect on perception …
  1. sensory information from the outside world
  2. beliefs from the inside world
And that is exactly what is represented in the diagram.

                                                                (can return to any other node)               ←    sense
Beliefs ==> Perception ==> Interpretation ==> Emotional reaction ==> Thoughts ==> Action

This whole thing, the whole diagram, IS world.

… yeah okay … but there is no #world in that model.  you have eliminated the effect on perception from sensory information comming into the being. 

in other words, you do not draw a distinction between what is inside you and what is outside you. 

but sure … if you make that assuption to start off with …
then you will never grock this model …
you must always reject it.

Then if you do reject the #world,
i am sorry, but imho,
you will never truly understand human life and psychology.

I don’t draw that conclusion from this model. Your simply superimposing your desired result … much like Bush did for the war.

the results i represented in the diagram are those that i experience.  and those that can be verified and shared by others.  otherwise point out those results which cannot be verified. 

I was never saying that your model doesn’t expose “some” results. I am only saying that your model is factored in a way that is more complex than necessary. i.e. not based purely on intrinsics … and that the way you have things factored, perception and sense being one, may match a subset of experience that you yourself experience, but is not able to represent the larger range of experience people are having and especially, the whole model does not clearly show where change, and easiest change, can occur.

I will admit I don’t know how to rewrite the Bashar model in 3D. For one thing, it seems to work quite well without 3D for everything I have tried it for.

“and that the way you have things factored, perception and sense being one” ~ nathan

… er, the diagram clearly shows that perception is not just sense.   i do not know how to make it any clearer … please re-read “Where Bashar's single sequene stops working (comment 73742)”and see the 2 arrows effecting perception in the diagram.

Yea, and works the same in my model too. However, my model also shows how sense, from action, can feed back into any node, not just perception. And that is true. One can have a sense and directly connect it to a thought and then an action. This action → sense → thought → action loop is often what is happening in high speed activities, like racing, or martial arts, or even video games. In the extreme forms of these, perception is not involved at all.

okay … i have yet to elaborate the model to explicate feed back.   the model will not change,  i just need to identify some more vectors. 

#thanks → nathan … i’ll think about that next.

#LOL your welcome, but do you not realize you just proposed making your model “even more complex” to fit this new aspect in? Whereas the simpler model I propose already has all of that without yet another layer of complexity?

well modeling just about the most complex thing in the universe with a single sequence of symbols is a reduction that will not yield any wisdom, imho. 

Simplicity is great … reducing functional details away is not.

I see that quite differently. What I see is that creating a simple model that only contains true intrinsic components as it’s primary elements, not derivatives or modifiers as yours does, and in their true natural sequence, gives a model that can be plugged in anywhere in all reality and work great and predict easily.

Keep It Simple Sir – (KISS) is my motto.

i have no idea what you refer to as “intrinsic” … nor why you think my primary elements are “derivitives”. 

My primary elements are thought , feeling (aka: perception, experience, qualia etc), will, and the #world.   Then if you include what you call “source” (imagination, intuition, etc)  you must include that as a 5th element. 

What are yours ?

Mine are simply what are in the formula. Nothing else. Those are the intrinsics.

Will is a modifier, not an intrinsic. I explained that fully in another comment yesterday. Not going to keep saying the same things. I am very consistent in what I say.

You don’t hear what I say. You here what fits what you want in your model.