António José Rodrigues Rebelo

Cognitive behavioral therapy is what you do

Your question is very interesting and according to complex systems there are existing ways to build the theory you are speaking about. Agent based modeling seeks to me the closest approach that is suitable to what you want to design (you can read my review paper on complexity in medicine for an overview and references).

A very interesting book on agent-based modeling with a huge number of examples is Illachinsky book on 'Artificial War'. Personally, I do not like the application field, but an explanation of agents design is excellent.

You might want to explore the software NetLogo, which has quite nice language that is understandable to non-programmers. At the website, there are many animations with sample codes.

My own research is on emergent computations, which is very suitable to your research subject. Our understanding of emergent reasoning/computation can be substantially improved within your research field. I do see means to attack your problem and to build a computational model, but it requires a very long discussion formalize the approach. There are some experiences with building a research approach from scratch, I have developed a formalized way to do so, which saves time in design and explorations.

As already said, your proposal seems to be very perspective. All the best into diving into the known theories and research areas.

Jiří Kroc

thanks

If the spread of the results of the psychological process does not exceed the sum / product (NB: products may be different!) measures of the fuzziness of its independent variables - then it can. But only then. NB2: this applies not only to the psychological, but also to any process in the material and ideal world.

Alexey Orlovsky

I don't understand what you mean. What is "the spread of the results of psychological process "?

Jiří Kroc

My idea is opposite, subject modeling is modeling from 0 out of thin air, such as cellular automata. However, I do not model, and I do not calculate. I think of human psychology as a whole, analyze the whole system, and find out the "process" or "program". For example, the human psychological process is what I want to find, I use natural language to write out the psychological process, it is the "model" I want to look for.

Jiří Kroc

I am from the whole to the part, I focus on the whole of the system from the beginning, and the subject modeling is from the part to the whole, from the micro to the macro, such as the cellular automata from the "grid". But I go from macro to micro, I don't build cellular automata,The whole system that needs to be analyzed is the "cellular automata", which is a model, such as the human psychological system, social system, economic system, etc.

Jiří Kroc

That is to say, I do not build cellular automata, I analyze the "cellular automata" existing in nature and society, such as psychological system, social system, economic system, etc. These complex systems are already present in nature, and the way to analyze them is to find their "process"（ program）.

Dear Duan Xian Xiang (@Duan-Xian-3),

I got your message. Thank you for the clear explanation. From what you said, you are trying to infer local processes that create the whole from the data provided by a complex system.

There are several ways to achieve this goal. The best according to my personal understanding and experience with the prediction of heart arrhythmias from EEG recordings, complex systems measures are the best tool to reach the goal.

Basically, you trace the entropy of the entire system and discern its different operational modes from data. Details can be understood from the paper on prediction of arrhythmias. You do have to have a lot of data to make the model reliable.

Hence, it would be beneficial to explore the principles of entropy measures, machine learning and AI, along with deep learning. The inference of your processes from the behavior of the system can be carried out along those lines.

It is very hard to tell more without actually seeing the database and format of the input data used to infer processes that you are looking for.

I like our discussion, as it proceeds towards something really interesting. :-)

Jiří Kroc

thanks.

General use is not using the same psychological process model to set all individuals, everyone's psychological process is different, all need to be specific to analyze,

But everyone uses a "psychological process", and the mental process has some commonalities, similar to computer programs, such as modification, compatibility, and other rules. There are some common methods for the discovery of the psychological process, such as introspection, psychological analysis, and some common methods for modifying the psychological process. Therefore, the psychological process can be commonly used, but the specific psychological process needs a specific analysis, each individual is different.

Of course, the word "psychological process" is not easy to use, it is not even accurate, it means the process of psychological activity, it seems to be too fixed. So, I use the concept of "psychological program", which has the meaning of activity.

Thank you for your honest answer. Actually, I did expected it as excatly as it is.

The definition of the strategy of the problem that we are trying to define is in the progress. In any case, self-organizing and emergent process seems to be the most suitable to solve this issue. Right now, there is already existing one hypothesisof a model suitable to the problem. :-)

Jiří Kroc

I mean not to "self-organize" and "emergence". I analyze the original systems in nature, such as "social system, economic system, psychological system". What you call "self-organizing" and "emergence" is "making an artificial system," which I think is impossible, Biology has not been unable to make a cell. How can complex science make a system out of thin air to make it have the nature of "emergent, self-organizing"? Isn't that creating life in a vacuum? This is not possible.

Jiří Kroc

I analyze the original complex system in the world, and analyze its process or program, instead of making an artificial system.Your thinking is contrary to mine, you are trying to build a complex system from the micro level, which can only be a working machine system or a computer program system, not a life.

Jiří Kroc

You can build a complex system from the micro level, isn't the computer? There are many artificial systems, but do you think computers can really become intelligent life? Like The Terminator "? There are many of these artificial systems, but none have a "self-organizing, emergent" nature. Complex systems scientists don't have to create such systems, others are creating complex systems, they are engineers, computer programmers, complex systems scientists are asked to study the systems created by these engineers, to find tools to describe the laws of these systems, that is: process or program.

Jiří Kroc

Of course, you would say that you're building a model, like a cellular automaton. You are trying to build such a model to study or simulate complex science.But we don't have to do that, because no model can simulate a complex system, and we have to study the complex system itself, rather than build a model to study it.

Currently, there are several possible lines of attack to solve the problem you are speaking about. Not those so far discussed. When there will be some, free time to formalize them, I will do it.

Let us be patient, this takes some time.

I am rereading the formulation of your question and your answers. Something interesting is crystalizing.

To proceed futher effectively, it is fundamental to have the actual structure of the input data that will enter the definition of the strategy and processes models. This will help us to narrow the pool of possible approaches.

Could you be so kind and provide the structure of the input data? It is the must first step on the way to the final model. Thank you.

There is existing one interesting candidate method that will enable us to define 'programs' of each entity independently.

Jiří Kroc

Why do you want to "enter the data"?

What I say "process" or "program" is actually very simple, it is the process of the development or movement of things. For example, the process of economic activity, Quesnay's economic chart is the process of economic activity.

Here's an example, Francois Quesnay's economic table. As a doctor, Quesnay sees the economy as a huge organism, and the precious economic surplus is like a blood supply function vital to life. To explain this view, he made the first economic "model" ( model), a simplified economic map . Quesnay created it in his original book, The Economic Table ( Economic chart) . He outlined many curves to represent the resources circulating around the economy . The peasants produced the economic surplus and paid the rent to the nobles who owned the land, who then bought the silk buttons and the silver candlestic ks from the hand craftsmen. The craftsmen in turn bought food from the farmers to complete a cycle. The economy is a kind of surplus circulation formed between the peasants, the landlords and the hand craftsmen . This economic table can be written as the following program diagram:

Farmers' production and economic surplus→ Pay the rent to the nobles who own the land→ The nobles then bought silk buttons and silver candlesticks from the handcraftsmen→ The craftsmen in turn bought food from the farmers .

Preprint Analysis of Financial Crisis Causes and Complex Systems Scie...

Jiří Kroc

In fact, casually open an economics book, do not read the mathematical part, just read the text analysis, it is to say "program". In social science works, those written descriptions are actually about "programs".

According to my understanding this paper can explain hurdles of description of biological systems.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310821674_Top-down_models_in_biology_Explanation_and_control_of_complex_living_systems_above_the_molecular_level

Full text is available in doi link.

I will read your paper first, and only then continue in our discussion.

OK

While thinking about our project--let us call it in a such way--it led me to a realization that we need to define our general approach to the solution of this fascinating problem.

* Define data, all we know about the prospective research on psychological model. A deep literature search is necessary.

* Propose possible explanations of observed data by any imaginable way, without judging whether the model is 'good' or 'bad'. This opens creativity.

* Select the best candidate and used it as the model.

* Tests the model validity and when not OK return to the phase of proposition of models and choose better one or refine it. Proceed until the model is satisfactory.

Jiří Kroc

The views of the article you gave to this link is indeed similar to mine.

Jiří Kroc

I don't really know exactly what you mean. What does your "model" mean?

Jiří Kroc

"the free energy principle" should be a program for an organism.

Jiří Kroc

"Bioelectric signalling" is very much like the current signal in a computer chip

Jiří Kroc

"Building modules that cannot be defined at the gene expression level" should be "process" or "program".But what the article says is that:

‘organs’, ‘positional coordinates’, ‘size control’, ‘topological adjacency’ and similar concepts. This model is not what I said.

Jiří Kroc

This article mentions several "top-down" models that are valuable and creative, but unlike the "process".

Dear Duan Xian Xiang,

After careful reading your answers and comments, it becomes evident that we must define complex systems, self-organization, and emergence rigorously. This goal was done in the review "Complex Systems and Their Use in Medicine: Concepts, Methods, and Bio-Medical Applications"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330546521_Complex_Systems_and_Their_Use_in_Medicine_Concepts_Methods_and_Bio-Medical_Applications

where the major overview along with selected examples from biology and medicine are given. The review is not long and with the help of co-authors, it is written in the way, which is understandable to non-mathematicians.

Later, I will give a link to a paper that is providing examples from biology, which are without any doubts proving that the nature and biology are thinking and operate using complex systems phenomena.

On the other hand, can you define rigorously the data and processes, which are present and operating in psychology. It is THE VERY STARTING POINT OF ANY DESCRIPTION.

Dear Duan Xian Xiang,

Could you be so kind and provide a review or research paper that will clarify the data and processes structure of the observed psychological phenomena rigorously? Thank you. This will speed us out communication, and addiitonaly, the definition of working hypotheses can be easily done.

I have

Preprint Psychological Program

Preprint psychological process

Thank your for the paper. They will be read.

While rereading your answers, one important point. When mathematicians read any reserch from their field, they do not take all word-by-word and equation-by-equstion. Instead they do distill meta-level of the research process. Solutions are as well remembered at their meta-levels!

Why am I telling this, when I speak about some research that might be interesting to us, it is almost always the meta-knowledge contained within it.

In other words, many publications from completely disparate fileds can be identical at their meta-levels. This might become a source of confusion in our discussions. We must ne aware of it.

Jiří Kroc

I agree with you that every science is interlinked at a certain height.

Jiří Kroc

Have you noticed one word in your paper: network? And networks often appear along with "programs,"So perhaps the word "network" is not accurate, or "network model" is not appropriate, but should be a "program" model.

Jiří Kroc

Coincidentally (of course, not by coincidence), in psychology, like the biology in your paper, there are "network models" that describe the law, and there are network models in psychology,They form a network of various psychotic symptoms. Of course, I also oppose their network model, I think we should use "program".

Jiří Kroc

Although your article is biological content, it is similar to what I did in psychology, such as you say:

Each treatment could be adjusted to a specific person and his/her current condition (even with daily variations).

I do the same in psychology, and every person and every situation needs to analyze the "psychological process".

Jiří Kroc

Although your article is biological content, it is similar to what I did in psychology, such as you say:

Each treatment could be adjusted to a specific person and his/her current condition (even with daily variations).

I do the same in psychology, and every person and every situation needs to analyze the "psychological process".

You wrote: ' "Bioelectric signalling" is very much like the current signal in a computer chip.'

This is connected to the core of bio-compuring and bio-chips that each of us have within our own bodies. Currently, I am preparing a review paper that will put some light on this and related issue.

Jiří Kroc

I saw the methods of computing complex systems listed in your review, including cellular automata, Agent Based Models (ABMs), networks, machine learning, and even "entropy" and "game theory," There is no "process" or "program". And I think this "program" is the "king", is the real tool to deal with complex systems.

Dear Duan Xian Xiang,

It happened that I do have the first several possible lines of attack towards the model tailored exactly to needs of psychological processes. A list of necessary next steps towards the PROPER DEFINITION OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL OF THE MIND will be delivered today or tomorrow.

I do propose to make a preprint and graually build it from scratch towards the final model. This will make our way more systematic. There is already existing the working title of this prospective paper.

What is your position on this?

I started to read by you provided preprints. Which one is the one to read first? Is the second an extension of the first one?

Jiří Kroc

They are actually the same article, in which only one word is replaced, and the "psychological program" is replaced with the "psychological process". Because the article used the word "psychological program" and caused psychologists not to understand the article, I replaced it with "psychological process," but it didn't change, I just changed a name.

Jiří Kroc

They are actually the same article, in which only one word is replaced, and the "psychological program" is replaced with the "psychological process". Because the article used the word "psychological program" and caused psychologists not to understand the article, I replaced it with "psychological process," but it didn't change, I just changed a name.

Jiří Kroc

I welcome you to write about psychology. I'm looking forward to it.

Psychological process is fine and suitable terminus technicus to the first step of mutually agreed upon prospective publication.

Firstly, after assessment of the general knowledge about brain functioning, your information, and my personal knowledge, we can define the first draft of the table of processes describing brain functioning.

Root, survival processes ->R-processes

Subconscious processes -> S-processes

Conscious processes -> C-processes

Those processes are somehow interlinked, it is not solved yet. We want just distill all processess groups at this moment.

Please, iterate on this proposal. It is our common project, hence we should come to common ground by discussig all aspects of it.

Thank you for the cooperation.

Jiří Kroc

What does "R-processes" mean? Like Freud's story about the roots of human psychological dynamics? This subject is very difficult to study, and, like physics, this "root process" is endless. "Conscious processes-> C-processes" is also very difficult to study, what "consciousness" is, to today is not known, this is the biggest mystery in the universe, unable to study its process. You say "S-processes", in fact, it is a psychological process that people forget or cannot perceive, or is a congenital genetic psychological process. This can be studied, though, in my theory, there is no the term "subconscious".

Let us try to explain what I meant by the following terms:

Root, survival processes ->R-processes

Subconscious processes -> S-processes

Conscious processes -> C-processes

The explanation of the above-mentioned terms

1) Basal, survival related processes: hunger, shelter, warmth, thirst, sex. Are those called basic instincts?

2) All automatic processes going on in our mind without surfacing to our conscious mind. How are called those? Go here or there, drive car, write a text, etc. All skills are hidden here. Plus, thoughts, scanning ofvth4 environment, etc,

3) All processes which we are aware of and know about. Are those called conscious?

Please, remember that those are just processes, their mutual relationships are not described yet. We are building the firm terminological foundations that will be acceptable to both psychologists and mathematicians simultaneously.

Please, make corrections to this list, rewrite it according to your best knowledge. The end result of this research will be the definition of all processes and their mutual relationships. That will be derived according to clinical data.

As said by my teacher: "Hardly in the definition means easily in the theorem."

Jiří Kroc

It is like compiling a dictionary of the "psychological process".

Jiří Kroc

In fact, many psychological processes I do not know, I know very little. Psychological processes are like the mathematical equations of physics, which need to be discovered together.

Jiří Kroc

The structure of the theory I said is not to list of psychological processes, the psychological process is not exhausted, and the psychological process is changing. The structure of this theory is: looking for the psychological process (psychological analysis) + describe the psychological process (described in natural language) + modify the psychological process.

Dear Duan Xian Xiang,

A schematic depiction of the processes and their interdependences is provided in this very simple drawing where the 'searching food', which is activated by 'hunger', leads to 'moving' that activates 'walking'. Subsequently, 'cognition' is followed by 'eating'. And this follows.

Please, tell me whether this form of formalism is OK to you? According to our discussion, we need some common ground that is mutualy acceptable and understandable.

Please, iterate on this proposal. Just tell your impression without any thinking or judgmental proces activation.

Thank you for building up the formalism. :-)

Thank you for your words: "It is like compiling a dictionary of the "psychological process"."

Instead th term the dictionary, we can use processing tables, process activation networks, emergent reactive pathways, etc. It id up to us how we devine those.

Jiří Kroc

If it's the psychological process of "foraging", I think you can be even more detailed. For example: there is no food in the stomach→ the nerves of the stomach send signals to the brain →the brain sends nerve pulses→find food →body action →......

Dear Duan Xian Xiang,

Yes, exactly like that. There are existing links between events, physiology, perception, effectors, reactions, etc. which create reactive networks. Those networks are not fixed though. They can and do evolve.

Therapies are based implicitely on modifications of those networks. Am I right?

The huge problem arises when whole societies goes in an undesirable ways,

Jiří Kroc

You said it quite right

Dear Duan Xian Xiang,

Thank you for your promising positive feedback. From our discussion, which is not easy, as our terminologies differs, I am coming to the conclusion that we think in coherent ways.

I had been searching papers that will put us on the same wavelengths. Surprisingly, they lead us to research linking consciousnes to the brain structures.

It would be great when you succed to find publications that will clearly describe the psychological insights into various activities/processes and their mutual interdependences.

As already said, such interdisciplinary/crossdisciplinary is heavily dependent on the right deciphering of terminology differences, and already make a huge progress in it.

What is your take on this position, please.

Jiří Kroc

I can't find this kind of publication you say, there are psychologists working on the process or the web, But the timeline of the psychologists who studied the "process" followed me, Psychological networks are studied by several psychologists in the Netherlands. If you want to be "clearly", then no. In cognitive behavioral therapy books, there are implicit "process" methods, but they are not "clearly" enough, they need your heart to discover them.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360629583_Embracing_the_Complexity_of_our_Inner_Worlds_Understanding_the_Dynamics_of_Self-Compassion_and_Self-Criticism?_sg%5B0%5D=5s_5S7C2fSRTA_Hj4YR0JiRvPcef3xHfKm_8Gbc212rrqp-YwCJarKyLrC24P0pHIJIyk2xBy9zr_FYHS2ldpKMctdCcfOUg6lJftTKu.t9QhEG6Ue6mZfFwtjASrFjwltUEl3GxyKACZDbPQboJ_1GSRaxttYG7w4S8X_D8nsPuW0W4LeqnR3zUA9BacwQ

Article Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms and Other Symptoms of the At-r...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368769533_Unweaving_the_web_Polygenic_influences_on_networks_of_psychopathology_symptoms?_sg%5B0%5D=mAKsZLlnlFAz_VjvN3_EOe946u2eHMJHZ0x6YPY_aO6hcknZXx1vhwj953mIkYT9_l8-n3HrsIUaVawsUYM9Lx2zppbsHGXB-sWA_7Mq.1Rlm2c2alsei5rO3uvG9K4qIVbfdcycWjOvIOqnNIme5-3rhTtnme7XkB_PEr8WN9yqfjrB5vhTQ1QFS53oPAA

Article Process-based therapy: A personalized approach to treatment

After some delay, a continuation in the form of self-reinforcing reactive paths (processes) that are undergoing constant dynamic change due to external and internal stimuli is shown. The path is branching, but when one of them is used more often, it will get reinforced and preferred in the future events.

It reminds me one, old native North American proverb: "We all have two dogs within us: one good and one bad. The one we feed more will eventually win.

In the picture, it is shown just one fork/ branching segment of the whole network of self-reinforcing reactive paths.

Please, find attached the picture of the title pages of two books, which I personally found very useful during my learning period of complex systems, emergence, self-organization, and programming of them.

Those books will substantially improve and speed up the learning curve of all who wants to immerse into the area of complex systems.

thanks

In the next about two weeks, i am bussy; after finalizing one project it would be much better. When you wish to read them, there are two publications relevant to our current project.

The last project is almost finished. Can we resume our work on by-you-defined interesting project? Our discussion here on RG is highly enriching me in several ways: (i) train my ability to communicate difficult issues in easy to follow way, this is really hards as it requires to 'forget' all I do know, (ii) define the research project in the cooperation with others, (iii) gives me unexpected questions and insights into my own research area through eyes of other researchers.

Thank you for those opportunities, 🙏

You are making me really 'richer' ;-)

Jiří Kroc

I think it's hard for us to discuss, you can't understand my thinking, and I can't understand your paper.

Hopefully, our discussion will help someone else to get an idea how to formulate and solve this very interesting problem. Thank you for your openessnes. Good luck at your work. 🙏