Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is from a post I did in another thread. I decided I'd like to explore it, so give me your thoughts.

Here is a question based on a hypothetical idea I had.


A man holds in his hand a gun. The man points the gun at another man and fires. The other man is thrown back, the bullet piercing his chest and exiting through his back. The bullet hits in a position such that death is nearly instantaneous. Blood spatters in a predictable pattern behind the man. The man shot has a large family. His family mourns for a period of time. His children grow up and have a more difficult time than they would have had the father lived. The children fail in achieving above lower class due to the lack of the presence the father would have had. Their children are unable to rise out of poverty and turn to crime. and so on and so on.

Let us use a physics example to define the chain of action and reaction. Let us say that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and we will apply it not only to the initial physical action, but also to the psychological actions and reactions. Was the initial thought that decided to pull the trigger and shoot the man equal to everything that occurred as a result of the action? Was it equal to some point of the reaction? At what point would the midpoint occur where we would divide the two to sides to examine equality in such a situation? Other ideas?

Whatever your responses, is the idea an interesting one?

Well, the thing is that it doesn't apply to psychological ideas....

Cause and effect.
You have stated a good example of cause and effect. However, the effect of any cause is too complex and can not be easily calculated.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the thing is that it doesn't apply to psychological ideas....

The point isn't that it doesn't, I already knew this. The point is, is a thought equal to the complexity of its results. Is a thought equal to the outcome of the action resulting from that thought? At what point is the thought equal to the results of the forthcoming action?

Just humor me, I know as well as most that physics doesn't always equate into the psychological realm. I was speaking philosophically, not psychologically.

In psychology, one of the most exciting theories to come out in recent years is, or was, based on momentum. It is called behavioral momentum, and the impetus for the research behind it was the thought that behavior might follow some rules similar to momentum. It is a valid, and strongly supported theory at present, think about it.

Every action within time, causes a 'ripple' if you will. The changes that stem from each action are infinite, each effect leading to another effect. So no...I wouldnt consider this law of physics 'for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction' applicable.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Physical actions and reactions are equal in the sense that the intensity of the forces representing the action and the reaction is numerically equal. That means if we measure the force with an instrument of both the action and the reaction in a laboratory we must obtain the same result. The reason of why the law of action and reaction makes sense, is because it can verified in a laboratory.

I think that if you want to say that it can be applied to psychologic events, it means that you must to be able to quantize psychologic actions and reactions, you must made them measurable in some way so you can compare them, and so you can say that "in that sense" they are equal.

As you said, physical action-reaction can be discerned quantitatively, by assigning numbers. However, IMO, psychological action-reaction is generally discerned qualitatively, by assigning meaning. If we assign numbers to the physical correlates of psychological events (eg, brain-wave measurements), then it would appear we are no longer dealing with the psychosocial event itself, as a whole, but rather one of its physical components. A brain scan may tell you that I am angry from my father being shot, but it won't tell you what that means to me in terms of how it affected my POV, my life, my sense of justice or unfairness.

Each of us have been in interpersonal situations where we emotionally weigh cause and effect, usually coming up with a "That's fair"/"That's not right" conclusion. This internal scale seems to be the result of life experience, cultural indoctrination and, likely, some genetic component which probably has some evolutionary advantage behind it.

I dislike referring to internal constructs in a scientific manner. I consider this a philosophical exercise, not one that could be measured scientifically. Internal constructs are difficult, most often impossible, to prove the existence and commonality of beyond some measure of probability, and thus a true quantitative scale would not be in the realm of scientific accuracy.

The question at hand deals somewhat with the measure of the strength of a thought. Perhaps I need to define strength. By strength I am referring to the amount of impact the given thought has on the existence. I believe that people think in some fashion, I cannot prove that they do, but I think they there is a decent probability that they do. Now if a man thinks, "put your foot down in front of you." And his leg moves and is placed in front of him, and as such has taken another step in a walking motion. How strong is the impact of this event? Minimal, if any. I would say that the strength of this thought was minimal. Now, if the man thinks, "put your foot down in front of you with the flat of the foot at a eighty degree angle from the surface of the ground and place all your weight on it as you do." The leg may do so and result in a probable sprain. Let us say that it did result in a sprain. Is the impact of this stronger than the impact of the previous example? I would say yes. The sprain will result in difficulty walking, most likely some pain elicited aggression, some form of emotional transfer (possibly involving another person), work may be missed, the normal routine of the man will likely be altered to some extent. So the strength of a thought is different given these examples and the definition I proposed.

We can now state that the strength of one thought can be different than the strength of another. If they are different then we can state that one is relatively stronger than the other. Thus, the thought "Pull the trigger" is stronger than the thought "put your foot down in front of you." We will state this using the formula

1) T=I, where T is Thought, and I is Impact.

Given this, the strength of the thought could, in a philosophical way, be equal to the strength of the impact. Quantitatively, using the measures of physics, no the two are not equal. Qualitatively, the two are equal in some way.

Now the thought is important. If the thought were "shoot and mildly hurt that man", and accidentally the man died as a result, the strength of the thought might be expressed as a modified version of formula 1

2) T=I-D, Where D is dissonance, or internal feelings of conflict due to the impact.

We could also modify it further and state

3) P+T=O, Where P is outside influences on the thought, and O is the outcome including any personal reactions the thinker may have had.

There must be some point where the thought equals the impact. Where should the impact be considered to have ended?

Originally posted by Regret
I dislike referring to internal constructs in a scientific manner. I consider this a philosophical exercise, not one that could be measured scientifically. Internal constructs are difficult, most often impossible, to prove the existence and commonality of beyond some measure of probability, and thus a true quantitative scale would not be in the realm of scientific accuracy.

The question at hand deals somewhat with the measure of the strength of a thought. Perhaps I need to define strength. By strength I am referring to the amount of impact the given thought has on the existence. I believe that people think in some fashion, I cannot prove that they do, but I think they there is a decent probability that they do. Now if a man thinks, "put your foot down in front of you." And his leg moves and is placed in front of him, and as such has taken another step in a walking motion. How strong is the impact of this event? Minimal, if any. I would say that the strength of this thought was minimal. Now, if the man thinks, "put your foot down in front of you with the flat of the foot at a eighty degree angle from the surface of the ground and place all your weight on it as you do." The leg may do so and result in a probable sprain. Let us say that it did result in a sprain. Is the impact of this stronger than the impact of the previous example? I would say yes. The sprain will result in difficulty walking, most likely some pain elicited aggression, some form of emotional transfer (possibly involving another person), work may be missed, the normal routine of the man will likely be altered to some extent. So the strength of a thought is different given these examples and the definition I proposed.

We can now state that the strength of one thought can be different than the strength of another. If they are different then we can state that one is relatively stronger than the other. Thus, the thought "Pull the trigger" is stronger than the thought "put your foot down in front of you." We will state this using the formula

1) T=I, where T is Thought, and I is Impact.

Given this, the strength of the thought could, in a philosophical way, be equal to the strength of the impact. Quantitatively, using the measures of physics, no the two are not equal. Qualitatively, the two are equal in some way.

Now the thought is important. If the thought were "shoot and mildly hurt that man", and accidentally the man died as a result, the strength of the thought might be expressed as a modified version of formula 1

2) T=I-D, Where D is dissonance, or internal feelings of conflict due to the impact.

We could also modify it further and state

3) P+T=O, Where P is outside influences on the thought, and O is the outcome including any personal reactions the thinker may have had.

There must be some point where the thought equals the impact. Where should the impact be considered to have ended?

I don't think it adds up. There are always unintended consequences.

I mean maybe the rules of one apply to the other. Specially because of third Newtons law which is used to describe the behavior of objective physical entities, and it find some analogies when applied to mental events.