Proposition for altering the human perception

Posted by Jacob W. Hawkins on October 17, 2004 at 02:01:17:

Proposition for the altering of human perception
(C) Jacob W. Hawkins, 2004


As political ideologies evolve, the points on which they rest can change. Persons who hold
beliefs in the principles set forth by said ideology may change those beliefs based upon the
inferences they form from interfacing their life experiences with said principles. If the
principles in their changed state are still in alignment with their commonly congruent reality,
then the beliefs which they hold to be valid and factual will continue to be so, and those
which they determine to be fallacious, will cease to exist, unsubstantiated. If the purveyors
of said political ideology substantiate the supplanted beliefs beyond the point which they
can be verified (directly or indirectly), then the fallacious will become factual, and the
previously factual will cease to exist.


The following terms are used in this document, and are defined thusly:

reality -
A set of sensory stimuli which dictate perception.

reality, alternate definition -
A set of sensory stimuli and inference produced by the human brain, imposing
order upon the environment surrounding it.
(A. Josef Chessor)

congruency -
The alignment of a set of sensory stimuli in agreement with an examined reality

currently congruent reality -
The perception of reality commonly held by the examined subset of the human populace.

alternately congruent reality -
Cohesive set of sensory stimuli not currently congruent with that which is currently congruent.

alteration of perception -
Any aberration of perception not commonly percieved in the currently congruent reality.

sensory stimuli -
Sensory input gleaned from the specified congruent reality, via any mode.

modulation -
The alteration of sensory input based upon references to an alternately congruent reality.


Postulation #1

If reality is a set of commonly percieved sensory stimuli, the subjective inference of
human existance is purely that, subjective, and can be altered easily as such.


Commonly congruent realities exist purely in subjective thought, that is, the perception
of reality is generated by sensory input processed through the same matrix of thought


John and Mary hold the common belief that the sky reflects the color blue. This belief is
supplanted in their commonly congruent reality by their observation. The human brain
interprets the reflection of light wavelength to be the percieved color "blue". Regardless
of differences in perception involving hues of said color, it is commonly percieved between
John and Mary that the sky indeed is "blue" .


John and Mary are both wearing sunglasses which filter out all hues except orange. Therefore,
the sky appears in John and Mary's congruent reality as orange, defined by their common
perception through their sunglasses. John and Mary both possess a learned perception that
the sky is blue, however, in their current congruency, it is percieved as orange.


If John and Mary were to alter their definition of "blue" to what they previously percieved
as the color "orange", then their congruent reality would be altered sufficiently to maintain
persistence of reality beyond their removing the sunglasses. Thusly, their perception of
what was previously "blue", has now been altered to the perception of "orange". It is not
sufficient to say that the wavelengths of light have changed, since they have not - it is
simply the substitution of one abstraction for another, to represent sensory input.

Postulation #2

Thought processes are learned, not innate - therefore, they can be altered with sufficient
substantiation through sensory input in the currently congruent reality.


Matricies of thought are not static from individual to individual, since thought develops
independent of direction, e.g., one cannot tell another the process of thought, one can
only convey ideas in the chosen mode of expression, interpreted by the individual. This
permits aberration in development of a chosen idea through interpretation.


James holds the belief that the current delineation of space-time indicates that it is the
year 2004. This is substantiated by newspapers, televised newscasts, calendars, watches,
and other chronological devices - all calibrated by clocks defined to be accurate to the
current space-time congruency.


If James were to fall asleep, and an individual were to change his clocks, replace his newspapers
with those with an altered date, change his watch to another date and time, and be able to
successfully isolate James from the currently congruent space-time reference, upon awakening
he would eventually cease to believe what was previously held to be true, and substitute the
currently congruent information, causing his currently congruent reality to become congruous
with the newly acquired information.


References of space-time in human perception rely soley on external stimuli, e.g., visualization
of matrices of reference such as clocks and calendars. This is a vulnerable method of modulation
of an individual's perception of reality, as it can be altered according to the supposed congruency.

Postulation #3

Political beliefs are the most malleable of all commonly held systems of thought, since they
are formed by the common inferences of an ideology, interpreted by persons of similar life
experiences. Modulation of said system of thought can be accomplished by altering the belief
structure that supports its ideology.


As political ideologies evolve, the principles central to them may change. Persons who hold
the belief that said principles are factual and congruous with their perception of reality,
will continue to validate that ideology and its principles. If the principles which support
said ideology change, and are substantiated sufficiently, then no aberration in reality will
occur, the previously factual will cease to be so, and become fallacious, replaced by newly
substantiated information.


Bob and Sue are members of the Communist party. Party doctrine dictates that the will of the
people does not affect the actions of the state, as the State holds all truth and knowledge
for the betterment of the people within. At a state rally, the orator states that the Party
will now open appointment of bureau heads to the general public, and allow them to have a say
in how money will be spent.


The above statement, previous to its issuance, is incongruous with the factual information held
to belief by Bob and Sue. Once the orator made the statement, it became factual, and all
information to the contrary became fallacious. Therefore, by the utterance of one statement,
information becomes obsolete, replaced by new, and therefore held to be factual. Bob and Sue
now hold to be true the belief that they have a say in how money will be spent at the hands of
the Party.


Political ideologies can be shaped to fit the desires of the people, without affecting the
outcome of their actual goals. As long as those who are in charge of disseminating information
regarding the principles of the ideology sufficiently supplant any changes in the originally
held beliefs, factual information will appear to never become falsehood, an important factor
in maintaining commonly congruous reality where ideological thought is concerned.


If an individual were to assert that principle A were truth, and principle B were falsehood, then
that assertion is truth in thier perception of reality. Those persons who held the belief that the
opposite were true, where principle B was truth, and principle A was falsehood, then the situation
would exist of incongruous reality, e.g., their realities were dissimiliar. However, if said
individual were to supplant and justify their assertions, and begin to disseminate information regarding
said assumptions, inherently there would be people suspicious enough of the original belief, to
validiate and cause their realities to become congruous with this individual. In sufficient numbers,
this chain reaction would generate a small nucleic population with the collective power to alter
the reality of those believing in what they hold to be a falsehood. This situation would further
snowball until those who formerly believed in the truth of principle A, now hold that belief to be
the contrary, and alter their thought matricies to validate the truthfulness of principle B.

This change of congruousness in realities is most easily demonstratable by the concept of mass
hysteria, explained below.

Person A believes that Person B is an impostor, posing as another individual.
Person A informs those who share congruous realities with them of their supposition about person B.
Those persons, in turn, inform others, who also share congruous realities with them, about the same.

This process continues, ad infinitum, until a sufficiently large population of persons hold the belief
that person B is indeed an impostor, and suppositions are made that it is indeed fact, since such a
large population hold the belief to be true. This places greater force behind the group of persons
holding the belief to be factual, causing the chain reaction to increase exponentially.

At some point, person B ceases to be the original article, and is deemed to be indeed, an impostor.
This is because the group of persons who believe person B to be genuine is drastically smaller than
the group of persons who hold the belief that person B is an impostor. Therefore, the once-factual
information of person B being genuine is now a falsehood, and through congruousness of common
realities, the belief is now held that they are an impostor.


Reality, as defined by a set of sensory stimuli, can be easily altered by the supplantation of other
input as congruous with the reality one wishes to imitate. For example, one can instruct another
that a coin with a value assigned to it of 10 cents is now worth 25 cents. As long as every attempt
at validating that assumption is fulfilled according to the reality one wishes to modulate, then
the assumption will become fact, and all memory of previous factual information will cease to exist.

Johnny is given two dimes, which until this point, he has held to be worth 10 cents each.
Dennis tells Johnny that due to inflation, the dimes are now worth 25 cents, instead of 10 cents.
Johnny, feeling pleased that he now has more than before, attempts to spend the 50 cents at the store.
The shopkeeper, sharing the congruous reality of dimes being worth 25 cents, allows Johnny to buy goods.
Johnny, having validated the new information, no longer believes that a dime is worth 10 cents.

This process is easily translated into any form one wishes, as long as the new information is supported
by a system of further new information to validate it. This permits one to take this example one step
further, as delineated below.

Johnny, now knowing that a dime is worth 25 cents, goes home to tell Susan about his new information.
Susan, suprised, knows she has two dimes in her pocket, and wishes for validation.
Susan goes to the corner market, and attempts to purchase goods from the same shopkeeper.
Susan, having verified that indeed this information is correct, assimilates it into her own reality.

This process will continue until either it is interrupted by a schism in structure, or there are no other
persons who hold the belief that a dime is worth 10 cents. Careful planning can avoid the former,
resulting in a pure success of the latter.

Persons wishing to relate this to other ideologies other than economics may do so easily, as seen below.

Dennis, our original informer in the previous example, sees Susan and greets her warmly.
Susan, who does not know Dennis, is confused, and responds accordingly.
Dennis informs Susan that he is a good friend of Johnny's, and wishes to escort her home.
Susan, feeling cautious, agrees, and they begin walking together.
Dennis and Susan begin talking, and they find that Dennis has an interesting political belief.
Dennis explains to Susan that not all men are created equal, but some are superior to others.
Susan, having assimilated the belief that this was false, rejects the assumption.
Dennis explains that Susan, who before, had less money, has more money now, and thereby is superior to those who do not.
Susan agrees with this logic, since it resonates with her own struggle for class identity.
Susan further explains to Dennis that she feels repressed by her lack of voice in government.
Dennis gently informs Susan that she is of those who have more than others, and she should feel lucky.
Susan agrees, feeling more open to Dennis and his ideology, asks Dennis more about his opinions.

This can continue indefinitely, although the idea set forth is clear. Dennis, by increasing the mode
of living of a single individual, has now affected the beliefs of another through association. This
opens the gateway to the alteration of political belief, through modulation of reality. The continuation
of this scenario results in further alienation of Susan from her previously held beliefs, since they
are now less congruous with reality, as altered in the previous example with the dimes.

This alienation permits Dennis to further discuss deepening levels of his ideology with Susan, who
will accept them readily, as trust has already been established. This trust can be further strengthened
by quantifying Susan's struggles and altering his delivery of doctrine to her accordingly.

Susan's assimilation of Dennis' reality is complete when Susan and Dennis share commonly congruous
reality, with Susan holding Dennis' belief structure to be valid and identical to her own. This
further strengthens the trust bond developed in the previous examples, and lays a foundation for
increasing amounts of previously incongruous logic presented to Susan to assimiliate.

As long as the information is presented to Susan in a manner that is resonant with her dissatisfaction,
she will proceed to assimilate it, without regard to information that may be presented to the contrary
without resonant support. She will in turn, disseminate Dennis' belief structure to those who
share her commonly congruous reality, and the cycle will begin again.


Reality is purely what one percieves, and if that perception is altered, then reality, likewise, is
altered. If sufficient persons share the same perception of reality, then what previously was not
commonly held to be reality, becomes so in the belief of those persons.

[ Dog-O-Matic essay board ]