INTRODUCTION TO THE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCE TRILOGY

By
Prof. Dr. Muhammad al' Mahdi
Child/Clinical Psychology

In the 1960's in the United States I set out on a search for Truth. This was to be no quest to fill some missing spiritual vacuum; I had already firmly determined that God did not exist. Not only did I not believe in God, but I was convinced that all logic, reason, and scientific evidence confirmed that God did not exist; and, that for anyone to believe in the existence of God was such an outdated, superstitious way of life that it would hold them back from fulfilling their human potential and would likewise block the human race from achieving its ultimate destiny. So certain was I that I once stated, establishing the highest authenticity of my atheistic credentials when I was lecturing to a large class of about 500 introductory psychology students that, "If there was ever going to be the last person on Earth who didn't believe in God it would be me".

My search for truth included almost fourteen years as a full time university student and resulted in my going through three and a half PhD programs in child, clinical, experimental, and educational psychology. I had originally intended, and began, my studies in the physical sciences. This allowed me, due to previous training in nuclear electronics, to spend four years as a research assistant in one of the foremost theoretical physics laboratories of that time, where I had the opportunity to meet and discuss the most basic nature of our physical universe with several recipients of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Perhaps related to the 'special' social and cultural circumstances of the 1960's, I moved from the physical sciences to the social sciences partly because of the very unhappy and difficult life I had growing up and partly because of an increasingly serious awareness that all was not right with human society. I decided that I would go into psychology, particularly child psychology, so that perhaps I could do something to ensure that in the future children would not have to go through what I had gone through and could live in an enlightened world of peace and love.

During my studies in psychology I came across a 'tool' of great value for anyone who hoped to help bring about a better world, this tool was the Laws of Learning. During an undergraduate class in experimental psychology we were given a live chicken and told to devise a fairly complex task to teach it using the Laws of Learning. I wanted my chicken to stand on one leg only, its right leg, to hop in a full circle to the right on that one leg, then to push a red button on the wall of the experimental chamber with its beak, have a bite of food, and keep repeating that same sequence of behaviours without error time after time.

This could have been an almost impossible task as chickens are not very intelligent animals and most people, including myself without a knowledge of the Laws of Learning, would have had no idea how to even begin such a difficult training program. When less than ten minutes after I had begun training my chicken to do this seemingly impossible task I was able to sit there watching it repeatedly and errorlessly completing the whole complicated sequence of responses which made up the task I had set for it, I was more than amazed. Of course I never could have done this without the knowledge of the Laws of Learning, which I applied rigorously and consistently as I trained the chicken to do that complex task. Still, it all happened so quickly and easily that it appeared to be an almost miraculous happening.

I still remember thinking, "If I could use the Laws of Learning to teach an animal with as little intelligence as a chicken to do that quite complex task so quickly, why couldn't those same Laws of Learning be used to help children grow up to be good and decent human beings?" This was the beginning that led me years later, during my third PhD program, to come up with the hypothesis that, "If you were to give to any individual or social group just two things, a positive, accurate, and motivational world view, plus a good understanding of the Laws of Learning by which all human characteristics are developed, then that individual or social group would move naturally and inevitably toward everything good and right."

My work in using the Laws of Learning to teach children resulted in me being given a government primary school, the 'worst' one in the school district, to test that hypothesis under experimental conditions. So I set out to prove the hypothesis as a children's values education program. Just as with my experiment with the chicken many years earlier the results were beyond all expectations. Within a year the children, the teachers, and the school environment had become astonishingly positive and productive. Extra academic training had not even been part of our experimental program, but due to motivational factors and a focus on the benefits of learning and possessing knowledge as one of the values the children were taught, the school which had tested last in the district of 27 schools each year for twelve years in a row during standardized academic testing moved up to number seven academically after only one year of the program.

Compared statistically against matched experimental control schools the results were so unbelievably good for an educational research program that they were almost an embarrassment. You just don't get results that good in educational experiments: but, the U. S. Commissioner of Education took enough interest in the program to offer to have it replicated in government funded schools all across America. I didn't feel it was ready for such wide use yet, it was after all only in the experimental stages, and although I think then I knew enough about the second part of the hypothesis, the Laws of Learning, to justify the spread of the program, I realized I was far from understanding the second necessary component of the hypothesis, the positive, accurate, and motivational world view, well enough.

To many people's shock, and perhaps some regret, I left the experimental program which had proved so successful. In fact to continue my search for Truth I left America, where I had become increasingly disenchanted with the social culture and the government's policies, and went out into the world to find that required positive, accurate, and motivational world view. It was a search that would take me to not only many more years of intense study on my own covering all areas of science and philosophy, but also theology, the study of religious knowledge. My travels, even as I remained a confirmed non-believer in God, eventually took me to priests and monasteries, gurus and ashrams, monks and Buddhist temples around the world.

During all these years after leaving the formal study of the physical sciences I had been keeping up with the many enlightening discoveries in theoretical physics. Modern physics was then going through a very exciting period, we now had a quite good understanding of the most basic nature of matter and how the physical universe came to be what it is today. I became more and more interested in the philosophical implications of Einstein's Theories of Relativity. Connections were being made in my consciousness between the implications of Einstein's work and the revealed knowledge of religious believers which I had long rejected.

I remember well the day that I finally had to concede that if I wanted to be fair and objective as a scientist I would have to accept that due to the findings of modern physics, particularly Einstein's Theories of Relativity, I could no longer deny the existence of God. I had to accept that modern science and logic now offered powerful proof of the existence of God. And, I remember equally well my first two words to myself when I realized I now had to accept the existence of God as a reality. This is very revealing as to my character at the time, but those two words were, "Oh no!" I understood immediately that my life would have to change drastically, since knowing that God existed also meant having an obligation to live according to the Will of God rather that feeling free to succumb to the whims of human desire.

No one could have been more shocked than I when what had been intended to be the ultimate journey into secular materialistic science and philosophy took me first to the knowledge of the existence of God then to a realization that I could follow no other path in life but Islam.

(Muhammad al'Mahdi, 2004)

 

FORWARD TO THE UNIFIED THEORY OF EXISTENCE TRILOGY

I wrote these three books almost 20 years ago now, although much of the information presented in these works remains at the present limits of human knowledge of science and logic. They represent an early step in the shaping process of my life over a 40 year search for Truth that led me from confirmed atheism, non-belief in God, to becoming a Muslim dedicating his life to service for Allah. The word 'shaping' is a technical word from the Laws of Learning. It means to go through a series of small steps from any beginning point toward any goal.

Learning the multiplication tables could serve as a simple example of shaping, and by the way, shaping is the way I taught the chicken to perform that quite complex task described in the introduction. We take as the starting point a child who knows nothing of multiplication, and we set as a goal the child knowing the multiplication tables up to 12X12. It is impossible to jump right from not even knowing the concept of multiplication to knowing how to multiply 12X12. We must teach the child the multiplication tables in a series of small steps. First you teach 1X1, 1X2, etc. If you make any step too big the learning process will break down and the final goal will never be achieved. There is no other way to achieve the goal, and that is how all human characteristics are developed. That is how I found God!

I was, in the middle of last year, diagnosed with a terminal illness and given about three months to live. Now it is a year later, and I feel very Blessed by Allah to even be alive and able to write this brief forward to these books I wrote so long ago even though my health is obviously failing. I feel very comfortable with the fact that I will soon be leaving this physical existence, but I also want to be sure in the time I have left that I do everything I can to ensure whatever benefits can be had from my life's work can be passed on to human society. I am hoping that the difficult and time consuming path that brought me to Islam can be accelerated for others by the reading of these three books. Not everyone has the time, the inclination, or the opportunity to devote their whole life to study.

Since the knowledge in these three books was learned, understood, and written from a secular, materialistic view of science and logic they should be well received even by those who presently have no religious interests. For those of religions other than Islam, they can feel comfortable with the knowledge in these books because they are written with no Islamic words or perspective, and non-Muslims should find support for much that they already believe to be true. And, for those who are already Muslim, they can benefit from these books by seeing how close one can come to understanding the rightness of the traditional beliefs and practices of Islam through modern scientific knowledge and logic. In addition, for young Muslims in particular, the knowledge in these three volumes can provide an armour against the powerful negative influences of Western secular materialism, which if left unchecked will subtly steal from many of our youth their belief in and practice of the beauty and greatness of traditionally understood Islam.

THE TRILOGY (These three volumes were written as a continuous conversation between a young girl of the future and a mythical philosopher-scientist. The reason for this was to make the presentation of some very difficult and complex information much less threatening and easier to read.)

Volume One: The presentation of one consistent body of knowledge from the light at the beginning of the Created universe to Adam's children in the world today. This volume contains cosmology, physics, biology, philosophy, and theology woven together to give a detailed account of the totality of the physical Creation. It gives objective answers to humanity's long asked questions such as; does God exist, what is the meaning of life, what is the true nature of good and evil, where does our free will come from, is there life after death, and what does the future hold for the human race?

Volume Two: Looks at a number of areas of human social behaviour, such as politics, human sexuality and correct male/female relationships, economics, religion, entertainment industry, health care, education, and criminal behaviour and discusses what is wrong with the world as it is now and what would constitute a right world given the world view presented in Volume One.

Volume Three: Presents a complete review of the Laws of Learning by which all animal behaviour is governed, and by which all human behaviour can be developed to be consistent with the Will of God. It is this knowledge which if unknown leaves us to blow aimlessly with the winds of negative influence, or if known allows us to fully utilize our free will and progress forever onward toward all that is good and right.

(NOTE: I developed the knowledge base for these volumes during the 1960's, 70's and 80's. I wrote these works in the early to middle 1980's. I have purposefully left these works in their original form, rather than re-edit them on the basis of my present understanding of Islam. I was not a Muslim when I began this work - indeed this work led me to Islam - and, although I was a Muslim when I completed these works, my knowledge of Islam was then quite rudimentary. I now know much more about Islam than I did then, and realize some small part of that which I have written may appear to be - but not in reality be - inconsistent with traditional Islamic theology due to the scientific nature of the concepts and language I have used. There may also be some - very few - points in which my writings are actually in conflict with true Islamic knowledge; in these cases I accept the true Islamic knowledge as correct and my words to be in error. For those who are believers reading this trilogy it is important to know that whenever you see the term 'natural law' or 'natural order' you can replace it in your mind with the more familiar term 'the Will of Allah'. Muhammad al'Mahdi, 2004)

 

 

(In Volume One Tinny and the Philosopher-Scientist discussed a new, more correct worldview which could help bring about a better world and ensure the future survival of the human race. In Volume Two Tinny and the Philosopher-Scientist discussed how the many critical social/environmental problems of our present world can be understood, and a solution found, on the basis of that new worldview. In this volume they discuss a very powerful 'tool' that provides a means to help solve all of the world's problems, and bring about a future of peace and love. )

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We have covered much in our discussion so far. We have covered in some detail a new, positive, more accurate worldview. We have looked at how the old worldview has been responsible for the world's many social problems, and how solutions to these problems are offered by this new worldview. Where should we go from here?

TINNY: I guess the next logical step is to devise a plan by which the social problems facing humanity could be solved and find a means by which that plan could be carried out.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can all that be done?

TINNY: It can.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Never in human history has change on such a grand scale been attempted. You are talking about changing every aspect of human life; every institution, every social structure, all social behaviour, all attitudes, and all beliefs.

TINNY: There will not only be changes in the social structure of the human race, but also changes in every individual. These changes will affect the thoughts, words, and deeds of every person on this planet.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can you really do all that?

TINNY: No, I could not do all that. These changes will be brought about by billions of people acting together. I alone can do little more than attempt to change my own life.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But isn't it this knowledge and these ideas you have presented which will bring about the change in world society?

TINNY: That is true. It is this knowledge and these ideas which will change the world, but this knowledge and these ideas are not mine. They have envolved from the developing human race. They belong to everyone. Whether or not I speak these words and profess these truths, they exist as part of the heritage of the human race. If we are to have a future it will include these ideas and this knowledge regardless of whether I speak these truths or not. As the natural unfolding of the material universe takes place there is a moment when these truths will be first expressed, then fully assimilated. My words are only one possible beginning to the full expression of these truths. The human race has reached the level of development which provides the conditions necessary for these essential truths to become manifested. Humanity will soon fully know these truths.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could anything stop these truths from being known throughout human society?

TINNY: Only the destruction of the human race could stop the development, expression, and spread of these ideas and this knowledge.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say if you do not speak these truths they will be said by others. If others speak these truths will they be presented in the same way you offer them? Will the knowledge be presented in the same words? Will the ideas be the same?

TINNY: Every individual is different. No other person would present these truths exactly as I would. The knowledge would not be presented in the same words and the ideas would not be exactly the same. Some presentations of these truths would be quite similar and some would vary greatly. This matters not at all. All individual variations in presentation would result in the one basic truth being known.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will everyone accept your particular means of presentation?

TINNY: Certainly not in the beginning. People will evaluate my words on the basis of their past learning and beliefs. Each will interpret these truths in a manner personal to themselves.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this good? Wouldn't it be better if everyone accepted the truths as you present them?

TINNY: No one should ever accept these truths or any others uncritically. It is our nature at the human level to each perceive things differently. It is my hope that when people hear my words they will find support for the truths which they have come to know in their own way. I don't want everyone to think as I think. What is important is that we all have a common basis for our different ways of thinking.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When I consider the enormous change which will take place in human society as this new worldview becomes widely known, I can't help but worry that this change will be accompanied by great turmoil.

TINNY: Change of such revolutionary nature is always accompanied by great turmoil.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you call this change revolutionary, do you mean you are proposing a revolution?

TINNY: I try never shy away from truthful words. I am most definitely proposing a revolution.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you are a revolutionary.

TINNY: I am a revolutionary.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Won't it scare some people away from these ideas if they know you are a revolutionary?

TINNY: Do I seem very scary?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It's hard to imagine anyone being afraid of you.

TINNY: No one should be afraid of this revolution either.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can you say that? Revolutions have always been carried out by violence.

TINNY: Then people should fear the violence, but not the revolution.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Sometimes what comes after the revolution is worse than what occurred before the revolution.

TINNY: Then people should fear wrong ideology but not the revolution.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you speak of revolution?

TINNY: By revolution, I refer to the overthrow of the existing conditions. I refer to a complete turnaround from the present social insanity to a beautiful future of peace and love. Revolution is change and change is part of the natural order.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can the existing conditions be overthrown without the use of violence?

TINNY: That is the purpose of the new worldview. When this new knowledge spreads through human society those who understand will perceive our reality differently. When the world is seen differently we will hold different beliefs and we will think different thoughts. Many present beliefs and thoughts are so detrimental to our individual progression and to the progression of human society that they must be regarded as insane. Words and deeds which arise from these wrong beliefs and thoughts cause great harm and suffering. The beliefs and thoughts based on the new worldview will be beneficial to our individual progression, also to the progression of human society; and so, may be considered the path of sanity. Words and deeds that arise from these right beliefs and thoughts will allow great success and happiness.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That all sounds quite wonderful, but can you really expect these ideas to create such a substantial change in world society to be called a revolution?

TINNY: I don't say these ideas will create change, I say they will allow change to take place - at a rate unprecedented in human history. Change of this suddenness and magnitude must be called a revolution.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does it matter whether or not the changes come fast or slow?

TINNY: The changes must come fast or there will be no human future to allow the completion of the revolution. Slow change is only feasible when there is enough time to allow for success. We need to almost immediately change the social insanity which threatens to destroy our species. We must become sane to survive.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How much time do you think we have?

TINNY: There is no way to know for sure. We could have hundreds of years or we could have only a few minutes.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If we have hundreds of years then there might be enough time.

TINNY: If we only have a few minutes there will not be enough time.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since there is no way to know how much time the human race has left, on what basis should we plan for the future?

TINNY: If we assume we have more time than we really do have, the result will be the extinction of the human species. If we assume we have less time than we really do have the result may be some added inconvenience; but at least we will survive. Given these alternatives there is only one reasonable choice. We must assume the destruction of humanity might occur at any moment. We must act as if our lives depend on it. They do.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you put our predicament in those terms, it's easy to see how quickly we must act, how dedicated we must be, and how hard we must work.

TINNY: It will seem to be a great sacrifice at first. As we begin to give up those things that have been the focus of human striving for thousands of years, the wealth, the power, and the never ending quest for the pleasures of the flesh we may only do so because we must change or die. This type of sacrifice has been often experienced in the lives of individuals. When there is no alternative but to drastically alter one's life or die, perhaps for reasons of illness, most people find the inner strength to successfully make those changes. It is always a struggle, but it is usually won.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the threat of death the right way to initiate positive changes to human society?

TINNY: It would be much better if the human race had come to right beliefs and right behaviours before reaching this critical point. We could have but we didn't. Part of the new worldview is to objectively accept the reality of the present moment. It is no use feeling sorry for ourselves that we didn't become better sooner. We must face up to our reality and move forward from that point. Actually, I don't believe the threat of the extinction of our species would in the long run be sufficient to save us. The death facing the human race is not so much a threat as an alternative. All actions have some outcome. It is often possible to predict beforehand what will be the probable outcome of any action. If we consider the overall behaviour of human society at present as the action, we can predict very reliably what the outcome will be. It will be the destruction of human life, perhaps all life, on this planet. Once we realise this we must choose to change and live in harmony with the natural order or accept the natural consequence of society's wrong actions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you say you don't believe the threat of the extinction of the human race would be sufficient to save us?

TINNY: It is because of the weakness of negative control. The range and magnitude of the social change that the human race must undergo to survive the threat of extinction cannot be carried out and maintained by negative control or force. The natural limit on the use of negative influence to attain any goal means that the human race cannot be forced to become good.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most people would say that the use of force was the most powerful means available to attain any desired goal.

TINNY: As is often the case in a society gone insane, most people are wrong.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is more powerful than force?

TINNY: That which is many more times powerful than force could be called directed positive influence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What else could it be called?

TINNY: It could also be called love.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I have heard this said before, but it is still hard to believe.

TINNY: We are only beginning to realise the power of love as we are beginning to realise the weakness of force and aggression.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Thank goodness that is our reality.

TINNY: I've always liked that term, "thank goodness". We often forget the deep meaning behind common sayings.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could the realisation of the impending destruction of the human race bring about any positive change?

TINNY: Negative influence, while not able to maintain long term positive change, can successfully initiate short term change. I believe there is only one viable function that the threatened extinction of human life can have.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is that?

TINNY: That threatened destruction could focus world-wide attention on the problem and provide motivation to seek a solution.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But the solution itself cannot be through negative means.

TINNY: There is no solution to the many problems facing humanity, including the threat of extinction, but a positive solution. To attempt any solution using negative means would only worsen the problem.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think there will be some who will wrongly attempt to solve the world's problems through negative means?

TINNY: I'm almost sure that will happen.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once attention is focused on the problem, and motivation to seek a solution is developed, what happens next?

TINNY: That is the moment when the solution offered through the unified theory of existence is most likely to be accepted.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You don't say the unified theory will be accepted, but only that is the most likely moment for it to be accepted. Why is that?

TINNY: Humanity has through human history been notoriously short-sighted when it comes to understanding the true nature of the difficulties we are facing and accepting the necessary solutions. There is unfortunately some chance that we will once again do too little too late.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't there presently attempts being made by governments to bring about an end to some of the main problems facing humanity?

TINNY: Many governments are doing a lot to be seen as attempting to provide solutions to the world's problems.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The way you worded that answer makes me think you don't believe the governments are really trying to bring an end to the world's problems.

TINNY: I don't believe the efforts of some governments are sincere. Even those efforts that may be sincere are still misguided. There is truly much more effort being put forth to make people believe that the social problems are being faced and solutions attempted than is being put into any realistic solution to those problems.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why do you say that some governments are not sincere in their efforts to find a solution to the many social problems facing the human race?

TINNY: While some lack of success in finding solutions to the world's problems can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem, the major cause of the lack of success is a refusal to do what is necessary to bring a solution about.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would governments refuse to act as they must do to solve the world's problems?

TINNY: Because the things that are the causes of the world's problems are often exactly the same things that governments most desire and seek.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And what are those things which are both desired by governments and cause the many social problems facing humanity?

TINNY: Power and material wealth. Governments cannot afford to do what is truly necessary to bring about an end to the world's problems because governments play such a major part in causing these problems. If governments were to do what must be done they would in effect be bringing about their own end.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But governments cannot refuse to do something about the dire circumstances of human life.

TINNY: You're right; they can't refuse to do something, so they very publicly make what appear to be real attempts to solve these problems. The people are made to believe their governments are trying their hardest and doing all that can be done. People are made to believe that the problems are insurmountable, that they must be accepted. The problems are attributed to human nature and to modern life. The reality is that the world's governments are doing little to bring an end to these many problems facing human society. Since unless world society changes soon the human race is likely to become extinct, it could be fairly said that the overall result of the efforts of the world's governments is presently doing more harm than good.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is the governments that are to blame.

TINNY: No, governments cannot be blamed. Governments are institutions of society, organised and run by members of society. We the people, all of us, must accept responsibility for the wrongs of our governments.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Very few people have any say in what government does.

TINNY: It is the masses of humanity, those who appear to wield no power over government, who hold all the power. The will of the people cannot be resisted.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the will of the people cannot be resisted then why don't governments do what must be done to solve the problems facing humanity?

TINNY: Because the people have not rightly exercised their will yet. As things stand the will of the people supports wrong government, wrong goals, and wrong values.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't there many people in every country working to right these wrongs?

TINNY: Certainly there are many in each country working to bring about our glorious future; but they represent only a tiny fraction of the whole. These right thinking people cannot by any means, at this point in human history, be said to represent the will of the people.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So we need more right thinking people.

TINNY: This is the basic concept behind social change through the spread of a new, more correct worldview. Once world society consists mainly of individuals who see the truth of our reality more clearly, and have a common foundation to understand that reality, then the will of the people shall have direction. The will of people who hold this new worldview shall be more powerful through positive influence than the world's governments have ever been through the exercise of force. The will of a society which has come to the realisation that the path of force and aggression must be forsaken and the path of peace and love embraced can bring about the solution to all of the world's problems.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I gather this plan to bring enlightenment to humanity is through the gift of knowledge.

TINNY: That is the plan; to spread the knowledge encompassed by the unified theory of existence to all members of human society.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds like a very difficult task.

TINNY: There are many reasons which make the spread of this knowledge throughout the world much easier than it may at first appear.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are some of those reasons?

TINNY: Many of these truths are already widely known and accepted. Many people are searching for truth. Many people are searching for an answer to the varied problems facing human society. Many people are dissatisfied with the present wrong worldview. If we don't almost immediately find a solution to aspects of the world's social problems which threaten to bring an end to life on this planet, we will have no future. The time has come when this knowledge will naturally unfold as part of the overall developmental process of material existence. These are some of the existing conditions that will facilitate the spread of the unified theory of existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you have said, in the natural sequence of unfolding events the time for the expression of this knowledge has come.

TINNY: During the process of envolution, when the moment comes that circumstances are right for the manifestation of some new characteristic of existence, it will invariably happen.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: More simply, please?

TINNY: When during the natural course of events the right time for something new comes, it cannot be stopped.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps in the case of the knowledge contained in the unified theory of existence it could be said, nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time is come.

TINNY: That is it exactly. Now that I see how powerful the knowledge of truth is, I have no trouble believing this new worldview will bring about the solution to the problems facing society and change the course of human history.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How exactly will this knowledge be spread throughout human society?

TINNY: The knowledge of truth does not exist as separate from human society. This knowledge is part of human society. It is the nature of this knowledge to be the means of its own dissemination. Truth is like a seed, which once planted in the mind of an individual, germinates, spreading its roots through the social body of the human race and flowering in the collective consciousness of humanity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You say that this knowledge is the means of its own dissemination. What do you mean by that?

TINNY: It has to do with the way learning takes place. I could describe this process briefly, but this particular part of the unified theory of existence is so important that I would only feel right if I went into great detail.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds extremely important.

TINNY: It is the key. Without this particular section of the unified theory of existence the rest may never have time to save human society from self-destruction.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this part of the unified theory of existence have a name?

TINNY: No, it has no name. This is the knowledge of the way we learn; but in this sense I am using the word 'learn' very broadly.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Couldn't you call this the section on learning anyway?

TINNY: When you hear all I have to say about this area of knowledge you will see why that name would be too narrow.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Or perhaps the present understanding of learning is too limited.

TINNY: That is a fair comment. Just as in all other areas the new worldview broadens the horizons, so the doors to new vistas are opened to our understanding of learning by this new knowledge.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Much of the new worldview so far has focused on physics, chemistry, cosmology, and biology. Is this most important area you are going to tell me about included in those sciences?

TINNY: Since all things are one and all things are linked there will certainly be a connection, but generally what I want to discuss next would be called psychology.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you define psychology?

TINNY: Psychology is often defined as the study of the mind, the study of human nature, or the study of behaviour. Those definitions are quite inclusive and I find them all acceptable, but I consider psychology to be the study of the relationship of consciousness with the physical universe.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You couldn't define psychology much more broadly than that.

TINNY: All words are but names we assign to various aspects of our relationship with existence. Psychology happens to be a word that covers a large segment of that relationship.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And as you define psychology, you say it is the key to the future of humanity. How is this?

TINNY: It is this particular knowledge that will allow freewill to be manifested to a degree never before possible.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was it our inability to fully express freewill which has caused humanity so many problems?

TINNY: Had we been able to freely choose our future we would not have chosen the tortuous path which has led the human race to the brink of destruction.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Those who have made the decisions along the way would say they were free to choose.

TINNY: No one who does not know their true nature ever makes a free choice. Because we were unaware of the true nature of the relationship between our consciousness and the physical existence, we were susceptible to negative influence. These unseen negative influences have determined that we walk the wrong path.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does the knowledge of psychology enable us to be free from those negative influences?

TINNY: This knowledge allows us to understand the varied influences which affect our thinking, our behaviour, and our overall development as unique individuals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The range of possible influences is so great it hardly seems possible to be aware of them all.

TINNY: While the range of influences is virtually infinite they all fall into a small number of categories, and all of these influences act lawfully.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean when you say the influences act lawfully?

TINNY: I mean that the effects of these varied influences upon our development can all be described by a set of laws.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are these laws complicated?

TINNY: I couldn't say they are simple; but many of them, although having been given unfamiliar names, would be familiar when explained by example.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you claim that by understanding several categories of influence and a set of laws of learning that we can overcome all the problems of society.

TINNY: This is true, but only if accompanied by the knowledge encompassed in the new worldview we have discussed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I realise it will take some time to cover this broad area of psychology, but could you tell me before you begin what the various categories of influence are that affect our learning and personal development.

TINNY: That can be put quite simply. There are basically three classes of influence that determine all our learning and the development of our individual personalities. First, we are influenced by the physical environment. Second, we are influenced by other people, social influence. And third, we are influenced by our own inner speech.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure you'll go into detail about these three types of influence later, but while the meaning of influences from the physical environment and from other people seems clear enough, what exactly is inner speech?

TINNY: Inner speech is internal communication with our own consciousness.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean inner speech is what could be called our thoughts?

TINNY: Inner speech includes thoughts, but is much more comprehensive than that. It includes not only thoughts, but feelings. Inner speech is all communication that originates within the mind. We are not yet aware of the full range of those communications. Some of the communications within the mind take place beyond the perception of ordinary waking consciousness.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I won't ask you anymore questions at this point. I think I should let you begin presenting the knowledge of psychology which will be so beneficial to the future of the human race.

TINNY: I have been thinking how best to explain this information. I'm not sure there is any preferred order. I will try to present this knowledge in the same order as I came to know it. It has been a natural unfolding as my understanding of psychology has envolved. I'm sure there are many other ways to come to the same understanding, but the way I came to know these truths is the way I know best.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure that method will do fine.

TINNY: When we first began this discussion you cautioned me that at the beginning the topics we discussed may not seem to have much to do with the ultimate goal of providing a solution to the problems facing human society. I must give you a similar caution as I begin to discuss psychology. It will be a while before the relevance of the various topics join together into a holistic system that can be instrumental in allowing humanity the exercise of sufficient freewill to usher in the promised utopian future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I know that the time is forthcoming and welcome this prelude to that moment.

TINNY: As with much of my knowledge I never learned it through formal study, but came to this knowledge through my ongoing life experiences, readings, and talks with my parents. I had never been overly impressed with the area of science called psychology because it always seemed too vague and uncertain to be of much use. I liked the clarity of sciences like physics, chemistry, and mathematics. Much of psychology sounds more like someone's opinion rather than scientific fact. When I discussed these worries about what psychology had to offer with my father he gave me a book on the principles of learning. He told me this was as close to hard science as psychology had gotten so far.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did these principles of learning satisfy your desire for clarity and certainty as did the physical sciences?

TINNY: Somehow these principles of learning didn't have much impact on me as I read the book. The knowledge of the principles of learning was clear and certain, but I'd have to admit I found it boring. This was odd because I usually found all learning to be fun and exciting. I don't think I truly realised how fundamental and critical these principles of learning were. I couldn't relate to them as having an important place in my everyday life and in the future of humanity.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I gather you changed your mind.

TINNY: I surely did.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Did something special happen to cause you to see these principles of learning in a different light.

TINNY: Something very unusual happened. I taught a chicken to turn a full circle to the right while standing on one leg.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You're correct, that was certainly something unusual. It also sounds like a very difficult task. Were you a very experienced chicken trainer?

TINNY: It was the first time I ever tried to teach a chicken anything.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Was it very hard to do?

TINNY: It was extremely easy.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It must have taken a long time though.

TINNY: It only took about ten minutes.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That seems almost impossible.

TINNY: I was astounded. I had never so clearly seen learning take place before.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How were you able to do such a remarkable thing? Most people wouldn't have the slightest idea how to begin teaching a chicken.

TINNY: I simply put the principles of learning I had read into practice. It was during those ten minutes, while I was teaching that chicken, when I came to realise what an incredibly powerful tool these principles of learning are. I realised that with these laws of learning there was no goal which could not be reached.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell me exactly how you were able to teach the chicken those tasks?

TINNY: I'll describe the process in detail later, but first I want to start at the beginning and tell you about the laws of learning. Actually it's not really important how I taught the chicken those tasks. The importance of that experience is that it confirmed the truth and power of the principles of learning.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If they are so powerful couldn't they be dangerous in the wrong hands?

TINNY: Terrifyingly dangerous, but that also I'll discuss later. I really want to tell you about these laws of learning in the sequence that I came to know them.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The way you choose to disclose these truths is the right way for you. Please begin.

TINNY: As I describe these principles of learning I'll try to make them clear by naming them, defining them, and providing examples. It would help me best to explain them if you would ask lots of questions. The principles themselves are relatively few and fairly simple, but there is a never ending complexity to their usage. The more I learn about them the greater my understanding of their potential.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Don't worry, I never run out of questions.

TINNY: I'll start by describing the simplest kind of learning. Sometimes instead of using the word 'learning' I'll use the word 'conditioning'. They mean just about the same thing but in some situations one term seems to fit better than the other.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll remember that, in these discussions learning and conditioning mean roughly the same thing.

TINNY: Something that really amazed me when I came across these principles of learning is that they have been known for less than one hundred years. People have been learning by them and using them to teach others for as long as there have been human beings, but only during this century did we come to realise that learning took place according to specific laws just like all other aspects of material existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: We are often slowest in coming to know ourselves. Human beings were long considered to be set apart from all else that exists. Human beings were thought to be sacred and should not be studied.

TINNY: I think all that exists is sacred; but, I don't believe there is anything that should be considered beyond study.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did anyone first discover how learning takes place according to certain laws?

TINNY: It was first discovered accidentally while medical experiments were being conducted. Scientists were trying to find out how salivation takes place. They were working with a dog and had a mechanism that blew meat powder into a dog's mouth so they could determine how much saliva the dog produced with different amounts of meat powder. They found something they weren't expecting; sometimes the dog would begin to salivate before there was any meat powder in its mouth.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That must have surprised them.

TINNY: Since they were scientists they decided to look carefully at how their experiment was set up in hopes of finding some logical reason for this unexpected happening. What they noticed was that one of their team, whose job it was to feed the meat powder to the dog, always entered the room wearing a white lab coat immediately before the experiment began. They realised that the dog would begin to salivate as soon as it saw this lab assistant in the white coat.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I guess they would have asked themselves, "why did this happen?"

TINNY: That's the scientific way of thinking. If you come across anything that is unexplained you ask why.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How did they go about finding out what it was about the lab assistant which caused the dog to salivate?

TINNY: At first they thought it was because the dog had come to know and perhaps like the lab assistant that caused the salivation to occur. They tested this idea by checking to see if the dog salivated when other people entered the room. No salivation occurred, so they thought they might have come up with the solution.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were they right?

TINNY: No. Those others who entered the room were not wearing white coats. It turned out the dog would salivate when anyone wearing a white lab coat entered the room.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean it was the white lab coat and not the person that caused the dog to salivate?

TINNY: That's what they discovered.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I could almost imagine that seeing a person the dog knew and liked might bring about some salivation; but, it seems extremely unlikely there would be anything about a white lab coat that would cause a dog to salivate.

TINNY: To those who understand learning today the reason is obvious, but at that time the scientists were probably mystified.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Well, why did the white lab coat cause the dog to salivate?

TINNY: Because the dog had been conditioned to salivate when it saw someone enter the room wearing a white lab coat.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since you said the word conditioned means practically the same the same thing as the word learned, do you mean the dog learned to salivate when he saw someone wearing a white lab coat?

TINNY: That's what I mean, but as I describe the learning process you'll see why I said sometimes the word conditioned seems to fit the circumstances better.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'd like to hear in detail how this conditioning took place.

TINNY: We'll start by considering the original experiment. Meat powder was placed in the dog's mouth and the dog salivated. Each time the dog received a certain amount of meat powder it would produce, on the average, some certain number of drops of saliva. Here I'll have to introduce several words that describe different parts of this process.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are these scientific terms or are they common terms?

TINNY: Actually they are both, and they mean pretty much the same thing in both contexts. When they are used in the scientific sense though, their meaning is more specific.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What are those words?

TINNY: There are three words; stimulus, response, and reflex. Actually, I should probably also define the word elicit. A stimulus is something that brings about action. In the example we have been talking about the meat powder is the stimulus. The word 'elicit' means to bring something about, to cause something to happen. The stimulus, meat powder, elicits or brings about salivation, which in this case is the response. A response is a reaction to or result from a stimulus. The stimulus elicits a response which in this case is a way of saying the meat powder causes salivation to take place. This whole process is called a reflex. When a dog gets food in its mouth it salivates. A reflex is a fixed relationship between a stimulus and a response where the stimulus elicits the response.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do reflexes work the same way in people?

TINNY: They are very similar. Candy in the mouth of a child will cause salivation.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there many reflexes?

TINNY: There are quite a few. Some are obvious and some take place inside our bodies which we aren't aware of. When a doctor taps your knee in the right place with a little hammer your leg will jerk. That is an example of a common reflexe. All reflexes are natural responses that are elicited by stimuli in the environment. That is the way people and animals are made. Certain things which happen to our bodies bring about certain natural responses. That is the way our muscles, nerves, and brains are organised.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would even the simplest animals have some reflexes?

TINNY: Even single celled animals have natural reflexive responses to certain stimuli; and they don't even have brains in the usual sense of the word.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This still doesn't explain why the dog salivated when it saw someone in a white lab coat.

TINNY: The dog didn't learn to salivate when it had meat powder in its mouth, it did that naturally. Neither the stimulus nor the response was learned, they were not conditioned. The natural stimulus could then be called the unconditioned stimulus because it was unlearned, and the natural response could be called the unconditioned response because it was unlearned. The unconditioned stimulus, meat powder, naturally elicited the unconditioned response, salivation. In the case of this experiment, shortly before the dog was given the unconditioned stimulus, meat powder, it saw someone wearing a white lab coat. What is believed to have happened is that by being associated with the unconditioned stimulus, meat powder, the person in a white lab coat became a stimulus that could elicit salivation almost like the meat powder did. The dog learned, or was conditioned, to respond to the stimulus of a person in a white lab coat in much the same way it had responded to the meat powder. In such a situation the person in a white lab coat would be called a conditioned stimulus because it was learned. When the conditioned stimulus, the person in a white lab coat, elicits salivation, the salivation is now called a conditioned response because it was learned.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can see why the meat powder and the person in the white lab coat are considered different types of stimuli; but since the dog salivates because of either the meat powder or the white coated lab assistant why is salivation called an unconditioned response when it is elicited by the meat powder and called a conditioned stimulus when it is elicited by someone in a white lab coat? Both of the responses are salivation, they are the same.

TINNY: They're not exactly the same. The dog might salivate somewhat less because of the lab assistant than it would to the meat powder; but that's not the reason the responses have different names. Salivation brought about by the meat powder is natural or unconditioned and salivation brought about by the white coated lab assistant is learned or conditioned. The dog will always salivate when it has meat powder in its mouth, but it won't always salivate when it sees someone in a white lab coat.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I understand the circumstances which existed that you say conditioned the dog to salivate when it saw the white coated assistant, but why did this conditioning occur? What is it about the lab assistant coming into the room just before the dog had the meat powder placed in its mouth that later resulted in the dog salivating in the presence of the white coated lab assistant without the meat powder being present?

TINNY: Seeing the lab assistant in the white coat originally had no effect on the dog's salivation; in such a situation the white coated lab assistant could be called a neutral stimulus since no salivation response was initially elicited. As it turns out, if the lab assistant had entered the room after the meat powder was placed in the dog's mouth, rather than immediately before, the dog would never have been conditioned to salivate when it saw the white coated lab assistant. In such a circumstance the white coated person would never have become a conditioned stimulus which could elicit the response of salivation. The critical factor in this type of learning experience is the pairing of the natural unconditioned stimulus, the meat powder, and the previously neutral stimulus, the white lab coat. For this type of learning to take place the dog had to see the white lab coat just prior to getting the meat powder. In this type of learning situation you begin with a naturally occurring reflex action, where a certain stimulus regularly elicits a certain response. A neutral stimulus can then be chosen and must be presented just before the unconditioned stimulus occurs. When this is done the previously neutral stimulus will take on the characteristics of the natural unconditioned stimulus and will elicit a similar response.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could something other than the person in a white lab coat also be made into a stimulus that would bring about salivation?

TINNY: Actually that was one of the first thoughts those scientists had when they discovered this new type of learning. They decided to use a very different kind of stimulus. They chose to use a bell. In this situation the relationship between the meat powder and the salivation response remained the same, but now the experiment was arranged so that a mechanical device would put the meat powder in the dog's mouth with nobody in the room. This time the neutral stimulus that was presented just before the meat powder was a bell.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And did the dog become conditioned to salivate when the bell rang?

TINNY: After only a few pairings of the meat powder and the bell the conditioning began to take effect, and the dog began to salivate when the bell was sounded without any meat powder.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This conditioning seems to occur quite suddenly.

TINNY: Not really. As I said, after only a few pairings of the meat powder and the bell the dog began to salivate when the bell sounded alone, but, the bell wasn't nearly as effective at eliciting salivation as the meat powder was.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How was it different?

TINNY: When the bell sounded the dog began to salivate later and produced much less saliva than was elicited by the meat powder.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It seems that after just a few pairings of the bell with the meat powder the dog was only partly conditioned to salivate when it heard the bell alone.

TINNY: Most learning takes place gradually through a series of small steps. After a few pairings of the bell and the meat powder the learning process has only just begun. After quite a few pairings of the bell and the meat powder the salivation response would have been fully conditioned. The bell stimulus alone would then elicit a salivation response almost as fast as the natural stimulus, meat powder, and there would be almost as many drops of saliva.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Once the new reflex is learned, in this case salivation being elicited by a bell, does it remain effective forever?

TINNY: While natural reflexes remain in effect forever, the conditioned reflex will fade out over time. Each time the bell is sounded without being paired with the meat powder, the salivation response will fade to some degree.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there a name for this process when conditioning loses its effects?

TINNY: It is called extinction. Extinction in this case refers to the decrease in the power of conditioning which takes place when the conditioned stimulus, the bell, is repeated without being paired with the natural unconditioned stimulus, the meat powder.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the strength of the conditioned stimulus decrease suddenly during extinction?

TINNY: No, it decreases gradually. Each time the bell is sounded without the meat powder it will take a little longer for salivation to begin and there will be fewer drops of saliva. After the bell has been sounded quite a few times, without being paired with the meat powder, sounding the bell will no longer elicit the salivation response.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I understand the process by which a previously neutral stimulus like the lab coat or the bell can come to elicit the response of salivation through conditioning, and I understand the process by which a conditioned stimulus like the lab coat or the bell can lose the power to elicit the response of salivation by extinction; but, I would like to know why it happens. Just because the bell is presented immediately before the meat powder, why does this condition the dog to salivate when the bell is presented alone? And once the dog has learned to salivate to the sound of the bell, why does that conditioning disappear if the bell is sounded lots of times without being paired with the meat powder?

TINNY: Of course I couldn't tell you what really goes on in the mind of a dog while these conditioning and extinction processes are taking place; but, I can make a pretty good guess. In the brain of any animal the neurons, through their various interconnections, perceive and interpret information from all sources of the environment. The interconnections of these neurons also store information about past experiences. This stored information is called the memory. The holistic relationship between the memory and the perceptual and interpretative processes in the brain determines how the animal will behave, both on the conscious and subconscious level. When the various sensory nerves in the dog's mouth react to the meat powder they send a message to the brain. This message is perceived and interpreted by the brain and matched with stored information. A holistic analysis of this perception, interpretation, and stored information results in a message from the brain directing that saliva be produced in the dog's mouth. The dog is born with these particular neural connections. A dog's inherited response to the stimulus of meat powder in the mouth is to salivate. It is this type of inbuilt neuronal connection which is called a reflex. When the dog hears the bell for the first time it means nothing. If the bell is loud it might startle the dog, which is another reflex, but it will have no effect on salivation. This is because in that situation the holistic analysis of perception, interpretation, and stored information does not naturally include anything to do with salivation. As soon as the conditioning process begins, and the bell is presented just before the meat powder, the bell becomes part of the holistic analysis which takes place in the brain. This analysis soon comes to accept that there is a relationship between the bell and the meat powder. Since the bell is always sounded just before the meat powder is presented the bell then becomes a cue which allows the holistic analysis to arrive more quickly at the conclusion that the appropriate response to the situation will be the response of salivation. To react quickly and appropriately to any situation is a survival tactic of great importance. Mechanisms which allow the animal to react more quickly and appropriately in the varied situations that may arise have been incorporated into the genetic information stored in the chromosomes of all animals. It is one of these survival mechanisms which allows the dog to be conditioned to salivate to a bell which has been paired with the natural unconditioned stimulus of the meat powder. Each time the bell is paired with the meat powder the holistic analysis, which is a logical system, can be a little more sure that the sound of the bell truly signals the coming of the meat powder. It is for this reason that the early pairings of the bell and meat powder don't result in immediate salivation or very much saliva being produced. In the early stages of the conditioning process the holistic analysis is tentative in its acceptance of the knowledge that the bell will be followed by the meat powder and so responds cautiously. After many pairings of the bell and the meat powder the holistic analysis comes to accept more fully the certainty that the bell will be followed by the meat powder and so responds to the bell almost as quickly and strongly as to the meat powder.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: After the dog becomes conditioned to salivate in response to the bell this new reflex will continue only so long as the holistic analysis has good reason to expect meat powder to follow after the bell has sounded.

TINNY: And if the pairings of the meat powder with the bell are discontinued, and the bell is presented many times alone, the holistic analysis will eventually come to the conclusion that the bell no longer serves as a cue to indicate the meat powder is forthcoming. This extinction process will be gradual for the same reason the conditioning process was gradual. At first, when the meat powder is not presented after the bell, the holistic analysis cannot be certain that the relationship no longer exists and that the bell can no longer be used as a cue to know that the meat powder is forthcoming. Just as the holistic analysis is tentative in the beginning of the conditioning process, it is tentative in the beginning of the extinction process. The holistic analysis responds cautiously and begins gradually to increase the time until salivation begins and slowly decreases the amount of salivation. After many soundings of the bell without being followed by meat powder the holistic analysis can be quite certain that the bell will no longer be followed by the meat powder so discontinues salivating after the bell is sounded.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the greater the expectation the bell will be followed by the meat powder the stronger will be the conditioning of the salivation response. And the less the expectation the bell will be followed by the meat powder the more complete will be the extinction of the salivation response.

TINNY: Expectation is a word that relates better to human level consciousness, but generally that is the case.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This explains why the conditioned stimulus, the bell, must be presented just before the unconditioned stimulus, the meat powder, doesn't it?

TINNY: That's right. If the bell was sounded long before the meat powder was presented no connection between the two stimuli would be made in the holistic analysis. If the bell were sounded after the meat powder was presented it could not serve as a cue that the meat powder was forthcoming and so would not be considered relevant in the holistic analysis.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the dog had first been conditioned to respond by salivating to the bell stimulus, and then that response was fully extinguished by repeated presentations of the bell never followed by the meat powder, could you condition the dog a second time to salivate in response to the bell alone?

TINNY: You could, and the conditioning process would be quicker the second time.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why would the conditioning process be quicker the second time?

TINNY: It once again has to do with the holistic analysis taking place in the dog's brain. The first time the conditioning procedure was experienced information regarding the bell was not included in the holistic analysis. It took a number of pairings of the bell and the meat powder for the bell to become a relevant factor in the holistic analysis. After the salivation response to the bell was completely extinguished the information regarding the bell remained in the memory, but when the holistic analysis took place it was no longer considered a relevant factor. The second time the conditioning procedure was done, with meat powder once again being presented shortly after the ringing of the bell, the holistic analysis recalling the past relevance of the bell does not take so long to accept the knowledge the meat powder will be forthcoming after the bell has rung.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would happen if the dog underwent three, four or more similar conditioning procedures?

TINNY: Each time the conditioning procedure is begun anew the dog would learn more quickly to respond to the bell stimulus by salivating.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How quick could this conditioning procedure become?

TINNY: The conditioning procedure could eventually become so efficient that presenting the meat powder right after the bell was rung just one time would be enough to recondition the dog to salivate to the bell alone.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's awfully quick.

TINNY: Learning, given the right circumstances, can be a very efficient process. Each time the dog is reconditioned the accumulated information stored in memory enables the holistic analysis to reach a conclusion more quickly about whether or not the bell is a true cue as to whether the meat powder is forthcoming.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If each time the conditioning procedure is begun anew it occurs more quickly, does the same hold true for the extinction procedure?

TINNY: It does. Each time the extinction procedure is begun anew the accumulated information stored in memory enables the holistic analysis to more quickly reach the conclusion that the bell no longer serves as a cue that meat powder is forthcoming.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this type of conditioning we have been discussing have a name?

TINNY: I know of at least three different names this process has been called. I usually think of it as classical conditioning because it was the first and simplest type of conditioning that came to be scientifically understood.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me a short explanation of classical conditioning?

TINNY: When you present a neutral stimulus shortly before some other stimulus, the unconditioned stimulus, which already has the ability to bring about a certain response, and this previously neutral stimulus, when presented alone, takes on the ability to elicit essentially that same response, classical conditioning has taken place.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Classical conditioning works with people also, doesn't it?

TINNY: It works the same way for all animals and human beings. The more highly developed the level of consciousness the more complex are the circumstances of the conditioning process. At the human level the holistic analysis is much more sophisticated and wide ranging than in any animal, therefore many more factors are included in the classical conditioning process.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could you give me an example of how classical conditioning occurs with human beings?

TINNY: There is a situation that sometimes occurs with young children that is very similar to the circumstances during the salivation experiment with the dog when classical conditioning was first discovered. This involves the situation where a young child is first taken to a doctor, perhaps to receive a painful treatment. The doctor might be wearing a white coat and be a friendly person whom the child likes at first meeting. While the doctor is treating the child the child experiences pain because of the treatment. The child responds to the painful stimulus by crying and trying to get away from the doctor, which is a common way in which young children respond to things that cause them pain. Now suppose a few months later the child goes to another doctor, as soon as this doctor appears wearing a white coat the child cries and tries to run away from the doctor. This time the child is responding to the white coat in the same way the pain had been responded to. The white coat was originally a neutral stimulus having no particular effect on the child. The pain was originally an unconditioned stimulus, a stimulus that naturally elicited crying and running away. When the white coat was paired with the pain, the white coat took on the ability of the pain to bring about crying and running away. The white coat became a conditioned stimulus which would elicit crying and running away on its own. Since the avoidance of harm is a survival tactic that has been incorporated into the genetic make-up of human beings, our brains are structured to learn anything that can aid us to avoid pain. The earlier we can recognise a situation that might cause us harm the more effectively we can avoid that harm. When the child first saw a doctor in a white coat, the white coat would have no special significance to the holistic analysis taking place in the child's brain. The child would respond to the doctor as to any other stranger. After being caused pain while being treated by the doctor the information about the circumstances of the pain was stored in the child's memory. The next time, when the child went to another doctor, the child perceiving the white coat matched this perception with the stored information regarding similar circumstances. The holistic analysis no longer considered the white coat to be a neutral stimulus but now understands the white coat as a cue that harm might be coming. The holistic analysis, which as part of its function advises action to avoid harm, indicates that crying and running away is the appropriate response to the situation.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the holistic analysis the same as the mind?

TINNY: The holistic analysis is one of the functions of consciousness; it is an aspect of mind, but it is not all that mind is.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In human beings is this holistic analysis conscious?

TINNY: At the human level the holistic analysis has both conscious and unconscious aspects. The lower the level of consciousness the more the holistic analysis is an unconscious process. The higher the level of consciousness the more the holistic analysis is a conscious process.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And when consciousness reaches perfection?

TINNY: At the level of perfected consciousness there are no unconscious processes. The holistic analysis is done with complete awareness. At this level there is nothing which is not perceived, nothing which is not correctly interpreted, and no information which is not known; perfect perception, perfect understanding, and perfect memory. As would be expected, the holistic analysis is then always perfectly logical and correct.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears that holistic analysis also envolves.

TINNY: There is nothing that does not envolve. The development of the holistic analysis can be traced back to the beginning of the physical universe as can all other things.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Classical conditioning seems to be a rather limited type of learning experience. It doesn't seem it could account for the great complexity of learning that takes place at either the animal or the human level.

TINNY: There is a much more comprehensive learning process than classical conditioning.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is this broader learning process called?

TINNY: Just as classical conditioning has several names, this greater learning process has several names. If I had to name this process I would call it operant conditioning.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is operant conditioning the most accepted name for this broad type of learning?

TINNY: It is.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you give me a brief explanation of operant conditioning?

TINNY: Operant conditioning, while not a very familiar term, is very commonly practiced in everyday life. Most of operant conditioning involves what we commonly call reward and punishment. Operant conditioning is a scientific way of looking at how that which follows a response affects that response in the future. Very simply if any response is followed by a reward that response will tend to increase in the future; and, if any response is followed by punishment that response will tend to decrease in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds both simple and logical.

TINNY: These laws of learning are always logical, but they can also be quite complex. There is much more to operant conditioning than those very simple descriptions of reward and punishment. There is no aspect of our lives not touched by these laws of learning. We must know these laws of learning to more perfectly manifest our great potential for freewill.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm looking forward to your explanation of all these laws of learning.

TINNY: There is so much to know about these laws of learning I almost don't know where to begin. This discussion will need many new terms defined, and examples given of these laws in practice. Luckily, since all knowledge is linked and all truth interconnected, all the varied aspects of operant conditioning will fall into place and allow a comprehensive understanding of the whole beyond the scope of my explanations.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps you could start by explaining how operant conditioning is different from classical conditioning.

TINNY: I could also tell you how they are the same, but I'll save that for later. The main difference between classical conditioning and operant conditioning is in the order in which the stimulus and the response occur. In classical conditioning the controlling stimulus occurs before the response. We say the stimulus elicits the response. In the example given, the dog really has no choice but to salivate when it has meat powder placed in its mouth. The stimulus of the meat powder very directly causes the salivation to occur. It is an involuntary response. After the dog is conditioned to salivate to the previously neutral stimulus of the bell it has very little choice in that situation either. In that case the salivation brought about by the bell is also involuntary. In classical conditioning it could be said the stimulus controls the response. What happens in operant conditioning is quite different. There is both a stimulus and a response involved in this type of learning also but they occur in a different sequence than in classical conditioning. Importantly, the stimulus has a different relationship with the response; it influences rather than controls. The response which is involved in operant conditioning is also very different in that it is voluntary, rather than involuntary as in classical conditioning.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If the sequence in which the stimulus and response occur is different, the stimulus must follow the response in operant conditioning.

TINNY: That's true. In operant learning the influencing stimulus comes after the response. The response, which is voluntary, is followed by a stimulus. Also, the nature of the stimulus which follows the response has an influence on the occurrence of that response in the future. The influence of the stimulus might result in more responses, less responses, or changed responses in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What does the word 'operant' mean?

TINNY: Operant means 'to operate upon'. It refers to the fact that all responses operate upon the environment. The change in the environment brought about by a response becomes the stimulus. All responses affect some change in the environment, and these changes in the environment will have some affect on the nature of the response in the future. That is why this type of learning is called operant conditioning. Operant conditioning is a description of the relationship between responses and the changes which follow those responses.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: When you use the word 'environment' what do you mean?

TINNY: Environment is one of the most inclusive words in our language. It has been used to describe all surrounding things, conditions, and influences. That definition is how I mean the word environment to be understood, with the exception of one word which I must remove.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which word would you remove from that definition of environment?

TINNY: I would have to take out the word "surrounding". The usual understanding of environment, as indicated by the word surrounding, implies the environment is everything which is external. It says the environment is that which surrounds me or that which surrounds you. I say my environment includes me and your environment included you. I define the environment as all things, conditions, and influences.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I don't see how it could rightly be otherwise.

TINNY: Later it will become clear how this misunderstanding of the true nature of the environment has restricted the potential of personal development.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'm sure it will. For now I would like to ask you to further explain a few more of the words you have already used. Some of these words you have already defined when you were explaining classical conditioning, but they seem to mean something different now that you are explaining operant conditioning.

TINNY: Which words are those?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In particular the words 'stimulus' and 'response'. You said a stimulus is something that brings about an action, and you said a response is a reaction to a stimulus.

TINNY: That's the way I defined them all right. I would stand by those definitions. It happens those definitions of 'stimulus' and 'response' fit particularly well with the way stimulus and response occur in classical conditioning, but those definitions I gave were general. They apply to stimulus and response in a much broader context than just classical conditioning. More generally, saying that a stimulus brings about a reaction means that it is perceived. Anything that can be perceived is a stimulus.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If perception is a reaction to a stimulus is perception then a response?

TINNY: Yes it is. A response is a reaction to a stimulus. A perception is a reaction to a stimulus. A perception is a form of response.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This is getting complicated. Every response is an action. Every action may be perceived. Anything that can be perceived is a stimulus. A response is also a stimulus.

TINNY: That's true. Every response is a stimulus.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And I suppose every stimulus is a response.

TINNY: That's true also, every stimulus is a response.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can this be?

TINNY: This is the nature of physical existence. Existence in the material plane is a sea of causality. Each action is affected by some stimulus; and each action, as soon as it occurs, becomes a stimulus that will provoke further action. Actually, each stimulus brings about innumerable responses and each response serves as innumerable stimuli.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: All of this because the physical universe is a dynamic web of inseparable energy patterns.

TINNY: Exactly. It is important to understand these laws of learning not as separate concepts but as an integral part of the unified theory of existence.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the same conditions are true in both the physical universe and in learning. Every stimulus will have some affect on future actions, and every action will have some affect on future stimuli.

TINNY: In classical conditioning the relationship between the stimulus and the response is most simple and most clear. A certain stimulus elicits a certain response. In operant conditioning the relationship with the stimulus is less simple and less clear. The laws of learning describe the different relationships between the stimulus and the response and the effects of those various relationships.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I understand the meaning of stimulus and response better now, but still not perfectly.

TINNY: Rather than defining a lot of new terms right now I'd like to start explaining these laws of learning and define the meaning of new words and concepts as they arise.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That will be fine.

TINNY: Virtually all of operant conditioning involves forms of reward or punishment. Reward is often referred to as reinforcement. In some circumstances the word 'reinforcement' is more appropriate than reward. Reinforcement always increases the probability that a response will occur in the future given similar circumstances. Punishment always decreases the probability that a response will occur in the future given similar circumstances. Reward increases responding; punishment decreases responding.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Perhaps a simple example of reinforcement and punishment would make these laws of learning easier to understand and discuss.

TINNY: As we discuss operant conditioning many of the examples I'll be giving will be about the learning experiences of animals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the basic laws of learning involved apply equally to human beings?

TINNY: The basic principles will be identical.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why don't you give only examples of human learning then?

TINNY: Because although the principles are identical the applications are made much more complex due to the high level of human consciousness. It is always easier to see and understand basic principles at the lower levels of material development. Don't worry though; I'll include plenty of examples of human learning experiences after we have covered the basic principles. All things must progress through a series of successive small steps. Learning is no exception.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: First then, an example of learning by reinforcement.

TINNY: There is one more thing I need to describe first. Since we want to discuss the basic principles as simply as possible we need an experimental situation where all the different parts of the learning process are obvious. To achieve this goal scientists have designed experimental chambers where animals can take part in these learning experiences.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kinds of animals take part in these learning experiments?

TINNY: When the experimental learning chambers are used they are usually restricted to four kinds of animals; pigeons, chickens, rats, and monkeys.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think its right to use those animals for these learning experiments?

TINNY: As in all relationships between humans and animals, if the experience is enjoyable and beneficial to the animal it should be alright.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will all of the experiments you'll be telling me about meet those requirements?

TINNY: Unfortunately no. Some of the experiments have been quite horrible. I could never do such things myself, and when the new worldview prevails researchers into learning will find ways to further knowledge without bringing harm to animals.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you feel alright using the knowledge that has been gained at the expense of the suffering of animals?

TINNY: Once new knowledge becomes part of the collective human consciousness it cannot be ignored. Truth is always independent of its source.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there anything intrinsically wrong in the use of these experimental learning chambers?

TINNY: Animals during their lives experience many different environmental circumstances just as people do. There is nothing wrong with an animal having the experience of being in an experimental learning chamber. As long as the animal is well treated and comes to no harm there is nothing wrong with the experience.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You can finish explaining the characteristics of these experimental chambers now

TINNY: These experimental chambers always contain at least three specific features - a mechanism which the animal can manipulate as its response; a means to provide the reinforcing or punishing stimulus, with food usually being used as the reinforcing stimulus; and, a visual or auditory signal, such as a light or buzzer, which can be used as a cue.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is a cue needed during these learning situations?

TINNY: It will be clear as soon as I describe the operant learning situation.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What kind of mechanism is used that the animal manipulates as it responds?

TINNY: For rats and monkeys there is usually a lever that they can press. For pigeons and chickens there is a disc they can peck. The cue is usually a light which can be switched on or off. Sometimes it can be switched to different colours. In the experimental chambers used for pigeons and chickens the light is usually behind the disc that the birds peck. In the chambers used for rats and monkeys the light is usually placed above the lever.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is the food given to the animal as a reward?

TINNY: Pigeons and chickens are usually given bird seed which is in a little container called a food hopper. The hopper is concealed behind a wall and moves into place so the birds can eat for a few seconds each time reinforcement is given. Rats get food pellets and monkeys receive small pieces of fruit in a similar manner.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think I have a fair idea now of what these experimental chambers are like.

TINNY: Good, now I can describe a very simple example of learning through reinforcement. If a rat enters one of these learning chambers for the first time it will wander around and explore its new surroundings. This is a natural behaviour with rats. Somewhat humanising the rat's motivation, you could say it was inquisitive. It might take several minutes, but eventually the rat will press the lever during its exploration. The action of pressing the lever is the response to be conditioned by operant means. If immediately after the rat presses the lever it is given, or you might say rewarded with, a food pellet it will soon spend all its time in the cage pressing the lever, at least as long as it is hungry. This would be the simplest type of reinforcement possible. In this example the response is lever pressing and reinforcing stimulus is food. Each time the rat presses the lever it is immediately given a food pellet. As I described operant conditioning, it is concerned with how the events which follow a response affect the nature of that response in the future. In this example of reinforcement each response of lever pressing is followed by the presentation of the positive stimulus, food. Being given food after each lever press increases the amount of lever pressing that the rat engages in.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does being given food after each lever press cause the rat to press the lever more often?

TINNY: That is an important point to understand. The food does not cause the rat to press the lever more often. It is the internal condition of the rat that causes the increase in lever pressing.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears that the food elicits lever pressing.

TINNY: Things are often not as they appear. If it was true that the food caused lever pressing the rat would have no choice but to press the lever. In this situation, though, the rat should be thought of as choosing to press the lever. Instead of the food eliciting the response, it is more accurate to say that the rat emits a response which is followed by the presentation of food.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How is the word 'emit' different from the word 'elicit'?

TINNY: 'Elicit' means to bring about, implying external control. The word 'emit' means to send out, implying internal control.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any way to prove that lever pressing is a voluntary response chosen by the rat rather than an involuntary response caused by the food.

TINNY: It can be shown quite clearly. The learning situation in this example will only result in increased lever pressing if the rat is hungry. If the rat had eaten its fill just before entering the experimental chamber the food pellets, which followed the few lever presses that naturally occur as the rat explored its new environment, would have had no effect on how often the lever was pressed. The rat would not spend all its time standing by the lever pressing it. I think this can best be explained by looking at the holistic analysis taking place in the rat's brain during these experiences. To a hungry rat obtaining food will be a primary consideration of this holistic analysis. Anything which provides a means to obtain food is valuable information during this period. Before the rat first presses the lever the holistic analysis includes no relationship between lever pressing and obtaining food. As soon as lever pressing is immediately followed by food a connection between the two begins to form. At first the holistic analysis cannot be certain the response of lever pressing will be followed by food so the rate of lever pressing does not increase greatly. Since rats are fast learners it doesn't take very many instances when food follows lever pressing for the holistic analysis to become quite certain of the relationship between the two. You could say the rat has learned a way to obtain food. As long as the rat is hungry the holistic analysis will continue providing advice that the lever pressing is an appropriate response which will obtain food. When the rat is no longer hungry the information that food can be obtained by lever pressing remains stored in memory, but now the holistic analysis is no longer concerned with obtaining food. Now the holistic analysis would advise that lever pressing was not of benefit. Rats, just as most animals, do not act unless it is for some benefit. The rat would no longer press the lever very often.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How about if the rat was in the chamber long enough to get hungry again?

TINNY: The stored information indicating food could be obtained by pressing the lever would be available to the holistic analysis. When once again interested in getting food the rat has learned and remembered what to do to get food. If it became hungry the holistic analysis would advise pressing the lever to obtain food. The rat would once again begin pressing the lever at some high rate.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I see what you meant when you said it was not the food that caused the rat to press the lever, but that it was some inner condition of the rat that caused it to press the lever.

TINNY: The food has an influence, but it is not a cause. The holistic analysis taking place in the rat's brain evaluates all the pertinent factors, certainly including the rat's immediate need for food. It is this holistic analysis which mediates the degree of influence the food will be allowed.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem that the holistic analysis has something to do with freewill.

TINNY: The holistic analysis is a critical factor in the degree to which freewill can be expressed at all levels of material development.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain once again what is included in the holistic analysis?

TINNY: The holistic analysis is a dynamic process, it is always undergoing change. Any form of material existence is constantly receiving many stimuli from the environment. If the particular material form is a rat, as in the example we have been discussing, the holistic analysis takes place mainly in the brain. There are many stimuli reaching the rat. These stimuli are received by the rat's sensory nerves and transmitted to the brain. The brain interprets these sensory inputs and matches them with appropriate memory storage. This interaction between perception, interpretation, and the stored information of memory results in an evaluation of all these factors in relation to the general conditions and circumstances of the rat. This process is best thought of as a holistic analysis.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there any difference at the human level?

TINNY: In addition to perception, interpretation, and memory, which are the crucial factors at the animal level, self-reflective consciousness is included at the human level.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How does this addition of self-reflective consciousness affect the holistic analysis?

TINNY: Self-reflective consciousness allows a much greater range of variables to be considered by the holistic analysis which takes place in the human brain. This self-reflective consciousness becomes, in effect, another source of environmental influence. The effect of self-reflective consciousness is the third factor of environmental influence, inner speech.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this the reason you felt it necessary to define environment as including the self?

TINNY: That is why. Self-reflective consciousness provides a new source of stimuli which are perceived, interpreted, and matched against previously stored information during the holistic analysis, in just the same manner as the external stimuli.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this why a human being has a greater degree of freewill than an animal?

TINNY: It is for exactly that reason. The complexity and sophistication of the holistic analysis determines the degree to which freewill can be manifested.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does any holistic analysis take place in material forms below the animal level?

TINNY: Plants, molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles all have holistic analysis as one of their natural characteristics.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But none of those levels of material form have a brain.

TINNY: The brain is not necessary to the process of holistic analysis. The holistic analysis takes place within each level of material existence in whatever is the most appropriate structure of that particular form. In humans and most animals the brain is the focus of conscious activity and therefore is the most appropriate site for holistic analysis to take place.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: By the definition of consciousness, which is the ability to perceive and react appropriately to the environment, it can be seen that all levels of material existence, even atoms and subatomic particles, manifest the characteristics of perception. Can it also be the case that these very simple levels of physical existence manifest the characteristics of interpretation and storage of information?

TINNY: Holistic analysis at the human levels includes those three functions; perception, interpretation, and storage of information. In addition at the human level, self-reflective consciousness becomes a new and critical factor in the holistic analysis. At the animal level, holistic analysis while including perception, interpretation, and information storage, does not include fully expressed self-reflective consciousness. This is not to say that the precursors of self-reflective consciousness do not exist at the animal level and are involved in the holistic analysis. In the levels of physical existence below the animal, perception, interpretation, and storage of information are less fully expressed, to varying degrees, than at the animal level. This is not to say that the precursors of perception, interpretation, and information storage do not exist at all those lower levels, be they plant, molecule, atom, or subatomic particle; and, that they are all involved in the process of holistic analysis.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And at each of those levels the degree of freewill which can be expressed is determined by how fully developed are the characteristics of perception, interpretation, and information storage. At every level of physical existence the degree of freewill expressed is determined by the complexity and sophistication of the holistic analysis.

TINNY: That's true. Even an electron uses holistic analysis to react appropriately to the simple sources of environmental influence which it can perceive. Its range of perception is so limited and its range of appropriate action so restricted that it expresses virtually no freewill. At the human level the range of perception is so wide and the range of appropriate action so broad that the degree of freewill expressed surpasses for the first time the influence of external causes. At both the animal and human level the laws of learning describe the relationship between the conscious, living organism and the environmental influences.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It becomes very useful in understanding these laws of learning to understand the concept of holistic analysis.

TINNY: It should be remembered that holistic analysis is a conceptual tool to aid understanding, and not a thing in itself. The concept of holistic analysis was neglected in the early theories of learning. This omission resulted in an inability to realise the full potential of the application of these learning principles to the happiness of the individual, to the betterment of society, and to the progression of the human species.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: As you describe various examples of operant conditioning I will always try to include the holistic analysis in my understanding of them.

TINNY: In the simple example of reinforcement we were discussing, it is necessary to have some idea of the holistic analysis to know whether the learning process will be successful. If you intend to reward a rat with food for pressing a lever you must know whether or not the holistic analysis will consider the food worth working for. If the rat is not hungry, food will not be desirable; food could not be considered a positive stimulus in that situation.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Positive stimulus is a new term. There must also be such a thing as negative stimulus.

TINNY: A positive stimulus is something which is desired and a negative stimulus is something to be avoided. A negative stimulus is usually called aversive.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there also a neutral stimulus?

TINNY: A neutral stimulus would be one that was neither desired nor avoided.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I would have thought that food could always be considered a positive stimulus, but it became clear that to a rat which had just eaten its fill food would then be a neutral stimulus.

TINNY: It would be possible that if someone had just overeaten to the point of feeling sick, food could even become an aversive stimulus.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It would seem that no stimulus is intrinsically positive, neutral, or aversive.

TINNY: Whether a stimulus is positive, neutral or aversive is not determined by the stimulus itself, but by whoever perceives the stimulus. It is the holistic analysis which determines whether a stimulus is positive, neutral, or aversive. It is usually fairly easy to determine what will be considered a positive or negative stimulus by an animal because their holistic analysis does not include self-reflective consciousness. With human beings it sometimes becomes extremely difficult to judge what might be considered a positive or aversive stimulus. It seems some people will desire what the vast majority find most aversive; and some will be repulsed by what the vast majority find most attractive. These seeming discrepancies are due to the compelling and largely unrestricted influence of self-reflective consciousness on the human holistic analysis.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Since holistic analysis is an internal process, how is it possible to know whether a stimulus will be considered as positive, neutral, or aversive if you intend to use that stimulus to condition a response?

TINNY: Of course you can never know for sure without presenting the stimulus after the response and looking at the effect on that response. Practically, though, it is possible to know through two general means. First, there are many stimuli that are almost invariably perceived as positive or aversive. The other way to know, before conditioning, the positive or aversive character of the stimulus is to be aware of the past circumstances of the animal or person you are working with. Virtually any rat who had not eaten for a whole day would consider food to be a very positive stimulus. By knowing the past circumstances it is possible to predict quite accurately what the internal condition will be and to know the likely outcome of the holistic analysis.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be true to say that positive stimuli always increase the probability of the response occurring in the future, and negative stimuli always decrease the probability of the response occurring in the future? In other words, does reinforcement always involve a positive stimulus, and does punishment always involve a negative stimulus?

TINNY: That sounds quite reasonable, but in fact is not true. Reward and punishment are not determined by what type of stimulus is involved, but are defined by their affect on the responses they follow. Regardless of whether the stimulus is positive or aversive, reinforcement always increases the probability of the response occurring in the future; and, punishment, regardless of whether the stimulus is positive or aversive, always decreases the probability of the response occurring in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can a negative stimulus be involved conditioning a response increase; and, how can a positive stimulus be involved in conditioning a response decrease?

TINNY: There are basically four types of operant conditioning, two of reinforcement and two of punishment. Reinforcement can involve either a positive or negative stimulus; and punishment can involve either a positive or negative stimulus. The most familiar type of reinforcement involves a positive stimulus occurring after the response; and, the most familiar type of punishment involves a negative stimulus occurring after the response. When a response is followed by a positive stimulus that response tends to increase in the future. If we do anything that gets us something we want we are more likely to do that thing again in the future. When a response is followed by an aversive stimulus that response tends to decrease in the future. When we do anything that brings us something we don't like we are less likely to do that thing again in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That leaves unexplained one type of reinforcement which involves a negative stimulus, and one type of punishment that involves a positive stimulus.

TINNY: Reinforcement which involves a positive stimulus is called positive reinforcement; so quite logically reinforcement that involves a negative stimulus is called negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement occurs when the response removes an already present aversive stimulus. When a response removes an aversive stimulus that response tends to increase in the future. If we do anything that stops something we don't like we are more likely to do that thing again in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: And how can a positive stimulus be involved in punishment?

TINNY: Punishment that involves a negative stimulus has no special name, but it could be called presentation punishment since a negative stimulus is presented after the response. This would allow punishment that involves a positive stimulus to quite logically be called withdrawal punishment. Withdrawal punishment occurs when the response removes an already present positive stimulus. When a response removes a positive stimulus that response tends to decrease in the future. If we do anything that stops something we like we are less likely to do that thing again in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Let me be sure I have all this straight. Operant conditioning falls into four main types. They are positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, presentation punishment, and withdrawal punishment.

TINNY: That's right. Most of the complex types of operant conditioning are variations and combinations of those four simple relationships between some response and a positive or aversive stimulus.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Reinforcement always increases the response being conditioned. Reinforcement can occur with either a positive or a negative stimulus. In positive reinforcement the response is always followed by a positive stimulus. In negative reinforcement the response always removes an already existing negative stimulus.

TINNY: That's correct. No matter whether a positive or negative stimulus is involved, reinforcement always results in an increase in the likelihood of the response being conditioned occurring in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Punishment always decreases the response being conditioned. Punishment can occur with either a positive or negative stimulus. In presentation punishment the response is always followed by a negative stimulus. In withdrawal punishment the response always removes an already existing positive stimulus.

TINNY: That's right. No matter whether a positive or negative stimulus is involved punishment always results in a decrease in the likelihood of the response being conditioned occurring in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there a word that refers to the relationship that exists between the response and the following stimulus in all these different types of operant conditioning?

TINNY: There is a very good word which describes that relationship. The word is 'contingent', which refers to a dependent relationship. In the example of positive reinforcement, where the rat was conditioned to press the lever by receiving a food pellet each time it pressed the lever, you could say that receiving the food pellet was contingent on the response of pressing the lever. Getting a food pellet depended on pressing the lever. In negative reinforcement the removal of the aversive stimulus is contingent on, or depends on some certain response. In presentation punishment the occurrence of the aversive stimulus is contingent on some certain response. And, in withdrawal punishment the removal of the positive stimulus is contingent on some certain response.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think that word 'contingent' will be helpful as we talk about various types of operant conditioning.

TINNY: It is quite a useful word for describing these learning situations. When these conditioning procedures are set up it could be said you arrange the contingencies. You arrange the dependent relationships in which various stimuli will follow certain responses. By setting up these contingent relationships you can determine which responses will be conditioned and what effect that conditioning will have on the responses.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think that will become clearer as you give more examples of operant conditioning.

TINNY: I'll ask you some questions to see how well you understand what we've discussed about operant conditioning so far.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That will be interesting.

TINNY: Operant conditioning can be used to influence not only the probability of a response occurring in the future, but it can also influence how often the response occurs. The influence of reinforcement results in higher rates of responding and the influence of punishment results in lower rates of responding. In these experimental situations this response rate provides a good simple measure of the effectiveness of the conditioning process.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The rate of responding does seem to be an easy way to measure the changes which result from conditioning procedures.

TINNY: In the example of a rat in an experimental chamber, what would happen to the rate at which the rat pressed the lever if after each lever press the rat received a food pellet?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can I assume the rat is hungry?

TINNY: Yes, I should have mentioned that as one of the conditions.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then the rate of the lever pressing would increase.

TINNY: What type of operant conditioning would that particular contingency be?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It was an example of positive reinforcement.

TINNY: How might what is occurring in the holistic analysis be described?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In human terms the rat might be saying, "I'm hungry and I want to get some food. There seems to be a contingent relationship between pressing this lever and getting food. Each time I press the lever out pops a food pellet. The appearance of the food pellet must depend on pressing the lever. I'll press the lever more often and get more food".

TINNY: That's a good answer. It's easier to describe the holistic analysis in human terms since rats don't have a symbolic language to think with.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I do realise, though, that the holistic analysis is much more than simple thoughts. It involves subtle perceptions, intricate interpretations, and complex memories.

TINNY: And much of it is subconscious.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I'll still continue to answer questions about holistic analysis as if it were a human thought process.

TINNY: Would you give me an example of positive reinforcement in human learning?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: If a young child was lonely at night and its mother was in another room the child might cry. If this situation had never happened before the child would not know that its mother would come in because of the crying. Right after the child begins crying its mother comes into the room. Crying is the response that is followed by the mother's entry into the room. The mother's presence is a positive stimulus. In the future the child would be more likely to cry when it wants its mother.

TINNY: That is an interesting example of positive reinforcement. In that example the response of crying which is being reinforced may become a problem in the future.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: This would indicate that not only desirable behaviour can be increased by reinforcement, but undesirable behaviour can also be increased by reinforcement.

TINNY: Operant conditioning is a description of a process. Processes tend to be amoral. They do not distinguish between right and wrong. It becomes the responsibility of those involved in the process to do so for the right ends.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I can see how important that responsibility must be.

TINNY: Now before I ask the next question I want to add one more feature to the experimental chamber.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is that to be?

TINNY: The floor of the cage is hooked up so that it can give an electric shock.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That doesn't sound like a very nice thing to do.

TINNY: I don't think it's very nice either, but it has actually been done.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you have one of these experimental learning chambers?

TINNY: I have one, but mine doesn't have a floor that can give an electric shock. Mine can only be used for positive reinforcement; but more about that later. Now I want to ask you what would happen to the rate of lever pressing if each time the rat pressed the lever it received an electric shock?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The response rate would decrease quickly until the rat would not press the lever at all.

TINNY: What type of operant conditioning would that particular contingency be?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That was an example of presentation punishment.

TINNY: How might what is occurring in the holistic analysis be described?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: One of the survival tactics innate in rats, and all other animals, is taking appropriate action to avoid pain. When pain is perceived the holistic analysis seeks to determine what action may have brought about that pain. Since the avoidance of harm is of such crucial importance to all animals the holistic analysis tends to become quickly aware of the relationship that may occur between any response and pain. The relationship between pressing the lever and the electric shock would not go unnoticed. Even though the holistic analysis would not have enough information to be certain of the connection between pressing the lever and the pain experienced, advice would be given that, unless there were other compelling reasons to press the lever, even an uncertain relationship was sufficient to consider lever pressing too great a risk.

TINNY: How many times do you think the rat would press the lever if it received a shock each time?

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Probably not more than two and possibly only one. Perhaps this survival mechanism is the basis of the proverb; once bitten, twice shy.

TINNY: I wouldn't be surprised. That proverb seems to convey the appropriate reaction to this type of conditioning process. If I was in the rat's place I'd be pretty leery of touching the lever a second time.

PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be generally true that conditioning takes place more quickly in situations w