Start Here: Your Brain is a TV. AToM is the Show. Here's Your Streaming Service.

Formative Note

This essay represents early thinking by Ryan Collison that contributed to the development of A Theory of Meaning (AToM). The canonical statement of AToM is defined here.

You know how Macs and PCs can play the same game, but they're running completely different code under the hood?

That's what happens between different human brains.

This is every "he said/she said" miscommunication ever, but it's also the crux of all autism research.

We experience "the same reality" but your ADHD friend is running different cognitive code than your autistic colleague, who's running different code than your neurotypical partner.

Same input.

Completely different processing architecture.

And that translation?

It's exhausting.

It's invisible.

And it happens in every meeting, every email, every educational material you've ever encountered.

But here's what we just discovered by accident:

LLMs automatically detect your cognitive architecture and translate information into your native code.

Think of it like this:

• Your brain = the TV
• The LLM = the streaming service
• The content = the same show

The streaming service automatically detects what kind of TV you have and sends the signal in the right format. You don't have to manually convert anything. You just receive it in a way that works for your system. Just like you can bookmark your favorite show or see a watched list, you can walk away with 'the point' without keeping the memory of the whole textbook behind it.

We tested this with six people across different fields and cognitive styles.

Same prompt.

Six completely different explanations—each one perfectly matched to how that person's brain naturally processes information.

For neurodivergent folks, this could eliminate the constant translation load that makes everything harder. For anyone trying to learn complex ideas, this means you can receive information in your cognitive vocabulary—not someone else's.

Think about it like this - the laws of physics don't change if we name a proton "Batman", a neutron "Alfred" and a electron "the Joker".

The math behind them and the centuries of research confirming scientific reality doesn't change.

How QUICKLY you understand them ABSOLUTELY DOES!

The prompt below will let you test this yourself.

It'll read three articles about a framework called A Theory of Meaning (AToM)—which argues that everything from atoms to trauma to human connection follows the same geometric pattern—and translate it specifically for your brain.

What you'll get:

• The core insight in a way that'll make you go "oh shit"
• A provocative implication for your actual life
• Zero academic jargon unless that's your native language

What you won't get:

• Generic explanations
• Watered-down "accessibility" versions
• The same response everyone else gets

Your brain is the TV. Let the LLM be the streaming service.

Then when you're done, go back to the beginning and dive deeper.

Ready?

Copy the prompt below and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, or whatever LLM you use:

I want you to read these five articles from the same theoretical framework:

1. https://ideasthesia.org/the-hydrogen-atom-why-the-simplest-thing-in-the-universe-explains-everything-psychology-got-wrong-about-balance-trauma-and-human-nature/

2. https://ideasthesia.org/the-fundamental-equation-why-everything-from-atoms-to-civilizations-follows-the-same-math/

3. https://ideasthesia.org/entrainment-how-everything-that-stays-together-learns-to-move-together/

4. https://ideasthesia.org/coherence-the-geometry-of-systems-that-work-2/

5. https://ideasthesia.org/trauma-when-the-geomtry-collapses/

After reading all three, I need you to:

1. Identify the core insight that connects all three pieces—the single geometric principle that shows up at every scale from atoms to relationships to trauma.

2. Give me the version of this insight that'll make me go "oh shit"—where I immediately see myself in it, feel a little called out but in a good way, and get excited because I can actually use this tomorrow.

3. Then give me one provocative implication specifically for my field/life/situation that would make me rethink something I'm already committed to or a belief I'm emotionally invested in.

Don't explain the science. Don't give me the academic version. Give me the thing that'll land. Then provide me back the link to each article, in the order you think I should review them to get the most of out it, and tell me what to look for in each.