I'm weak on any programming side. What I consider is how computers might be a vehicle for conceptual modeling: especially conceptual modeling (emotional and intellectual) which has existential outcome; as it has for, for example, with the mentally ill, and pioneers in disciplines (such as Newton, Einstein, Freud, Socrates and Jesus).
The pioneers are able to cope with the empirical reworking involved in their modeling: those who crash emotionally are not; the processing entailed proves beyond their capacity.
What is see as crucial are what I might call global triggers: where a heuristic modeling in which a subject engages, and which goes critical in terms of its grasp of a whole situation in which they are involved through identity; triggers changes in the whole that they are, which sees it difficult for them to continue to be part of collective process, or sees things happening within them which they cannot map.
As a dyslexic I can get what I would call "brain fudge": where the feedback from trying to negotiate my dyslexic perspectives into play in a setting, leads to me drawing in my "emotions", in manner which degrades my intellectual capacity. It’s psychological and intellectual, but it’s also glandular and such: an alteration in perspective, in how I articulate with something; can see alteration in cerebral firing, and in secretion production. Again, there is a holistic aspect to this that has to do with the bio-chemistry of the human body.
When you get this interaction between your bio-chemistry, and the frames of reference of your intra-process, and your inter-actional process with collective: then you no longer have the constancy of self that many modelings of human psychology presume.
Before computers, both in terms of processing power, and in terms of massive data increase through interactive participation by many folk: the modeling of such process, was just beyond what we could cope with, collectively; whereas now, we have the processing power to do modeling on incredible scale, and the interactive aspect it enables in modern life demands such modeling be done.
So many of the cited articles in New Developments bear on this. Pollywollydoodle's: Cognitive remediation in schizophrenia
www.psychiatrysource.com/psychsource/Case_Studies/article1253.htm;sees modeling actually being done in clinical setting.
I would suggest that this clinical setting modeling is limited by its setting: the psychosis of the free would differ from the psychosis of a subject under hospitalisation; in the clinical modeling, the doctoral assumption and hermetic are implicit datums; in real world modeling, both the subject's and the doctoral hermetic and assumption would have to be equally modeled.
Virtual modeling would enable people, who might otherwise come to take up alternate stances (for example: we were right/wrong to invade Iraq as we did, or R.D. Laing was a pioneer/plonker, or Freud opened up horizons for psychology/took it into a cul de sac, Scargill destroyed the miner's union/stood for it's eternal values, free market's are good/bad): to log the parameters and grounds of that perspective in which they might disagree; such that you have binary choices, which can take you to one or the other. What human beings end up compressing, and by means of which they then do violence to each others: can be explicated, uncompressed, and mapped to indicate the binary choice points, which take people to seemingly mutually exclusive postures and hermetics.
I would imagine that what I imagine here, is what tolerant people of reasonable bent have always hearkened to: only, through an intuitive grasp of what computing might offer, simply because the technology is now just there; you begin to sense just how data and processing load that sees us ordinary souls buckle at points, would be meat and drink to computers.
I suppose what I'm considering, for a vulnerable constituency of folk: is a scale of exploitation and development of computing, in terms of the inclusive occurrence and needs of this constituency; that industry and administration and science and technology have had for decades.
Imagine if, instead of serving industry and governance and institutionalised understanding: all that has been involved in computer development since 1984; had been trying to model and inclusively serve the mentally ill (someone give me a better term). What would the applications have looked like: what OS development would have been market driven; what hardware development would have been market driven.
So, I think the key is globals, global triggers. Modeling assumption process: where psychosis, for example, would seen as a resolving self-management strategy; where there is indicated scope, and in terms of a dynamic modeling of this strategy in context, for any subject to ongoingly reappraise what they do through recourse to such strategy.
Where "cure" of psychosis would occur: where you showed a subject dynamically (in virtual simulation), that at points of binary decision, they had alternates, alternate resolving strategies; the subject could then decide, and perhaps in terms of considerations not yet assimilated to the virtual modeling, to continue with, or abandon strategy which the virtual modeling indicated had risk of psychotic outcome fro the subject.