hearing voices
Leon
THE BORG
"Leon" <leon...@antispam.zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:hd6qbm$hu6$3...@aioe.org...
> Is someone hearing voices a mad person?
Not necessarily.
It is estimated about 5 per cent of the population hear
voices.
THE BORG
ck
If i whispered in your ear when you had no reason to suspect
me doing this, would i count as one of those voices?
Put another way, it is possible to 'unlearn' what most take
for granted. The ability to filter the world to those necessary
perceptions, is our natural state. However it is possible to
undermine or unlearn this state, with the same ease, as you
adapt to any new function of biology.
Be weary of those who pounce on a natural or heightened state
of learning, to hi-jack the core function of conditioning,
for their own ends. In their company a false threshold of
expectation can persist, where there is no other explanation.
There is nothing so mystical as knowledge in the hands of a
few, and no imagination for truth.
kalkidas
No. They're simply not deaf.
THE BORG
"kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:hd71nu$r6u$1...@aioe.org...
He means "inner voices".
i.e. you can hear those even if you are deaf.
THE BORG
Leon
>
> It is estimated about 5 per cent of the population hear voices.
>
You understood what I meant.
You hear these stories about mad people that are misguided by these
inner voices. So it could be wise not to trust these voices.
But it might also be the voice of your conscience speaking, or a
trustworthy, helfull alter-ego.
But what people don't know, they don't trust.
It seems to me the problem is not the voices, but the mistrusting.
The reaction to the voices, a kind of confusion.
What can be done about that?
THE BORG
You can only use your own personal judgement.
If a voice tells you to push someone under a train, harm a
small child, steal an item in a shop then you must THINK
THINK THINK and use your judgement.
No one really knows what these voices are, whether they are
born of the mind in that the mind is a huge undiscovered
territory where no one understands how the mind works.
Or whether they may be demons, spirits, or even Aliens!!!
But with anything you see or hear, that you know
traditionally is not really there, then you must use your
judgement to ascertain what to do.
If you merely obey the voices, then you may murder someone,
or take a job you do not want, or eat baked beans on toast
when you prefer a fried egg.
Judgement is crucial in life.
In the case of George Bush who heard a voice telling him to
bomb Iraq he should have used his judgement and KNOWN this
was the wrong thing to do.
He thought the voice was the voice of "God", but many
murder, kill and maim thinking they hear the voice of "God"
when it may be insanities or demons or spirits or any one of
a number of reasons. No one knows.
Best thing is to do what YOU think is right. Use your
judgement and do what is good, what is right, and as long as
you do not harm anyone else, then no problem.
In many cases, those who once heard voices, say that if they
ignore them they often go away.
THE BORG
THE BORG
"THE BORG" <bo...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:bfEJm.4284$JI4....@newsfe21.ams2...
This does not mean that all voice hearers hear BAD voices.
Some love to hear their voices.
You often hear the expression "A little voice told
me................"
And some view these voice as an "add on" or "enhancement"
and they prefer to hear them and live quite happily with
them.
But some are tormented by them or hear bad voices, or in
some cases "command voices" ordering them and telling them
to do things.
In extreme cases, there are sedatives and drugs you can take
that do help in cases of bad voices or for those who are
tormented by them.
Hearing voices is not really insanity, there are a lot more
symptoms apart from hearing voices.
One percent of the population is insane (suffer from
schizophrenia).
Five percent of the population hears voices.
THE BORG
Leon
> Judgement is crucial in life.
Thank you.
I'm indecisive, a kind of donkey of Buridanus.
A new job closer to my home, I don't have to use the car anymore - good
for the environment.
An old job with people depending on me. They could get in trouble if I
leave.
My heart says to care for the people close by first. But I'm not sure if
I can cope with the distance every day in traffic jams.
This is the background of my question. I usually THINK THINK THINK
before following any suggestion whatsoever.
But I also have to cope with a low amount of trust in anyone.
bigfl...@gmail.com
> "Leon" <leonh...@antispam.zonnet.nl> wrote in message
Except for the profoundly deaf, 100% hear voices. It is what is being
said that needs assesing.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> THE BORG wrote:
>
> > "Leon" <leonh...@antispam.zonnet.nl> wrote in message
Do you apply the same explaination to inner visions?.
Hi-jacking is not the motive of all with metaphysical explaination, in
fact many would appreciate the futility of that approach. Trying to
convince others in such ways, demonstrates a limited recognition of
your own realization.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
You have already taken a big step towards the solution byt eh depth of
your questions.
Many times , the greatest trauma to your stability, is believing
people who you 'do' trust. Not that they have necessarily mislead you
purposefully.
The 'bottom line' being, whatever the source of voices, it is
ultimately you who decides to respond or not. You will always have to
use your own level of discrimination, but each time you do, that
level improves.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
You win if you do and you win if you dont.
BOfL
Giga
"Leon" <leon...@antispam.zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:hd6qbm$hu6$3...@aioe.org...
> Is someone hearing voices a mad person?
All people are 'mad' to some extent. None of us is perfect or perceives
things always in the best way. I suspect hearing voices in your head would
be a sign of a misfunctioning of the brain, on a physical level. Whether tis
misfuction would necessarily lead you to greater sanity or insanity is
perhaps not predetermined, but up to how you respond to this new situation.
From what you have written it sounds like you are responding to it very
constructively. You ask the question,'does the mere fact of hearing voices
mean you are mad (lets say you meant rerally really off the wall)'. Also you
ask in another post if these voices are parts of your own personality, which
is surely the most likely explanation, and a rational thoiught. Over all
many people who do not hear voices are not as rational and together as you
seem to be, I suspect. And by that standard are less sane.
ZerkonXXXX
> Is someone hearing voices a mad person?
Conscience has voices.
Leon
> All people are 'mad' to some extent. None of us is perfect or perceives
> things always in the best way. I suspect hearing voices in your head would
> be a sign of a misfunctioning of the brain, on a physical level. Whether tis
> misfuction would necessarily lead you to greater sanity or insanity is
> perhaps not predetermined, but up to how you respond to this new situation.
> From what you have written it sounds like you are responding to it very
> constructively. You ask the question,'does the mere fact of hearing voices
> mean you are mad (lets say you meant rerally really off the wall)'. Also you
> ask in another post if these voices are parts of your own personality, which
> is surely the most likely explanation, and a rational thoiught. Over all
> many people who do not hear voices are not as rational and together as you
> seem to be, I suspect. And by that standard are less sane.
>
A voice within that helps to solve problems in relation to work is very
helpfull. It is clearly a factor of success. But it is easy to mistrust
this kind of enhancement as being a strategy to become more and more
dependant on an "external authority", if that should be the case.
It's very important to be able to give such an experience a story that
explains bits of it. The easiest way is to pose a God or Angels.
But I cannot find comfort in that. It could also be the voice of your
neighbour, translated after some experiences with this neighbour into a
voice that relates to you. I myself am aware of being such a voice in
others too. This means a responsibility, clearly.
Time doesn't seem to be such a continuum then also.
I cannot see this as a misfunctioning. But I cannot see myself as very
sane also.
Leon
>> Is someone hearing voices a mad person?
>
> Conscience has voices.
I belief it does.
Leon
>> But I also have to cope with a low amount of trust in anyone.
>
> You win if you do and you win if you dont.
A positive statement. I am not an individual though, if I ( as an
individual) win, someone else loses. I am one with the one who loses.
Leon
> The 'bottom line' being, whatever the source of voices, it is
> ultimately you who decides to respond or not. You will always have to
> use your own level of discrimination, but each time you do, that
> level improves.
A challange is not to come up with a story that explains it all. In
these times those stories are too often filled with technology, drugs,
complots. I find myself thinking these stories over and over. And I have
to reject them all.
John Jones
> Is someone hearing voices a mad person?
depends on who you tell.
ck
In my example, motive is everything. This isn't about
enlightenment or expanding consciousness, but about a
brutes idea of control. This is about a form of habit,
before it ever about reason.
When i talk of those who might 'pounce' or those who
'hi-jack' our biological mechanisms of adaption, i speak
of misguided idea of control. The effects of this control
is further hidden in the crazy expectations, the statics
of non answers which dominates as culture.
Instead of learning with the potential for greater
realization, which might proliferate at these times,
one has this mechanism of 'unlearning'.
The types employing this control, the unwitting disciples
of this meta-religion, don't care about the pursuits
of truth, or the metaphysical. What they practice is a
controlled founded on ignorance. They can't know what
they do, or why, they are simply engaged with the habits
from which springs their obedience. All seems natural
to the latest.
The inner vision you speak of, is a song compared to
the rhythms of this crude drum.
Giga
> Giga <Giga schreef:
>
>> All people are 'mad' to some extent. None of us is perfect or perceives
>> things always in the best way. I suspect hearing voices in your head
>> would be a sign of a misfunctioning of the brain, on a physical level.
>> Whether tis misfuction would necessarily lead you to greater sanity or
>> insanity is perhaps not predetermined, but up to how you respond to this
>> new situation. From what you have written it sounds like you are
>> responding to it very constructively. You ask the question,'does the mere
>> fact of hearing voices mean you are mad (lets say you meant rerally
>> really off the wall)'. Also you ask in another post if these voices are
>> parts of your own personality, which is surely the most likely
>> explanation, and a rational thoiught. Over all many people who do not
>> hear voices are not as rational and together as you seem to be, I
>> suspect. And by that standard are less sane.
>
> A voice within that helps to solve problems in relation to work is very
> helpfull. It is clearly a factor of success. But it is easy to mistrust
> this kind of enhancement as being a strategy to become more and more
> dependant on an "external authority", if that should be the case.
How true. However if it is part of your subconscious then its suggestions
are coming from a part of you. However I can see that one might be
suspicious that they come from some other person or being (like the CIA,
God, the Devil, etc etc). I suppose the only way to approach it would be
with a reasonably open minded but very sceptical frame.
> It's very important to be able to give such an experience a story that
> explains bits of it. The easiest way is to pose a God or Angels.
> But I cannot find comfort in that. It could also be the voice of your
> neighbour, translated after some experiences with this neighbour into a
> voice that relates to you.
The actual characteristics of the voice could come from anywhere I suppose.
The brain might well be capable of a adapting a known voice for its own use,
as would some external entity.
I myself am aware of being such a voice in
> others too. This means a responsibility, clearly.
You are aware of other people's thoughts?
>
> Time doesn't seem to be such a continuum then also.
Not sure I see the connection here??
>
> I cannot see this as a misfunctioning. But I cannot see myself as very
> sane also.
Good, you are not, but then again neither is almost anyone else, woo hoo!
Giga
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hda5pp$3fa$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Leon wrote:
>> Is someone hearing voices a mad person?
>
>
> depends on who you tell.
lol
bigfl...@gmail.com
> bigflet...@gmail.com schreef:
The win is the experience, regardless of the circumstances.
BOfL
Leon
> I myself am aware of being such a voice in
>> others too. This means a responsibility, clearly.
>
> You are aware of other people's thoughts?
I would not know, but I see/sense the effect I have on others.
>
>> Time doesn't seem to be such a continuum then also.
>
> Not sure I see the connection here??
The effect someone has on others seems to have taken place in the past,
if only someone is getting aware of it just now. So the "effect" travels
back in time.
Leon
> The win is the experience, regardless of the circumstances.
Yes, indeed.
THE BORG
problem.
Sometimes divine guidance can help.
In the past they turned to oracles and sometimes signs in
the sky, synchronicities can give guidance in cases like
yours.
In Ancient Egypt with hard decisions to make, they would
pray to the Gods to send guiding dreams, where they would
attend official dream academies and Gods would give answers
and guidance in dreams.
But ultimately you must do what you think and feel is best.
Guidance from higher powers and greater sources take all
kinds of forms, and sometimes JUST when you have made your
final decision, a shattering occurrence will happen such as
maybe becoming unable to drive, and BINGO, there is the
decision made for you.
A quiet prayer to whoever, wherever would no harm, to ask
for guidance in making your decision, and sometimes a "sign"
may be sent to you.
You do not have to see these higher powers and greater
sources as "religious", merely acknowledge that they exist.
Religions tarnish and taint these higher powers, and portray
them in a bad light. It is better to believe in them in a
pure state, looking at nature and beauty rather than via
religions.
Good luck.
THE BORG
Leon
> Religions tarnish and taint these higher powers, and portray them in a
> bad light. It is better to believe in them in a pure state, looking at
> nature and beauty rather than via religions.
> Good luck.
Thank you.
It is still a kind of a long way towards wisdom. Every step should be
taken carefully.
Giga
> Giga <Giga schreef:
>
>> I myself am aware of being such a voice in
>>> others too. This means a responsibility, clearly.
>>
>> You are aware of other people's thoughts?
>
> I would not know, but I see/sense the effect I have on others.
You make guesses about that effect, I would say, maybe very good guesses,
but often very bad ones as well I'm sure.
>>
>>> Time doesn't seem to be such a continuum then also.
>>
>> Not sure I see the connection here??
>
> The effect someone has on others seems to have taken place in the past, if
> only someone is getting aware of it just now. So the "effect" travels back
> in time.
So there is no causal link in the normal sense of that? Maybe you haven't
even met them in this life, but effected them in some previous life or
existence? Very doubtful I would say. Very difficult, if not impossible, to
be sure of, or verify. Most likely a dillusional beleif with ego serving
functions.
Michael Gordge
> It seems to me the problem is not the voices, but the mistrusting.
> The reaction to the voices, a kind of confusion.
>
> What can be done about that?
Tell them to check their premises. e.g. By asking, what do they mean
by "hearing" and "voices", ask for a full explanation of every single
thing they know about both "hearing" and "voices" and they will
eventually realize that they have totally destroyed the meaning of
both hearing and voices with their Kantian inspired dopey fucking
diatribe.
MG
ck
> THE BORG schreef:
>
>>
>> It is estimated about 5 per cent of the population hear voices.
>>
> You understood what I meant.
>
> You hear these stories about mad people that are misguided by these
> inner voices. So it could be wise not to trust these voices.
>
> But it might also be the voice of your conscience speaking, or a
>
> But what people don't know, they don't trust.
>
> It seems to me the problem is not the voices, but the mistrusting.
> The reaction to the voices, a kind of confusion.
>
> What can be done about that?
Where to start?
The question it seems to me, is are you internalizing
a phenomena which has an external source? Or put another
way, has the boundary between the external and the internal
become blurred? If so, the question is how to reestablish
that distinction between the external and the internal.
Hearing voices.
Is this a memory being recalled? Is it an unresolved thought,
an influence unacknowledged through the normal modes of
communication? Is the practice of subliminals, however its
justified, compatible with rational thought? These questions
are about the cause, or the source of that thought. Then
there's a question of state, or the state in which the
thought was created, and then recalled.
You make a telling point on 'the reaction to the voices'.
It seems to me, this reaction is, for the most part, about
accepting or understanding, or becoming acclimatised.
Its about the part played by the wider culture to prepare
or determine your response. The worst reaction might have
anxiety building on uncertainty, so that the phenomena self
-perpetuates.
The other posters have offered philosophical stances,
appeals to judgment, attitudes which would embrace the
question with a tidy belief, without actually resolving
the wonder of what this might be, or why it persists..
There is another stance, one of awareness through knowledge.
Language.
We all 'think'. We all have a way of using language to
hold/examine our thoughts and experiences. Language
serving as a symbolic association to state. Perhaps the
question should start there. It seems to me, we might be
talking about degrees of the same 'think', with only the
most extreme leading to self-doubt or confusion.
It seems to me we are also talking about thresholds
of truth, or thresholds of judgment, the reliable and
unreliable perceptions, the ways perception might be
played with.
Mind as Net.
Let's start with what we know about the mind. 1.Thought
involves a degree of prediction, anticipation. We'll hear
a syllable, and without being aware of it, anticipate
the word or the sentence. Think neural net and you'll
see my point. Put another way there is a degree of habit
to thought.. 2.We process information in parallel, with
many probable outcomes. 3.The conscious mind is only aware
of the surface, or the final rational thought. If you
accept this, then you could say the rational mind is only
aware of the rational associations governed by normal
behavior. For rational association, one might also read
rationally determined, or non subliminally determined
associations.
4.When the mind functions correctly we are unaware of the
irrational 'precursors' to that thought. 5.To hear voices,
could also be seen as a window into the submerged processes
of the mind, a glimpse on the calculation from which emerges
our answers. To say you hear voice, is to say you are aware
of the mind at work, or that you are aware of the questions
the mind asks, before it arrives at an answer.
Of course there is still the question of cause. To speak
of associations, is to speak of learning, and conditioning,
and the hormonal state which makes this learning possible.
Then there are the many types of associations formed in this
plastic state of learning [ or unlearning]. More than an
association to a word, or an idea, or a desirable body of
knowledge, there is the association between that state of
learning and the higher processes of the mind. At which point
we are talking of the neural weights, or their equivalent hormones
of adrenaline and Cortisol, and the other factors, the motives
which might lead to this greater susceptibility to information,
and disinformation.
Understanding, Qualia of thought.
My stance is if you understand, you can control and eventually
dismiss the phenomena. If you have awareness you will have a
sense of the source, even when it is not immediately apparent
to you, you will eventually create another category of thought
for what you now label 'hearing voices'.
Above all b12 happy bE333 strong.
Leon
>>> I myself am aware of being such a voice in
>>>> others too. This means a responsibility, clearly.
>>> You are aware of other people's thoughts?
>> I would not know, but I see/sense the effect I have on others.
>
> You make guesses about that effect, I would say, maybe very good guesses,
> but often very bad ones as well I'm sure.
Sure!
>
>>>> Time doesn't seem to be such a continuum then also.
>>> Not sure I see the connection here??
>> The effect someone has on others seems to have taken place in the past, if
>> only someone is getting aware of it just now. So the "effect" travels back
>> in time.
>
> So there is no causal link in the normal sense of that? Maybe you haven't
> even met them in this life, but effected them in some previous life or
> existence? Very doubtful I would say. Very difficult, if not impossible, to
> be sure of, or verify. Most likely a dillusional beleif with ego serving
> functions.
Could be. There is of course always the trouble of a definition or story
about the "self" which has this effect.
Leon
>> What can be done about that?
>
> Where to start?
>
> The question it seems to me, is are you internalizing
> a phenomena which has an external source? Or put another
> way, has the boundary between the external and the internal
> become blurred? If so, the question is how to reestablish
> that distinction between the external and the internal.
I would say that the sense of one's self is gone.
>
> Hearing voices.
>
> Is this a memory being recalled? Is it an unresolved thought,
> an influence unacknowledged through the normal modes of
> communication? Is the practice of subliminals, however its
> justified, compatible with rational thought? These questions
> are about the cause, or the source of that thought. Then
> there's a question of state, or the state in which the
> thought was created, and then recalled.
There is an information overload. You don't even get the time to think
subliminals over:-). The feeds are following each other rapidly.
>
> You make a telling point on 'the reaction to the voices'.
> It seems to me, this reaction is, for the most part, about
> accepting or understanding, or becoming acclimatised.
> Its about the part played by the wider culture to prepare
> or determine your response. The worst reaction might have
> anxiety building on uncertainty, so that the phenomena self
> -perpetuates.
Isn't this exactly what might happen/ is happening.
>
> The other posters have offered philosophical stances,
> appeals to judgment, attitudes which would embrace the
> question with a tidy belief, without actually resolving
> the wonder of what this might be, or why it persists..
> There is another stance, one of awareness through knowledge.
>
> Language.
>
> We all 'think'. We all have a way of using language to
> hold/examine our thoughts and experiences. Language
> serving as a symbolic association to state. Perhaps the
> question should start there. It seems to me, we might be
> talking about degrees of the same 'think', with only the
> most extreme leading to self-doubt or confusion.
>
> It seems to me we are also talking about thresholds
> of truth, or thresholds of judgment, the reliable and
> unreliable perceptions, the ways perception might be
> played with.
Perception it is, and can be tasted, when one's not too busy following
one's will.
>
> Mind as Net.
>
> Let's start with what we know about the mind. 1.Thought
> involves a degree of prediction, anticipation. We'll hear
> a syllable, and without being aware of it, anticipate
> the word or the sentence. Think neural net and you'll
> see my point. Put another way there is a degree of habit
> to thought.. 2.We process information in parallel, with
> many probable outcomes. 3.The conscious mind is only aware
> of the surface, or the final rational thought. If you
> accept this, then you could say the rational mind is only
> aware of the rational associations governed by normal
> behavior. For rational association, one might also read
> rationally determined, or non subliminally determined
> associations.
In a way the brain is a regulating machine. Whatever the phenomenon, if
it regulates it's valid. But what does it regulate, these inner voices?
>
> 4.When the mind functions correctly we are unaware of the
> irrational 'precursors' to that thought. 5.To hear voices,
> could also be seen as a window into the submerged processes
> of the mind, a glimpse on the calculation from which emerges
> our answers. To say you hear voice, is to say you are aware
> of the mind at work, or that you are aware of the questions
> the mind asks, before it arrives at an answer.
Benjamin Libet showed that the actual thinking is done before it gets to
the consiousness. The delay makes it possible to get disturbances.
>
> Of course there is still the question of cause. To speak
> of associations, is to speak of learning, and conditioning,
> and the hormonal state which makes this learning possible.
> Then there are the many types of associations formed in this
> plastic state of learning [ or unlearning]. More than an
> association to a word, or an idea, or a desirable body of
> knowledge, there is the association between that state of
> learning and the higher processes of the mind. At which point
> we are talking of the neural weights, or their equivalent hormones
> of adrenaline and Cortisol, and the other factors, the motives
> which might lead to this greater susceptibility to information,
> and disinformation.
I understood the functioning of the brain as having something to do with
resistence. Threshold values are reached before a signal comes through.
One is unaware untill the threshold value is reached.
>
> Understanding, Qualia of thought.
>
> My stance is if you understand, you can control and eventually
> dismiss the phenomena. If you have awareness you will have a
> sense of the source, even when it is not immediately apparent
> to you, you will eventually create another category of thought
> for what you now label 'hearing voices'.
I have rejected all suggestions up till now, and just "taste".
Giga
ck
> ck schreef:
>
>>> What can be done about that?
>>
>> Where to start?
>>
>> The question it seems to me, is are you internalizing
>> a phenomena which has an external source? Or put another
>> way, has the boundary between the external and the internal
>> become blurred? If so, the question is how to reestablish
>> that distinction between the external and the internal.
>
> I would say that the sense of one's self is gone.
>
>> Hearing voices.
>>
>> Is this a memory being recalled? Is it an unresolved thought,
>> an influence unacknowledged through the normal modes of
>> communication? Is the practice of subliminals, however its
>> justified, compatible with rational thought? These questions
>> are about the cause, or the source of that thought. Then
>> there's a question of state, or the state in which the
>> thought was created, and then recalled.
>
> There is an information overload. You don't even get the time
> to think subliminals over:-). The feeds are following each
> other rapidly.
Is it too much information? Or is it a greater perception of
information which was always there? Even this perception of
too much information would say something about the capacity
of the mind in its normal state, ie what it was use to, and
its subsequent change. All very relative. This reminds me of
something i read:
" Serotonin controls the quantity of information flow from memory
to consciousness.Increasing serotoninergic activity,for instance
through the specific serotonin reuptake blockers, will decrease
the quantity of information flow from memory to consciousness
while decreasing serotoninergic activity through hallucinogens
(with the notable exception of 5-HT2A receptors)will increase
information flow from memory to consciousness.
Serotonin inhibits information. Think upon that for a moment, it
would seem without seratonin our brains would be presented with
a much greater amount of information, than we can naturally deal
with. Real and mentally constructed information, connections to
information normally dismissed as too much or irrelevant, lost
in the unconscious. "
A deficiency in Serotonin production, or its precursor 5-HT2A
[90% of which is produced in the GI track], would explain the
extra information, but not necessarily its manifestation as
voices. What seems to be taking place is auditory processing of
information which would normally be unconscious. Its like having
a speech translator on a computer hooked up to raw streaming of
data, when it would normally process a finished manuscript. The
question is what would contribute to cause this functional shift
from the higher level processing, ie the conscious level, to the
unconscious level.
Or else, the question is why would information at the unconscious
level now be discernable as conscious level information. This is
what i refer to as the threshold of judgment, or the threshold
of perception.
In looking for cause, there is also the question of whose voices?
Most people will recognize their own voice, even when they are
caught up with anticipating the likely reactions of the other..
>> You make a telling point on 'the reaction to the voices'.
>> It seems to me, this reaction is, for the most part, about
>> accepting or understanding, or becoming acclimatised.
>> Its about the part played by the wider culture to prepare
>> or determine your response. The worst reaction might have
>> anxiety building on uncertainty, so that the phenomena
>> self-perpetuates.
>
> Isn't this exactly what might happen/ is happening.
The trick then is to break the cycle, until you can handle
the pace of this extra information. You might try a period
of sensory deprivation. This and a little logic would also
help reestablish the boundaries of external and internal
information.
Again you make the assumption, that the source of these voices
are from within. They may well be, but they are just as likely
be a residual memory of something external, something which
wasn't immediately apparent. If you think of language in the
abstract, its about associations between objects and events.
However, given the way memory appears to work, these attachments
are also formed to state, to appear as attributes of hormonal
states.
If memory is domained on state, then Logically a totally new
state would be without supporting memory, the mind would look
to build these associations. At this point you would be taught
a new word, as definition. You would share a description of
what it was you were experiencing, and that body of ideas
would be absorbed over time as the identity for that state.
Without this support by the prevailing culture, the mind
creates its own associations. With nothing else to go by, the
mind forms these disjointed attachments to whatever idea, or
thought, or as you say, taste, which also occurred with that
virgin state.
Think of all our other hormonal states, otherwise called
emotions. Think of the ways we form language to describe
and evoke those states. This is normally very gradual, with
the supporting language and behaviors of culture to
accommodate these states. The few exceptions to this gradual
adaption, would be puberty and midlife menopausal changes,
even then, these exceptions occur at a slow enough pace and
will have explanations which allow an easier adjustment.
Now consider what happens when you under go a more dramatic
disruption to your equilibrium. More information, signaling
this sudden change. The result is a state for which you have
no preparation. What occurs then is automatic. The mind forms
a memory, out of whatever occurs at the time of this state.
These atoms of thought become its identity, even when these
atoms of thought have other values, or other rules, they become
the means of identify and re-evoking this state. with this
vague identity is a functional shift, eg the voices, which as
i say, isn't necessarily natural with the sudden increase of
information.
To hear voices then, is to experience a sense upon which
words or sounds had been transplanted, not for any sense
they might make, but simply as a persistence of memory.
I am trying here to encompass your reference to taste..
>> 4.When the mind functions correctly we are unaware of the
>> irrational 'precursors' to that thought. 5.To hear voices,
>> could also be seen as a window into the submerged processes
>> of the mind, a glimpse on the calculation from which emerges
>> our answers. To say you hear voice, is to say you are aware
>> of the mind at work, or that you are aware of the questions
>> the mind asks, before it arrives at an answer.
>
> Benjamin Libet showed that the actual thinking is done before it
> gets to the consiousness. The delay makes it possible to get
> disturbances.
Yes, this is what i had in mind. This theory describes a normal
functioning mind but says something for the pre-processing, the
anticipation, the parallel processing, which occurs as a matter
of normal function.
>
>> Of course there is still the question of cause. To speak
>> of associations, is to speak of learning, and conditioning,
>> and the hormonal state which makes this learning possible.
>> Then there are the many types of associations formed in this
>> plastic state of learning [ or unlearning]. More than an
>> association to a word, or an idea, or a desirable body of
>> knowledge, there is the association between that state of
>> learning and the higher processes of the mind. At which point
>> we are talking of the neural weights, or their equivalent hormones
>> of adrenaline and Cortisol, and the other factors, the motives
>> which might lead to this greater susceptibility to information,
>> and disinformation.
>
> I understood the functioning of the brain as having something
> to do with resistence. Threshold values are reached before a
> signal comes through. One is unaware untill the threshold value
> is reached.
>
See my point on Serotonin. It seems to me that if this threshold
where affected by the factors described, it would change the point
at which one were aware. Perhaps to the extent that one had a
sense of the information, or the chaos, which would normally reside
in the unconscious.
Also taken from that article i read:
" The world contains more information than we can deal with. More
information than we need, or are consciously aware of. If as
human beings we had the hearing range available to the rest of
nature, it would be too much to cope with. If we could smell
what the rest of nature smells it would be too much. Instead
our brains present us only with what we can deal with, enough
to be useful, not so much that it causes anxiety. Maybe that's
made worst as social animals live in closer proximity to the
lives, noise and information of other beings.
"
>>
>> Understanding, Qualia of thought.
>>
>> My stance is if you understand, you can control and eventually
>> dismiss the phenomena. If you have awareness you will have a
>> sense of the source, even when it is not immediately apparent
>> to you, you will eventually create another category of thought
>> for what you now label 'hearing voices'.
>
> I have rejected all suggestions up till now, and just "taste".
>
>>
>> Above all B12 happy, bE333 strong.
Hopefully you'll take the time to digest as much as you find
relevant to your situation.
Leon
> Serotonin inhibits information. Think upon that for a moment, it
> would seem without seratonin our brains would be presented with
> a much greater amount of information, than we can naturally deal
> with. Real and mentally constructed information, connections to
> information normally dismissed as too much or irrelevant, lost
> in the unconscious. "
> A deficiency in Serotonin production, or its precursor 5-HT2A
> [90% of which is produced in the GI track], would explain the
> extra information, but not necessarily its manifestation as
> voices. What seems to be taking place is auditory processing of
> information which would normally be unconscious. Its like having
> a speech translator on a computer hooked up to raw streaming of
> data, when it would normally process a finished manuscript. The
> question is what would contribute to cause this functional shift
> from the higher level processing, ie the conscious level, to the
> unconscious level.
>
> Or else, the question is why would information at the unconscious
> level now be discernable as conscious level information. This is
> what i refer to as the threshold of judgment, or the threshold
> of perception.
Why? Why does one recognizes oneself in the mirror? One has never seen
oneself before.
> In looking for cause, there is also the question of whose voices?
> Most people will recognize their own voice, even when they are
> caught up with anticipating the likely reactions of the other..
Maybe all those call outs to God will reach the minds of others.
>>> You make a telling point on 'the reaction to the voices'.
>>> It seems to me, this reaction is, for the most part, about
>>> accepting or understanding, or becoming acclimatised.
>>> Its about the part played by the wider culture to prepare
>>> or determine your response. The worst reaction might have
>>> anxiety building on uncertainty, so that the phenomena self-perpetuates.
>>
>> Isn't this exactly what might happen/ is happening.
>
> The trick then is to break the cycle, until you can handle
> the pace of this extra information. You might try a period
> of sensory deprivation. This and a little logic would also
> help reestablish the boundaries of external and internal
> information.
In today's world one is fast to belief in machines that send out
information. So also to belief in some kind of mind-control devices.
I've thought this over and over, and my only conclusion now is that a
consiousness is in all things, meaning that no matter in what situation
you are, things/people will speak with this consiousness (your
consiousness) to you and show you your situation. Or it (re)establishes
your belief in the situation.
>> In a way the brain is a regulating machine. Whatever the phenomenon,
>> if it regulates it's valid. But what does it regulate, these inner
>> voices?
>
> Again you make the assumption, that the source of these voices
> are from within. They may well be, but they are just as likely
> be a residual memory of something external, something which
> wasn't immediately apparent. If you think of language in the
> abstract, its about associations between objects and events.
> However, given the way memory appears to work, these attachments
> are also formed to state, to appear as attributes of hormonal
> states.
There are many suggestions possible as to what external source is
powerfull enough to reach you where ever you are. So the suggestion that
these external sources are in fact one source is usefull. And the
logical step would be to combine two and two and to assume that this one
source is also you yourself. Not in a solipsist way perhaps, but more
because when everything is one, you yourself are also part of one.
>
> If memory is domained on state, then Logically a totally new
> state would be without supporting memory, the mind would look
> to build these associations. At this point you would be taught
> a new word, as definition. You would share a description of
> what it was you were experiencing, and that body of ideas
> would be absorbed over time as the identity for that state.
> Without this support by the prevailing culture, the mind
> creates its own associations. With nothing else to go by, the
> mind forms these disjointed attachments to whatever idea, or
> thought, or as you say, taste, which also occurred with that
> virgin state.
It seems important to have a story ready, a story to go by. I have had
so many, I am not able to choose anymore. The story about living your
life as someone who merely tastes, is only another story. It will not
hold for long. When the future unfolds there are many more stories to tell.
>
> Think of all our other hormonal states, otherwise called
> emotions. Think of the ways we form language to describe
> and evoke those states. This is normally very gradual, with
> the supporting language and behaviors of culture to
> accommodate these states. The few exceptions to this gradual
> adaption, would be puberty and midlife menopausal changes,
> even then, these exceptions occur at a slow enough pace and
> will have explanations which allow an easier adjustment.
Explanations are supporting the belief of continuity. In fact I belief
that the domain of causes and the domain of effects are two seperate
domains. In one domain there are only causes, in the other domain there
are only effects. Continuity, causes having effects, is combining two
domains that may not combine for all situations. An explanations should
stick to one domain. Either causes, or effects.
>
> Now consider what happens when you under go a more dramatic
> disruption to your equilibrium. More information, signaling
> this sudden change. The result is a state for which you have
> no preparation. What occurs then is automatic. The mind forms
> a memory, out of whatever occurs at the time of this state.
> These atoms of thought become its identity, even when these
> atoms of thought have other values, or other rules, they become
> the means of identify and re-evoking this state. with this
> vague identity is a functional shift, eg the voices, which as
> i say, isn't necessarily natural with the sudden increase of
> information.
Now you combine cause and effect. Probably the more usefull domain is
that of effects. The effect of an inner voice can have the effect that
you mistrust your fellow people. These are facts.
>
> To hear voices then, is to experience a sense upon which
> words or sounds had been transplanted, not for any sense
> they might make, but simply as a persistence of memory.
The effect of believing you are valuable, might be to have inner voices
that "guide" you. It will of course be just a matter of time until it is
proven if one is really valuable.
> Hopefully you'll take the time to digest as much as you find
> relevant to your situation.
It is putting me in the place of a consumer, where I would also like to
be able to feed.
ta
> Is someone hearing voices a mad person?
I saw a bumper sticker today that said "Guided by voices", so
apparently you're not alone, if that's any consolation.
I suppose it depends on what the voices are saying.
ck
> ck schreef:
>
>
>> Serotonin inhibits information. Think upon that for a moment, it
>> would seem without seratonin our brains would be presented with
>> a much greater amount of information, than we can naturally deal
>> with. Real and mentally constructed information, connections to
>> information normally dismissed as too much or irrelevant, lost
>> in the unconscious. "
>
>> A deficiency in Serotonin production, or its precursor 5-HT2A
>> [90% of which is produced in the GI track], would explain the
>> extra information, but not necessarily its manifestation as
>> voices. What seems to be taking place is auditory processing of
>> information which would normally be unconscious. Its like having
>> a speech translator on a computer hooked up to raw streaming of
>> data, when it would normally process a finished manuscript. The
>> question is what would contribute to cause this functional shift
>> from the higher level processing, ie the conscious level, to the
>> unconscious level.
>>
>> Or else, the question is why would information at the unconscious
Or perhaps by consciousness, you speak of a finite experience
of the human condition. Put another way, there is nothing new,
just what is unknown at our particular point in the journey.
I don't know about mind control devices, but for sure there are
devices, which might serve this function if it were not known
to exist. Acts of magic by those who fancy they must be goDs.
You could call a computer or a TV 'a mind control device',
since its use can change our outlook on the world, and our
belief in ourselves. This idea is relative to understanding.
Any device could potentially control or alter our perceptions,
if we were at the disadvantage of not knowing how it was done.
As one example consider the following:
"Those voices in your head may be real.
Researchers have developed technology that can project a
beam of sound so narrow that only one person can hear it.
"Directed" audio sounds like it's coming from right in
front of you even when transmitted from a few hundred
meters away.
Inventors of the new "ventriloquist" technology say it
could provide an added dimension to entertainment. The
military, however, is investigating using it to confuse
opponents or even inflict pain. "
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/02/50483
http://www.holosonics.com/technology.html
The technology with the potential to confuse or induce doubt
does exist, it is simply a question of its likely application.
Much more than how it is done, is the question of who might
do this, and why? Are there people in this world who would
willfully apply this technology? Exploring knowledge for its
own sake, driven by a kind of curiosity, with no conscience,
or no conception of what it does? If so, what would be the
point of incapacitating others in this way? What would be
used to justify this end? To whom would these types be
answerable, when there is also no perception of cause?
This though, has to be seen as one potential answer in an
ocean of answers.
>
>>> In a way the brain is a regulating machine. Whatever the phenomenon,
>>> if it regulates it's valid. But what does it regulate, these inner
>>> voices?
>>
>> Again you make the assumption, that the source of these voices
>> are from within. They may well be, but they are just as likely
>> be a residual memory of something external, something which
>> wasn't immediately apparent. If you think of language in the
>> abstract, its about associations between objects and events.
>> However, given the way memory appears to work, these attachments
>> are also formed to state, to appear as attributes of hormonal
>> states.
>
> There are many suggestions possible as to what external source is
> powerful enough to reach you where ever you are. So the suggestion
> that these external sources are in fact one source is useful. And
> the logical step would be to combine two and two and to assume that
> this one source is also you yourself. Not in a solipsist way perhaps,
> but more because when everything is one, you yourself are also
> part of one.
The key as you say, is logic. We can't know everything, nor
is it is never wise to assume an answer from our immediate
knowledge. Logic would allow room in the equation for the
unknown. Is it enough, to ask 'what was that', and leave it
at that with a perception of something which defies sense?
Or must we then follow the question with an answer? Answers
taken, for the most part, from the culture which dominates
as answer.
>>
>> If memory is domained on state, then Logically a totally new
>> state would be without supporting memory, the mind would look
>> to build these associations. At this point you would be taught
>> a new word, as definition. You would share a description of
>> what it was you were experiencing, and that body of ideas
>> would be absorbed over time as the identity for that state.
>> Without this support by the prevailing culture, the mind
>> creates its own associations. With nothing else to go by, the
>> mind forms these disjointed attachments to whatever idea, or
>> thought, or as you say, taste, which also occurred with that
>> virgin state.
>
> It seems important to have a story ready, a story to go by. I have had
> so many, I am not able to choose anymore. The story about living your
> life as someone who merely tastes, is only another story. It will not
> hold for long. When the future unfolds there are many more stories to tell.
I begin to see your meaning for 'taste'. Yes, perhaps the story has
not been written yet, or if it has, then the story has not placed
where it will be heard or shared. And why would it be, with all the
potential dis/advantages to be found in ignorance and disbelief.
This advantage, it seems, is too powerful to surrender to knowledge
or reasoned argument.
>>
>> Think of all our other hormonal states, otherwise called
>> emotions. Think of the ways we form language to describe
>> and evoke those states. This is normally very gradual, with
>> the supporting language and behaviors of culture to
>> accommodate these states. The few exceptions to this gradual
>> adaption, would be puberty and midlife menopausal changes,
>> even then, these exceptions occur at a slow enough pace and
>> will have explanations which allow an easier adjustment.
>
> Explanations are supporting the belief of continuity. In fact I believe
> that the domain of causes and the domain of effects are two separate
> domains. In one domain there are only causes, in the other domain there
> are only effects. Continuity, causes having effects, is combining two
> domains that may not combine for all situations. An explanations should
> stick to one domain. Either causes, or effects.
Again i see your point, yet we are talking of the mind and its effect
on itself, the limits of knowledge and our perception of truth. As
such, effect can feed cause. The mind adapting to lies, would be in
constant state of undoing. The trick then is to allow for lies or
misinterpretation? Or how to allow for man and the advantage he
constantly seeks over others. There is surely a limit to the practice
of the selfish gene, even as this ethos is made to proliferate.
Everyman for himself, would this expectation be any kind of answer?
>> Now consider what happens when you under go a more dramatic
>> disruption to your equilibrium. More information, signaling
>> this sudden change. The result is a state for which you have
>> no preparation. What occurs then is automatic. The mind forms
>> a memory, out of whatever occurs at the time of this state.
>> These atoms of thought become its identity, even when these
>> atoms of thought have other values, or other rules, they become
>> the means of identify and re-evoking this state. with this
>> vague identity is a functional shift, eg the voices, which as
>> i say, isn't necessarily natural with the sudden increase of
>> information.
>
> Now you combine cause and effect. Probably the more useful domain
> is that of effects. The effect of an inner voice can have the
> effect that you mistrust your fellow people. These are facts.
I accept what you are saying. The effect could be that you trust
no one, or you prepare yourself to be disappointed by the selfish
nature of others, or that you understand when people fall victim
to the deceptions of others. A point for stoicism, when it seems
no one can relate to the experience.
>> To hear voices then, is to experience a sense upon which
>> words or sounds had been transplanted, not for any sense
>> they might make, but simply as a persistence of memory.
>
> The effect of believing you are valuable, might be to have inner voices
> that "guide" you. It will of course be just a matter of time until it is
> proven if one is really valuable.
It seems to me, this notion of allowing yourself to be "guided"
might lead to a misplaced reliance on those voices. You might
enter a dialog from which there was no escape. The habit of
hearing and accepting would dominate. A world where man placed
his trust in an invisible leash and allowed himself to be lead
by the unknown would fraught with all kinds of unforeseen
problems. And yet this is were we are going. One might as well
spook of an hypnotized population, where man controlled man, with
error building on err, and none thought or reasoned for himself.
From an age of reason - to an age of misplaced trust.
Better it seems to me, to evolve the next level of reason, one
able to co-exist with this level of control, or vulnerability.
Better the stories which prepares one, with an attitude equal
to whatever may assail one.
>
>> Hopefully you'll take the time to digest as much as you find
>> relevant to your situation.
>
> It is putting me in the place of a consumer, where I would
> also like to be able to feed.
"All in the mind?" group:alt.philosophy
Michael Gordge
> i.e. you can hear those even if you are deaf.
Oh so he's not talking about 'hearing' after all?
MG
Leon
> You could call a computer or a TV 'a mind control device',
> since its use can change our outlook on the world, and our
> belief in ourselves. This idea is relative to understanding.
> Any device could potentially control or alter our perceptions,
> if we were at the disadvantage of not knowing how it was done.
I agree.
> Much more than how it is done, is the question of who might
> do this, and why? Are there people in this world who would
> willfully apply this technology? Exploring knowledge for its
> own sake, driven by a kind of curiosity, with no conscience,
> or no conception of what it does? If so, what would be the
> point of incapacitating others in this way? What would be
> used to justify this end? To whom would these types be
> answerable, when there is also no perception of cause?
This is why I don't give credits to this story anymore. Sure enough the
advantages of control could be enormous, but there would be an even
greater burden of keeping things a secret.
> The key as you say, is logic. We can't know everything, nor
> is it is never wise to assume an answer from our immediate
> knowledge. Logic would allow room in the equation for the
> unknown. Is it enough, to ask 'what was that', and leave it
> at that with a perception of something which defies sense?
> Or must we then follow the question with an answer? Answers
> taken, for the most part, from the culture which dominates
> as answer.
Some people have an immediate answer, and stick to it. The need to
reflect is only for people that need to change.
> Again i see your point, yet we are talking of the mind and its effect
> on itself, the limits of knowledge and our perception of truth. As
> such, effect can feed cause. The mind adapting to lies, would be in
> constant state of undoing. The trick then is to allow for lies or
> misinterpretation? Or how to allow for man and the advantage he
> constantly seeks over others. There is surely a limit to the practice
> of the selfish gene, even as this ethos is made to proliferate.
> Everyman for himself, would this expectation be any kind of answer?
What would be the alternative, if there is any? A constant striving for
what one wants, pushing and calculating, makes people strong. Capitalism
feeds on frustration. When one has had enough of frustrations, then
perhaps some other values can be considered, but people lack the
intelligence to stop wanting.
>> Now you combine cause and effect. Probably the more useful domain
>> is that of effects. The effect of an inner voice can have the effect
>> that you mistrust your fellow people. These are facts.
>
> I accept what you are saying. The effect could be that you trust
> no one, or you prepare yourself to be disappointed by the selfish
> nature of others, or that you understand when people fall victim
> to the deceptions of others. A point for stoicism, when it seems
> no one can relate to the experience.
The ongoing suspense of being accepted or not, takes it's toll. The
stoic might think it's a waste of energy to be busy with being accepted
all the time. The truth might be that the stoic's acceptance for others
is low. He will probably not even accept himself.
> It seems to me, this notion of allowing yourself to be "guided"
> might lead to a misplaced reliance on those voices. You might
> enter a dialog from which there was no escape. The habit of
> hearing and accepting would dominate. A world where man placed
> his trust in an invisible leash and allowed himself to be lead
> by the unknown would fraught with all kinds of unforeseen
> problems. And yet this is were we are going. One might as well
> spook of an hypnotized population, where man controlled man, with
> error building on err, and none thought or reasoned for himself.
> From an age of reason - to an age of misplaced trust.
I don't see that future. Better versions of listeners will probably
evolve. Listeners with an easy understanding, like those people that
don't have to reflect.
> Better it seems to me, to evolve the next level of reason, one
> able to co-exist with this level of control, or vulnerability.
> Better the stories which prepares one, with an attitude equal
> to whatever may assail one.
Yes.
Leon
> I saw a bumper sticker today that said "Guided by voices", so
> apparently you're not alone, if that's any consolation.
>
> I suppose it depends on what the voices are saying.
They are pointing out. Very usefull. Not even voices sometimes, but only
a feeling. F.i. when writing the feeling that something is wrong, yes it
is the spelling of a word, a typo or otherwise.
ck
> ck schreef:
>
>> You could call a computer or a TV 'a mind control device',
>> since its use can change our outlook on the world, and our
>> belief in ourselves. This idea is relative to understanding.
>> Any device could potentially control or alter our perceptions,
>> if we were at the disadvantage of not knowing how it was done.
>
> I agree.
>
>> Much more than how it is done, is the question of who might
>> do this, and why? Are there people in this world who would
>> willfully apply this technology? Exploring knowledge for its
>> own sake, driven by a kind of curiosity, with no conscience,
>> or no conception of what it does? If so, what would be the
>> point of incapacitating others in this way? What would be
>> used to justify this end? To whom would these types be
>> answerable, when there is also no perception of cause?
>
> This is why I don't give credits to this story anymore. Sure
> enough the advantages of control could be enormous, but there
> would be an even greater burden of keeping things a secret.
I wouldn't be so quick to abandon this line of thought. First,
the point is about answers, other than those which assume the
answer lies all in the mind. This is about a way of objectifying
an experience which would otherwise be an ill-defined, vague,
unsure mode of thought. A thought without the language to
describe it. On your second point, whose secret are we speaking
of? Is this simply about the general point of secrets? Would
this be the secret kept by the would-be victimizers, or
those they victimized.
Given the nature of this victimization, the question is who would
understand, who would listen? Incidentally the statistics in this
area should clear enough for all to see, yet there is apparently
no one with the experience to interpret those statistics with any
but usual acceptance. Jargon rules, as Cause and Effect are divorced
waiting for truth.
If the secret is about victimizer, then this assumes they are
aware of their effects. Put another way, they wouldn't need to know
of the sought effects of their actions, or the actual goal of their
behavior. Each in this puzzle would only see what he was told to
see, and no more. In this way there is no secret, the part played
is too small to significant to the player. The story would be in
the cumulative effect.
>
>> The key as you say, is logic. We can't know everything, nor
>> is it is ever wise to assume an answer from our immediate
>> knowledge. Logic would allow room in the equation for the
>> unknown. Is it enough, to ask 'what was that', and leave it
>> at that with a perception of something which defies sense?
>> Or must we then follow the question with an answer? Answers
>> taken, for the most part, from the culture which dominates
>> as answer.
>
> Some people have an immediate answer, and stick to it. The need to
> reflect is only for people that need to change.
Again, my point is about the limitation of those immediate answers.
Reflection can only take one so far. Reflection without a knowledge
of what is possible, would only take one in circles. The position
which accepts that X is unknown, isn't natural to us, since its
that state of unknowing which leads to uncertainty and anxiety.
This is why we invent folk answers. That need for an answer also
makes us vulnerable to whatever we are told. Which brings one back
to the effectiveness of those answers sustained by the immediate
culture.
>> Again i see your point, yet we are talking of the mind and its effect
>> on itself, the limits of knowledge and our perception of truth. As
>> such, effect can feed cause. The mind adapting to lies, would be in
>> constant state of undoing. The trick then is to allow for lies or
>> misinterpretation? Or how to allow for man and the advantage he
>> constantly seeks over others. There is surely a limit to the practice
>> of the selfish gene, even as this ethos is made to proliferate.
>> Everyman for himself, would this expectation be any kind of answer?
>
> What would be the alternative, if there is any? A constant striving for
> what one wants, pushing and calculating, makes people strong. Capitalism
> feeds on frustration. When one has had enough of frustrations, then
> perhaps some other values can be considered, but people lack the
> intelligence to stop wanting.
Its a circular argument to be sure. Greed feeding a greedy model with
the unsustainabilities of that position and the steps taken to balance
that impossible equation. Manipulated on the level of instincts, there
is no room for intelligence.
We can only see the past and wonder at the ways we've changed...
There is nothing new in this scripted control, it only appears so
to latest generation. We are where we are, as a result of those
same myopic controls. As i say, this all starts with the control
of our would-be controllers.
ck
> ck schreef:
>
>> You could call a computer or a TV 'a mind control device',
>> since its use can change our outlook on the world, and our
>> belief in ourselves. This idea is relative to understanding.
>> Any device could potentially control or alter our perceptions,
>> if we were at the disadvantage of not knowing how it was done.
>
> I agree.
>
>> Much more than how it is done, is the question of who might
>> do this, and why? Are there people in this world who would
>> willfully apply this technology? Exploring knowledge for its
>> own sake, driven by a kind of curiosity, with no conscience,
>> or no conception of what it does? If so, what would be the
>> point of incapacitating others in this way? What would be
>> used to justify this end? To whom would these types be
>> answerable, when there is also no perception of cause?
>
> This is why I don't give credits to this story anymore. Sure enough the
> advantages of control could be enormous, but there would be an even
> greater burden of keeping things a secret.
[corrections]
I wouldn't be so quick to abandon this line of thought. First,
the point is about answers, other than those which assume the
answer lies all in the mind. This is about a way to objectify
an experience which would otherwise be an ill-defined, vague,
an unsure mode of thought. This is about creating language for
what would otherwise defy description.
On your second point, whose secret are we speaking of? Is this
simply about the general point of secrets? Would this be the
secret kept by the would-be victimizers, or those they victimized.
Given the nature of this victimization, the real question is who
would understand, who would recognize what was described to them?
The statistics in this area should clear enough for all to see,
yet there is apparently no one with the experience to interpret
those statistics with anything but usual acceptance. Cause and
Effect remain divorced, waiting for truth.
If the secret is about victimizers, then this assumes they are
aware of their effects. Put another way, they wouldn't need to
know of the sought effects of their actions, or the actual goal
of their behavior. Each in this puzzle would only see what he was
told to see, and no more. In this way there is no secret, the part
played each is too small to be of significance. The story would
be in the cumulative effect.
>
>> The key as you say, is logic. We can't know everything, nor
>> is it is never wise to assume an answer from our immediate
>> knowledge. Logic would allow room in the equation for the
>> unknown. Is it enough, to ask 'what was that', and leave it
>> at that with a perception of something which defies sense?
>> Or must we then follow the question with an answer? Answers
>> taken, for the most part, from the culture which dominates
>> as answer.
>
> Some people have an immediate answer, and stick to it. The need to
> reflect is only for people that need to change.
Again, my point is about the limitation of those immediate answers.
Reflection may only take one so far. Reflection without an incline
of what is possible, would only take one in circles. The position
which accepts that X is unknown, isn't natural to us, since its
that state of unknowing which leads contributes to a state of
uncertainty and anxiety. This is why we accept our folk answers.
That need for an answer makes us vulnerable to whatever we are told.
Which brings one back to the effectiveness of those answers sustained
by the immediate culture.
>
>> Again i see your point, yet we are talking of the mind and its effect
>> on itself, the limits of knowledge and our perception of truth. As
>> such, effect can feed cause. The mind adapting to lies, would be in
>> constant state of undoing. The trick then is to allow for lies or
>> misinterpretation? Or how to allow for man and the advantage he
>> constantly seeks over others. There is surely a limit to the practice
>> of the selfish gene, even as this ethos is made to proliferate.
>> Everyman for himself, would this expectation be any kind of answer?
>
> What would be the alternative, if there is any? A constant striving for
> what one wants, pushing and calculating, makes people strong. Capitalism
> feeds on frustration. When one has had enough of frustrations, then
> perhaps some other values can be considered, but people lack the
> intelligence to stop wanting.
Its a circular argument to be sure. A greedy model feeding on greed
with the unsustainabilities of that position, and the steps deemed
necessary to balance that impossible equation. As for intelligence,
manipulated on the level of instincts, on the basis of fearful reflex,
there is no room for intelligence.
>
We can only see the past and wonder at the ways we've changed...
There is nothing new in this scripted control, it only appears so
to latest generation. We are where we are, as a result of those
same myopic controls. As i say, this all starts with the control
of our would-be controllers.
>> Better it seems to me, to evolve the next level of reason, one
Leon
>> This is why I don't give credits to this story anymore. Sure enough
>> the advantages of control could be enormous, but there would be an
>> even greater burden of keeping things a secret.
>
> [corrections]
I will only read those.
>
> I wouldn't be so quick to abandon this line of thought. First,
> the point is about answers, other than those which assume the
> answer lies all in the mind. This is about a way to objectify
> an experience which would otherwise be an ill-defined, vague,
> an unsure mode of thought. This is about creating language for
> what would otherwise defy description.
>
> On your second point, whose secret are we speaking of? Is this
> simply about the general point of secrets? Would this be the
> secret kept by the would-be victimizers, or those they victimized.
>
> Given the nature of this victimization, the real question is who
> would understand, who would recognize what was described to them?
> The statistics in this area should clear enough for all to see,
> yet there is apparently no one with the experience to interpret
> those statistics with anything but usual acceptance. Cause and
> Effect remain divorced, waiting for truth.
>
> If the secret is about victimizers, then this assumes they are
> aware of their effects. Put another way, they wouldn't need to
> know of the sought effects of their actions, or the actual goal
> of their behavior. Each in this puzzle would only see what he was
> told to see, and no more. In this way there is no secret, the part
> played each is too small to be of significance. The story would
> be in the cumulative effect.
I'm not sure if I understand you. If it's about power, you have may
kinds of power. But on top of the list for humans is the power of food.
When you only feed thoughts you have no real power. Voodoo is all about
real elements fed. Blood, sperm, shit, sweat, hears, but also drugs,
bacteria, and many other elements that will have an effect.
>> Some people have an immediate answer, and stick to it. The need to
>> reflect is only for people that need to change.
>
> Again, my point is about the limitation of those immediate answers.
> Reflection may only take one so far. Reflection without an incline
> of what is possible, would only take one in circles. The position
> which accepts that X is unknown, isn't natural to us, since its
> that state of unknowing which leads contributes to a state of
> uncertainty and anxiety. This is why we accept our folk answers.
> That need for an answer makes us vulnerable to whatever we are told.
> Which brings one back to the effectiveness of those answers sustained
> by the immediate culture.
There's no way to be deaf to stories or suggestions or folk answers,
although you might have people more vulnerable to hypnosis than others.
>> What would be the alternative, if there is any? A constant striving
>> for what one wants, pushing and calculating, makes people strong.
>> Capitalism feeds on frustration. When one has had enough of
>> frustrations, then perhaps some other values can be considered, but
>> people lack the intelligence to stop wanting.
>
>
> Its a circular argument to be sure. A greedy model feeding on greed
> with the unsustainabilities of that position, and the steps deemed
> necessary to balance that impossible equation. As for intelligence,
> manipulated on the level of instincts, on the basis of fearful reflex,
> there is no room for intelligence.
I have a deep respect for people keeping their heads above the water and
not drowning. I also have to accept the hate they feel. I feel hate
also, but try not to act on that.
>> I don't see that future. Better versions of listeners will probably
>> evolve. Listeners with an easy understanding, like those people that
>> don't have to reflect.
>
> We can only see the past and wonder at the ways we've changed...
> There is nothing new in this scripted control, it only appears so
> to latest generation. We are where we are, as a result of those
> same myopic controls. As i say, this all starts with the control
> of our would-be controllers.
A wise man probably invites influence of others.
Leon
hairs...must be under influence
ck
> ck schreef:
>
>>> This is why I don't give credits to this story anymore. Sure enough
>>> the advantages of control could be enormous, but there would be an
>>> even greater burden of keeping things a secret.
>>
>> [corrections]
>
> I will only read those.
>>
>> I wouldn't be so quick to abandon this line of thought. First,
>> the point is about answers, other than those which assume the
>> answer lies all in the mind. This is about a way to objectify
>> an experience which would otherwise be an ill-defined, vague,
>> an unsure mode of thought. This is about creating language for
>>
>> On your second point, whose secret are we speaking of? Is this
>> simply about the general point of secrets? Would this be the
>> secret kept by the would-be victimizers, or those they victimized.
>>
>> Given the nature of this victimization, the real question is who
>> would understand, who would recognize what was described to them?
>> The statistics in this area should clear enough for all to see,
>> yet there is apparently no one with the experience to interpret
>> those statistics with anything but usual acceptance. Cause and
>> Effect remain divorced, waiting for truth.
>>
>> If the secret is about victimizers, then this assumes they are
>> aware of their effects. Put another way, they wouldn't need to
>> know of the sought effects of their actions, or the actual goal
>> of their behavior. Each in this puzzle would only see what he was
>> told to see, and no more. In this way there is no secret, the part
>> played each is too small to be of significance. The story would
>> be in the cumulative effect.
>
> I'm not sure if I understand you. If it's about power, you have may
> kinds of power. But on top of the list for humans is the power of food.
> When you only feed thoughts you have no real power. Voodoo is all about
I am not sure i understand you.;) But if this is a screen to hide
our meaning then i'll accept it. Or perhaps its about the direction
you've taken to arrive at the same thought. I would say Voodoo, was
another of those answers. Not the creepy movie myths, or the folk
religion, but the raw power which this craft is said to have over
mens minds. Voodoo, as way to speak an older means to the same end,
before science laid claim to the same magic with its study and
application. There is nothing new about the human psyche, nothing
new about our vulnerabilities, or the exploitation of the same.
>>> Some people have an immediate answer, and stick to it. The need to
>>> reflect is only for people that need to change.
>>
>> Again, my point is about the limitation of those immediate answers.
>> Reflection may only take one so far. Reflection without an incline
>> of what is possible, would only take one in circles. The position
>> which accepts that X is unknown, isn't natural to us, since its
>> that state of unknowing which leads contributes to a state of
>> uncertainty and anxiety. This is why we accept our folk answers.
>> That need for an answer makes us vulnerable to whatever we are told.
>> Which brings one back to the effectiveness of those answers sustained
>> by the immediate culture.
>
> There's no way to be deaf to stories or suggestions or folk answers,
> although you might have people more vulnerable to hypnosis than others.
Stories to hide that disquieting advantage some men have over others,
can only ever be stories. Stories with their explanation in the magical
or the mystical, or the spiritual will only ever be stories. Hypnosis,
whatever it actually is, speaks of effect. A flaw in our make up, or
the ways we hide the vulnerabilities.
>>> What would be the alternative, if there is any? A constant striving
>>> for what one wants, pushing and calculating, makes people strong.
>>> Capitalism feeds on frustration. When one has had enough of
>>> frustrations, then perhaps some other values can be considered, but
>>> people lack the intelligence to stop wanting.
>>
>>
>> Its a circular argument to be sure. A greedy model feeding on greed
>> with the unsustainabilities of that position, and the steps deemed
>> necessary to balance that impossible equation. As for intelligence,
>> manipulated on the level of instincts, on the basis of fearful reflex,
>> there is no room for intelligence.
>
> I have a deep respect for people keeping their heads above the water and
> not drowning. I also have to accept the hate they feel. I feel hate
> also, but try not to act on that.
Hate will eat you up if you're not careful. Its another trap waiting
to snare you, another function of the mind which once started, would
dominate if you let it. It is one of the many possible relationships
to take to experience. Be careful of the habits of thought you create
for yourself, or others create for you.
>>> I don't see that future. Better versions of listeners will probably
>>> evolve. Listeners with an easy understanding, like those people that
>>> don't have to reflect.
>>
>> We can only see the past and wonder at the ways we've changed...
>> There is nothing new in this scripted control, it only appears so
>> to latest generation. We are where we are, as a result of those
>> same myopic controls. As i say, this all starts with the control
>> of our would-be controllers.
>
> A wise man probably invites influence of others.
A wiser man looks to understands his experiences.
Leon
>> There's no way to be deaf to stories or suggestions or folk answers,
>> although you might have people more vulnerable to hypnosis than others.
>
> Stories to hide that disquieting advantage some men have over others,
> can only ever be stories. Stories with their explanation in the magical
> or the mystical, or the spiritual will only ever be stories. Hypnosis,
> whatever it actually is, speaks of effect. A flaw in our make up, or
> the ways we hide the vulnerabilities.
A real advantage is when one is able not to bother about unequality.
>> A wise man probably invites influence of others.
>
> A wiser man looks to understands his experiences.
An "explanation" for "inner voices" is that one is sensitive.