Come on Cameron cough it up
Tom Vizzini
the mind works. You claim to be educated on how the chemicals in the minds
work.
So one simple question.
Explain the role of consciousness and how it affects brain chemistry.
If that one is too tough then explain the role of dopamine in the reptilian
brain.
Please also tell us your credentials.
I have a Harvard/ Johns Hopkins educated neuroscientist with over 25 years
of research experience who approached me to explain why the 3D mind was
working to well and why it was kicking the ass of other self help stuff.
Here s the big point you are missing. Lets say tyat the 3D mind only works
as good as NLP. The big point is that you can learn the basics of the 3D
mind in one hour and be just as effective as 3 levels of NLP training.
Here is one example of someone who was having no succes wuth NLP and 2 days
after recieving the 3D Mind was cured of 6 1/2 years of depression
Tom,
I was the guy who wrote you asking if you going to have a sale on
your tapes a couples of weeks back. You wrote me back that the value
of the tapes was in the material, not in the price, and YOU WHERE RIGHT.
I received the 3D Mind tapes on Monday, March 7, 2005 and CLEARED UP MY
DEPRESSION on either Tuesday or Wednesday (I don't remember exactly since my
notes are not dated).
I used the method shown on the tapes and not the updated method. I also
talked myself through the process out loud to keep me focused, if that makes
any difference. Another thing that I noticed from my notes is that instead
of targeting a specific belief, I targeted a whole "frame" of
ineffectiveness.
My WORLD TURNED TO SHIT in the summer of '98, I had seen counselors at
school, been to a couple of Meta-States trainings in 1999 & 2000, and even
turned to religion but NOTHING STUCK for the long term.
Right now I feel more relaxed and hopeful overall. I've been more
productive as well. I've noticed a lot more options out in the world
for improving my life, whereas when I was feeling depressed I could
only see a very narrow, specific path to raising the quality of my
life.
It's not so much feeling good as it is certainly not feeling horrible most
of the time.
- Ash
GET IT YET?
Add to that. We now know HOW we are getting this result. It is not some
vague hypnotic new age airy fairy technique. It is based in solid science.
--
Tom Vizzini
Real Skills for the Real World
www.essential-skills.com
New Gold Members Area www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1056
3D Mind www.essential-skills.com/content.php?cid=1043
Cameron
"Tom Vizzini" <T...@essential-skills.com> wrote in message
news:_q2dnVh8LLBEinPe...@adelphia.com...
>I have heard many claims from you Cameron. You claim to be > educated in
>how
> the mind works. You claim to be educated on how the chemicals in the
> >minds work.
Just enough to be able to point out publically that youknow less than a
first year student.
And that you are not intelectually honest enough to admit it.
But would reather go on the offensive than admit the fact that, despite
aparently being ignorant of the vary basis of the scientific model, you will
use it's public image to support your shabby little cult.
> So one simple question.
>
> Explain the role of consciousness and how it affects brain chemistry.
>
> If that one is too tough then explain the role of dopamine in the
> reptilian
> brain.
Ok, said it a few times now...... WHAT IS IT YOU ARE CALLING THE REPTILE
BRAIN?
I know the reptile mind refered to by hippies and paranoid burnouts, I'me
not familiar with the phrase in the context of academic psychology.
Tell me exactly the role of accetatcoline (sp from memory) inthe
galurumphian gland and I'll give you what you request.
> Please also tell us your credentials.
>
> I have a Harvard/ Johns Hopkins educated neuroscientist with over 25
> >years of research experience who approached me to explain why the >3D
> mind was working to well and why it was kicking the ass of other >self
> help stuff.
No, as your discussion points out, and as unk said the other day.
You never made it to colledge. <doesn't make you invalid>
The good Dr that you keep refering to. He hasn't spoken to me, I dont know
he is real, if he was an academic he'd probally be appauled by the way you
(well unk in particular would give him hastles with lexical entrainment)
call him a "brain scientist" and then deamnd that people dispove your
assertions with "science"
If he's such a supporter why not have him pop by and humble me whth his
knowledge, a simple few posts will do. The pale shaddow of his infalable
glory that you raise is a little flimsy.
> Here s the big point you are missing. Lets say tyat the 3D mind only
> >works as good as NLP. The big point is that you can learn the basics of
> >the 3D mind in one hour and be just as effective as 3 levels of NLP
> >training.
A week or two ago I would have gone with you on that thought experiement.
Now I offer another 3-d mind makes you an agressive bastard.
And your agression makes me dispair for any real chance of communication.
You want (as a group)
to spam with testimonials
(including I've been doign it for 2 weeks and unlike NLP it is perminant)
To claim scientific validity
(with an understanding of science or any evidence at all)
To abuse NLP
(one of your crew? pointed out that this could be fishing for dissatisfied
NLP burnouts)
To attack disenters to your dream.
(you handle the semi-formal feedback, unk screams in their face till they
get unsettled)
To avoid any real question of what 3-d mind is and to drop any threads that
start being difficult.
Now maybe they are not your stated intentions,, maybe it's not deliberate
behaviour, probally you'll have gone red in the face and gotten another few
points of blood preasure by this point and will launch off into irrelevent
abuse. Definately I'me an iddiot so there is nothing of value you can ever
learn from my point of view.
Stop acting like a child, or be treated as one.
Tom Vizzini
OK I will try again.....You have ducked every question with vague attacks
and claims.
What is your level of expertise?
Time to put up or shut up.
Cameron
Yoy see tom, I figure if you had read rather than just seen red.
You would have already knowen. I'me undergard BSc psych (social) Done the
prac and master Prac under INLPTA and spent a few years working with a
training firm. I've you have ever heard the concept within nlp that it's
those who go spend years screaming in the wilderness before they came back
and do well, that's me.
But apart from an ego slug out, who cares? and seing as you have no
qualifications personally, just met a guy at a course once who you are still
holding up as your authority.
You offer chalanges like.
TELL ME YOUR QUALIFICATIONS.
And this will be the third time you ignore the question.
WHERE IS THE REACTIVE BRAIN?
(in front or behind the primary visual cortex?)
Now you've got two ways of answering that.
Either you could tell me where it is.
Or you could have a laugh along with us knowing (as anyone who has done even
a smattering of neurophysiology) the primary visual cortex is one of the
easiest parts of the brain to remember as it is that little bit right down
the back behind everything else.
Yopu didn't have to be a ranting fool, a smattering of knowledge couldhave
had you on the inside of that joke....
are you just mindlessly agressive and missed the joke
or so ignorant (despite your claims of authority) that you really didn't
know?
Which brings us to an impasse. well actually leaves us on the edge of
something that could be quite fun.
You throw a tantrum because I dont agree with your view of ther world and
call me an iddiot.
I demonstrate repeatedly that you are.
Ignorant of science.
( n=2 p=<.05)
I have proof (I met someoen once)
Disprove my pet delusion using science.
Ignorant of neurophysiology.
Dont use the terms that neurophysiologists use.
Dont know where any part of the brain actually is.
And it can be generally observed that well your communication style is less
than concilitory, ego driven and applies totally different criteria to self
and others for proof.
When I asked for the qualifications of those supporting your little theory,
I listed my own background.
You demand mine, like I havent already supplied them, without bothering to
offer you own? this to mee looks intelectually dishonest.
Now while I'me locked in my backroom giving up the smokes, it was fin having
a bit of a roll in the mud with the uninformed. Unfortunately for anyone
else who was enjoying it, it's been a week, I've passed my checks and I'me
out in the big sunny world again.
Up till now, I've tried a bit to keep a higher tone, to not slip into
calling you a delusional cult leader with a group of zellots who are trying
to rip $70 a head off people who have already had a bad experience with
group defined realitys.
I've requested information in an only slightly increasingly pentulant tone
and acknowledged the intelectual lack of bravado involved in not putting my
own case forward but just pointing out the flaws inothers.
Now.. child thing. the time has come.
You want to sell your product and have a desprate need for people to agree
with you and approve of you, I have no pay off from participation except to
amuse myself, and prehaps find someone to talk to who actually talks back.
Come to think of it, already got some of that going on. just not with you.
I'me sure if I had been through the 3-d mind process with you I'ld be
compelled to drag out endless flameqwars with you and your co-zellots as it
is, you are such a grouping of reactive folk that keeping you chasing your
own tails yapping your distress to the world.
Unfortunately for that tendancy in me, I'me aware of the innoculation effect
in cults. If your group requires you to go hard in public
defending/converting then you get the following results.
1 increased dedication due to the cognitive dissonance involved
2 Ability to reject others communication on an internal level while
believeing you are being rational.
The most obvious example of this would be the Jehova witnesses, but you seem
to have some of the same curves in your little group.
Obviously, having met a brain scientist once, you'll know cognative
dissonance theory explains that diferences between (to put it in NLP terms)
(it is a nlp newsgroup after all)
Internal state
External behaviour
and belief
Tend to shift the whole gestalt.
Thus if you get someone who is fresh in the glow of participation in a new
group (IS) and get them to prothletise pubically (EB) you get a shift of
belief.
Now you may not have anything better to do with your time than go mud
wrestling with the glorious 3-d mind graduates who in their elder more
mature years still offer to fuck other peoples grandparents, fail to read
posts and react on a very ego driven level.
I've got the understanding of the pattern down to the point where I'ld
rather leave my layer of dissociation reasonabally intact, let your purile
rantings go through to the keeper and not bother to hit fly balls.
I might put up some posts on "what to look out for and avoid in terms of
dangerous cesspits to lower your mind into" and you'll probally think they
are personal attacks.
You'll turn round and abuse me on a personal level, tell me my opinion is
stupid and unsupported and not even have the grace to shut up when you
realise that references and citations are available, you'll just call them
idiots too.
go on, prove me wrong on that one ;)
Pats pathetic little troll on head and walks away whistling.
Tom Vizzini
"Cameron" <cbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:43ee750e$0$14094$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
>
> Yoy see tom, I figure if you had read rather than just seen red.
>
> You would have already knowen. I'me undergard BSc psych (social) Done the
> prac and master Prac under INLPTA and spent a few years working with a
> training firm. I've you have ever heard the concept within nlp that it's
> those who go spend years screaming in the wilderness before they came back
> and do well, that's me.
OK you failed to answer the simplest of questions again. From what I see
you have no real expertise. You are still in school.
> WHERE IS THE REACTIVE BRAIN?
> (in front or behind the primary visual cortex?)
You really know very little do you. Ok just for shits and giggles. Neither.
The outermost layer of the brain is actually many small thin layers. The
most outer part of that has connections that interconnect laterally. This is
the creative adaptive layer that can cross access experiences and generate
new ways of doing things. This layer is effected by seritonin.
The inner most layer is the reactive layer and connects vertically with the
primal area of the brain with very few lateral connecitions so it operates
on pattern and reflex. This layer of the brain operates on dopamine.
Problems occur when these two systems are out of balance.
Now if you can....disprove anything I just wrote.
This is the difference between beiung on the cutting edge and being a
student reading books.....
>
> But apart from an ego slug out, who cares? and seing as you have no
> qualifications personally, just met a guy at a course once who you are
still
> holding up as your authority.
No .....I met a guy who I have spent a good deal of time learning from over
the last two years.
Did you learn nothing of gathering inforamtion from all your NLP training?
If you are a shining example of what INLPTA produces then I don;t have a
very high opinion of them. You can't even usen the meta model.
Now go study and come back when you have answers
Cameron
will be the object of todays lecture and continues.
Out of respect for the help John have given me in giving up smoking I will
engage this fly ball anyway.
>>>> You see tom, I figure if you had read rather than just seen red.
>>>> You would have already knowen. I'me undergard BSc psych >>>>(social)
>>>> Done the prac and master Prac under INLPTA and spent >>>>a few years
>>>> working with a training firm. I've you have ever heard >>>>the concept
>>>> within nlp that it's those who go spend years >>>>screaming in the
>>>> wilderness before they came back and do well, >>>>that's me.
> OK you failed to answer the simplest of questions again. From what I >
> see you have no real expertise. You are still in school.
Here we see the object, in the face of the information it requested reject
that it exists at all, I've most often seen this behaviour in stimulant
addicts who believe that if they project hard enough people will believe in
them.
Personally I think it might be encouraged by their surroundings not
feedingback in a meaningfull way, that we do know the truth and their
desprate attempt to avoid it is just part of reality not primary to it.
Note specifically the attempt to denegrate the opposing idea with the
comment "you are still in school then" not as creative as unkas "I want to
fuck your grandmother" but far more publically acceptable, sadly in this
case demonstrating the objects lack of even rudimentary understanding of
higher education.
Now I will attempt to re adress the issue of (good for me good fr you no?)
The object seems to be driven to assert that it is an authority, thus any
who oppose it are ignorant, and will utilise a variety of techniques to
attempt to discredit others while failing to respond to the same chalanages.
In the presence of two commuicating adults, this sort of pattern could be
resolved by framing up what information was required when information was
recieved rather than rejecting the information out of hand.
<turns to object>
Tom I still havent seen _any_ qualifications from you except "I met a brain
scientist once"
And no, if you had made it that far you'ld know that it's different from
school if you make it to uni.
At school before you graduate you are still at school, as an Undergraduare
you can wander round study nlp, get involved with groups, live life, buy a
home do whatever, you just dont stop being an undergraduate untill you pull
your finger out and pass enough subjects to be accepted, or fail enough to
get excluded.. Personally though I do have some background and am familiar
with "science" I dont beleive it is the tool to ask the questions I want
answers to.
>> WHERE IS THE REACTIVE BRAIN?
>> (in front or behind the primary visual cortex?)
>
> You really know very little do you. Ok just for shits and giggles.
> >Neither.
I know very little indeed, difference between you and I is that I know I
know nothing and am still trying to learn.
<turns to class>
Here the object attempts to reassert it's authority by using some jargon and
demonstrates the real, if limited knowledge of neuroanatomy.
> The outermost layer of the brain is actually many small thin layers. The
> most outer part of that has connections that interconnect laterally. This
> >is the creative adaptive layer that can cross access experiences and
> >generate new ways of doing things.
It is probally speaking of the Cerebrum here? or the Corpus callosum
connecting the two hemispheres of the Cerebrum.
Hard to tell as it's confusion about science and neuroanatomy has lead it
to imperecice utterances before.
> This layer is effected by seritonin.
Your stomach is affected by seritonin (honestly) so is most of your brain,
> The inner most layer is the reactive layer and connects vertically with
> >the primal area of the brain with very few lateral connecitions so it
> >operates on pattern and reflex. This layer of the brain operates on
> >dopamine.
Again, we have strayed from the usual 3 part model of the mind (hind brain
mid brain, Cerebrum.) that is not as bad as it could seem as in animals the
three are fairly evenly balanced where as in humans the cerebrum is so
dominate that at a casual glance it seems a 2 part model is sufficent.
> Problems occur when these two systems are out of balance.
>
> Now if you can....disprove anything I just wrote.
>
> This is the difference between beiung on the cutting edge and being a
> student reading books.....
Again note the objects inability to realise that science does not prove or
disprove but rather forms theories and collects evidence. It is symptomatic
of the reason that I chose to objectify it that it was unable to notice this
objection.
>> But apart from an ego slug out, who cares? and seing as you have no
>> qualifications personally, just met a guy at a course once who you are
>> still holding up as your authority.
> No .....I met a guy who I have spent a good deal of time learning from
> >over the last two years.
And you still dont know the ticky words like crebrum? wow, it's not me you
are being offensive to, you are just reallly really slow. shit and I thought
you <voulntarially or not> were having a go at me missing so much but no,
you just dont process quickly :(
<turns back to class>
and here we have the ad hominim attack again, if you cant dispute the facts
try aiming for the guys crotch and see if it works. pick something that
every one knows (like the metta model) and then delete the evidence that
could support the claim, generalise it out to an entire orginisation.
> Did you learn nothing of gathering inforamtion from all your NLP >raing
> If you are a shining example of what INLPTA produces then I >on;t have a
> very high opinion of them. You can't even usen the meta >model.
> Now go study and come back when you have answers
<grin> YESSSS MASSSTAHHH!
Shall I send you some checks and testmonials while I do?
<turns back to class>
This post, in line with the generally declining tone of the exchange makes
me assuem a few things.
1 no one is listening anymore.
it's obvoius that the object is not listening to me
It's obvious that I've stoped listening to the object much.
If anyone else is out there paying attention GET A LIFE (and then please
come back and show me how)
The object however being stuck in a reactionary loop cannot help itself but
post. despite it's inferances that it is an all seeing all powerfull cutting
edge faculitator who knows about the "reactive" mind.
Looking forward to it's increasing levels of agitation and agression before
it's disconnection (if it still retains that ability) from someone who will
galdly have some behavioural flexability in presentation style. Will not
accept it's dominant attitude and actually (not bad for the school kid he
wants me to be for him) more able to articulate about this subject than it
can.
Tom Vizzini
Again we have nothing but fluff in your response. You have made no real
point. So far we have:
Lies and misrepresentaions of what I have stated.
Misrepresentations of your education level.
Distractions from all questions you asked that I have answered
Refusal to answer the simplest of questions to support your point
Refusal to cough it up
Admission from you that you know very little
Demanding scienticif proof while saying that science proves nothing.
Your only point seems to be that I can't possibly know what I am talking
about.
You are really not very good at this.
So lets take a look:
"Cameron" <cbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:43ee8b99$0$22328$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
< Snip of weak excuses and distraction.
.
>
> <turns to object>
>
> Tom I still havent seen _any_ qualifications from you except "I met a
brain
> scientist once"
This is an outright lie. as I have stated before I have been learning off of
Ken for almost 3 years now. Each time I present an part of the modelof the
brain I run it by him for accuracy. So I am working WITH Ken at all times.
<Snip of weak excuses>
>
>
> >> WHERE IS THE REACTIVE BRAIN?
> >> (in front or behind the primary visual cortex?)
> >
> > You really know very little do you. Ok just for shits and giggles.
> > >Neither.
>
> I know very little indeed, difference between you and I is that I know I
> know nothing and am still trying to learn.
Wait......This is completely oppsite of your earlier claims. You admit you
know very little..DAMN why am I bothering with you?
>
> <turns to class>
< Snip complete bullshit :)>
> > This is the difference between beiung on the cutting edge and being a
> > student reading books.....
>
> Again note the objects inability to realise that science does not prove or
> disprove but rather forms theories and collects evidence. It is
symptomatic
> of the reason that I chose to objectify it that it was unable to notice
this
> objection.
Whoa cowboy....How can you insist on scientific proof then claim that
science proves or disproves nothing? You have got to be kidding. This
happens so often on this list.
What you have proved is that you are a waste of time. You asked for
explainations and I gave them to you. You have admited that you have no
education on the subject we are discussing. So anything more I write is
going to be a waste of time because if you can't get a simple concept then
you will never understand the rest of it.
You write a lot of words that say nothing
You are unable to respond to the simplest of questions.
You have ZERO real world experience
You constantly contradict yourself.
You have proven you just can't keepup.
In other words you are just a snot nosed shit thrower with no real point.
Get back to me when you are educated and not still wet behind the ears.
Maybe you should come back in another few years when you have done something
with your life.
Until then.....you can have the last word.
Cameron
It at least managed to snip it out this time, before accusing me of not
supplying it.
I'll supply it again, who knows it might sink in.
/*
Toms question.
>Please also tell us your credentials.
>I have a Harvard/ Johns Hopkins educated neuroscientist with over 25 >years
>of research experience who approached me to explain why the >3D mind was
>working to well and why it was kicking the ass of other >self help stuff.
My response.
You see tom, I figure if you had read rather than just seen red.
You would have already knowen. I'me undergard BSc psych (social) Done the
prac and master Prac under INLPTA and spent a few years working with a
training firm. I've you have ever heard the concept within nlp that it's
those who go spend years screaming in the wilderness before they came back
and do well, that's me.
But apart from an ego slug out, who cares? and seing as you have no
qualifications personally, just met a guy at a course once who you are still
holding up as your authority.
You offer chalanges like.
TELL ME YOUR QUALIFICATIONS.
And this will be the third time you ignore the question.
*/
(except now it's the sixth or so)
*/
Toms next question
>I have heard many claims from you Cameron. You claim to be > >educated in
>how the mind works. You claim to be educated on how the >chemicals in the
>minds work.
My response.
Just enough to be able to point out publically that youknow less than a
first year student.
And that you are not intelectually honest enough to admit it.
/*
Prehaps the concept that the object fails to grasp here could be expressed
as "I dont have to be able to play the tuba, to know you are crap at it"
And seeing as he still too shy to tell us what his qualifications, I'me
wondering if my poor ability and background aren't well beter than his?
Who knows, he hasn't yet told me his background.
UnKa
>Your stomach is affected by seritonin (honestly) so is most of your brain,
Umm, actually the stomach is more affected by other peptide's than
seritonin, that is why you get that feeling in your stomach when your
angry or have fear, the stomach lining is loaded with fear peptide's
and other peptide's that support what we call negative emotions.
The largest amount of peptide's are located actually in the limbic
system, which actually makes up the emotional part of the brain,
followed by the base of the skull and huge amounts of peptide's up and
down either side of the spine, but the part that Tom is talking about
has the largest amount of seritonin, peptide's. But then why listen to
me, I am only a high school drop out and I have only read a few books
and the books are only from scientists who have made it their lives in
researching the brain, peptide's and the like but who are they compared
to Cameron?
UnKa
>prac and master Prac under INLPTA and spent a few years working with a
>training firm. I've you have ever heard the concept within nlp that it's
>those who go spend years screaming in the wilderness before they came back
>and do well, that's me.
So then your so convinced that NLP is the stuff, you negate anything
else. Your belief's have made you a slave of the NLP world where
nothing else exists or nothing else but the NLP is truth, I's sorry for
you sir, maybe in your next life you'll get it.
Can you provide us with anything, any sort of proof that NLP does
indeed work, as claimed by those trainers who make wild claims as to
what will happen when, the reader, learn the NLP system? Or are you
just going to lay claim to the academic's of school and the BSc psych
(social) piece of paper you got? Since you profess that higher learning
is the key. Some one should have told Einstein to stay in high school
so he could have that piece of paper too, so that his intellectual
superior mind could be recognized by the scientific community, instead
he went to his grave a no body, poor guy, with no verifiable
contributions to science.
Cameron
offensive.
The really funny thing is I consider myself as relatively ill educated, I
dont even have qualifications as a psychologist let along a phd let alone
claiming that I haev developed a earther shattering new technology that
allows be to be calm and non reactive.
<points at gimp in chair>
Tom here is a GURU!!!! 15 minutes with him and you'll be perfect and clear,
but he still seems to twitch more than average.
> Lies and misrepresentaions of what I have stated.
What specifically have you stated that I could lie about?
What lies have I told?
> Misrepresentations of your education level.
Ohh, so you did read that bit <why did you start the choke version of the
thread?>
And again (remember that metta model I dont know about?)
What specifically have I misrepresented? hell just tell me what you have
actually read me stating to start with and then we can go from there.
> Distractions from all questions you asked that I have answered.
Damm, I must have missed them, as I recall I wanted to know where the
"reptile mind" is (which I ended up answering forward and down from the
primary visual cortex, I acknowledged your comantary on the squiggly bit at
the top of the brain as being called the Cerebreum and pointed out that
seritonin is not limited to this area.
Aparently I went out of your depth.
> Refusal to answer the simplest of questions to support your point
Dude my point is that you, claim guru status claim to be validated by
science, and claim to be cool and non reactive due to your 3-d mind.
I cant communicate with you an a scientific level apparently because you
dont seem to show any familiariaty withthat discourse.
You'ld want to be having a shabby life before taking you on as a guru.
And you still seem just the tiniest bit reactive.
I mean if I'me such an obvious retard, why respond? leave it to the good
people of the internet to judge purile ranting for what it is. participating
just lowers you. For the sake of this arguement I've lept into the gutter,
why do I find you down here with me?
> Refusal to cough it up
(ofers a loogie)
Exactly what is it you want from me (apart from $70 and my adoration and
respect)
> Admission from you that you know very little
Admission? Assertion! it's a big world and I've only been playing in it for
a while. Anyone who wants to tell you that they have it all sorted out is
probally overdure for their proctologist appointment to have their cranium
checked.
> Demanding scienticif proof while saying that science proves nothing.
> Your only point seems to be that I can't possibly know what I am talking
> about.
No my point is that you dont seem to know what you are talking about.
Obviously I am wrong and you'll be posting (any day now)
the good clear scientifcally valid model that you have developed and are
offering for sale. Or maybe you've learnt over time that if you say
"it's science" some people believe you more.
> You are really not very good at this.
Nah, almost as bad as you.
> So lets take a look:
Grin.
>> Tom I still havent seen _any_ qualifications from you except "I met a
> brain scientist once"
>
> This is an outright lie. as I have stated before I have been learning off
> of
> Ken for almost 3 years now. Each time I present an part of the >modelof
> the brain I run it by him for accuracy. So I am working WITH >Ken at all
> times.
That's not a lie Tom, those of us over the mental age of 5? have developed
the "theory of mind" where we recognise that others do not know everything
we do.
My statement was a first person statement of my experience.
It was true. I hadn't seen any other claim to validity.
Now I have, you are claiming to work with him at all times.
I'ld be a bit weary of that claim as he doesn't seem to have transfered any
of the jargon of his field into your expression <shrugs> not accusing you of
lieing, just wonderying why you dont have more big words there. Or seem to
know the big words.
>>
>> >> WHERE IS THE REACTIVE BRAIN?
>> >> (in front or behind the primary visual cortex?)
>> >
>> > You really know very little do you. Ok just for shits and giggles.
>> > >Neither.
>>
>> I know very little indeed, difference between you and I is that I know
>> know nothing and am still trying to learn.
> Wait......This is completely oppsite of your earlier claims. You admit
> >you know very little..DAMN why am I bothering with you?
Is it? I thought it was the thing you objected to way back that I am taking
the luxury of not taking a stance but rather commenting on yours.
And why are you bothering?
Well in an ideal world you might be begining to recognist that the little I
know might be bigger than the little you know. After all Big world little
brain none of us know that much.
Personally I'me getting worried it's because you are a recative cult leader
who cannot tolerate disscent and thus are bound to keep dancing like a
monkey when I tweak your strings.
<taking notes unk? rude words dont create the offense like finding root
causes>
>> Again note the objects inability to realise that science does not prove
>> or
>> disprove but rather forms theories and collects evidence. It is
> symptomatic
>> of the reason that I chose to objectify it that it was unable to notice
> this
>> objection.
>
> Whoa cowboy....How can you insist on scientific proof then claim that
> science proves or disproves nothing? You have got to be kidding. This
> happens so often on this list.
Slow down there partner.......
Read what I said....
Realise that you dont know the scientific model (or at least you don't
demonstrate knowledge of it)
Or restate it, I've given you two examples you could cut and paste if you
want.
Failing that consider that I could actually know about it more than you do
(I know a guru couldnt' think that way)
then find meaning in my utterances.
You offer that you have "scientific proof"
I ask for it, pointing out
>> Again note the objects inability to realise that science does not prove
>> >>or disprove but rather forms theories and collects evidence
You have no scientific proof, your failure to offer is is because, fromfirst
principles such a thing is not possible.
you wont respond to this, because the next step will be asking specifically
what your theory is and then requesting the methodology you used to collect
your data, the statstical analysis of that data and your conclusions that
support the theory.
If you had any of that, given the rest of yoru behaviour, you would have
shoved it sideways down my throat as soon as I got stroppy with you.
> What you have proved is that you are a waste of time. You asked for
> explainations and I gave them to you. You have admited that you have >no
> education on the subject we are discussing. So anything more I write >is
> going to be a waste of time because if you can't get a simple concept
> >then you will never understand the rest of it.
Hold on, I list my background 6 times? and now I'me admitting I have no
education? I admit I am ignorant, I assert this is part of the human
condition and thus you are too.
And yeah, it's been a waste of time for a while, except as I said to UNK
earlier, baiting mongies can be fun, and watching you chase your own tail
(in an ever so non reactive way oh great guru) is mildly amusing.
You've done gone been pig wrestling for a while, it's a no brainer when the
person you are "talking" to projects you as a pathetic little trolling
retard that the lines of cuimmunication are blocked.
Personally they were blocked long before that, but I recon your average barn
animal would have worked it out a couple of posts ago.
you (oh great unreactive guru) keep reacting.
So show us all how cool you are and how flawed I am, and for once take the
moral high road and SHUT UP!
(which I dobut you can do)
Oh yeah BTW framing me up as a school kiddy would work better if I was one,
or if I didnt' have a better grasp of the science of this field than you.
Cameron
"UnKa" <monste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139782174.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >You would have already knowen. I'me undergard BSc psych (social) Done
> >the
>>prac and master Prac under INLPTA and spent a few years working with a
>>training firm. I've you have ever heard the concept within nlp that it's
>>those who go spend years screaming in the wilderness before they came back
>>and do well, that's me.
>
> So then your so convinced that NLP is the stuff, you negate anything
> else. Your belief's have made you a slave of the NLP world where
> nothing else exists or nothing else but the NLP is truth, I's sorry for
> you sir, maybe in your next life you'll get it.
Not that easy and besides we have been here before.
It's not 3-d mind zellots that worry me it's zellots in general
NLP whatever....
But thanks for another example of that polarisation I mentioned earlier.
Are you concerned about you black and white view of the world?
(I am)
I developed a view of NLP very similar to yours during my experiences with
it, it's taken me a long time to go down stairs and grab the baby again when
I threw the bathwater.
> Can you provide us with anything, any sort of proof that NLP does
> indeed work, as claimed by those trainers who make wild claims as to
> what will happen when, the reader, learn the NLP system?
Nope, never indicated I would or could.
>Or are you
> just going to lay claim to the academic's of school and the BSc psych
> (social) piece of paper you got?
Undergraduate, I dont have a pice of paper, just the facts I learnt.
Learn the same things and you've got all the cards I have as a high school
drop out as I have, (plus extra respect for not having been hand fed them)
Since you profess that higher learning
> is the key. Some one should have told Einstein to stay in high school
> so he could have that piece of paper too, so that his intellectual
> superior mind could be recognized by the scientific community, instead
> he went to his grave a no body, poor guy, with no verifiable
> contributions to science.
Not me you are talking about here again..
To participate in a scientific discourse, you have to undestand (to some
degree) science. you can get that from kiddys books.
If your projection of me there was valid I'ld have nipped off and finished
my degree already and gone on to post grad. It'ld take me another 5 years or
so but then I could be Dr Cameron (brain scientist).
At the moment I'me more intrested in bees.
Cameron
I was getting the feeling I was talking to mysef and you were talking to a
picture of someone else.
And then I see a real response
<bows deeply>
I appear to have misjudged you.
> >This layer is effected by seritonin.
>
>>Your stomach is affected by seritonin (honestly) so is most of your brain,
>
> Umm, actually the stomach is more affected by other peptide's than
> seritonin, that is why you get that feeling in your stomach when your
> angry or have fear, the stomach lining is loaded with fear peptide's
> and other peptide's that support what we call negative emotions.
yes, serotonin has a relative minor role in the context of the stomach as my
vague memory indicates. My point was more that the
Passive principle, Cerebral cortex, serotonin.
model is, well simplistic at best.
And that I had the knowledge that a more detailed discussion would not be
wasted.
> The largest amount of peptide's are located actually in the limbic
> system, which actually makes up the emotional part of the brain,
> followed by the base of the skull and huge amounts of peptide's up and
> down either side of the spine, but the part that Tom is talking about
> has the largest amount of seritonin, peptide's. But then why listen to
> me, I am only a high school drop out and I have only read a few books
> and the books are only from scientists who have made it their lives in
> researching the brain, peptide's and the like but who are they compared
> to Cameron?
Because you are publically pretending I am arrougant because I am better
informed than your guru? but you are not so mentally enthralled by "the man"
Tom that you just march along singing "rented-a tent"?
And yes, the limbic system finally pops up in the discussion, you have at
least read a book, now all we have to do is trace the validity of the 3-d
mind back to the level of terminal button's and we can look at the
interaction between the neurotransmitters in the post synaptic gap.
That's the level of resolution that serotonin comes into the story.
Tom has spent all that time with his researcher mate, so he'l have that
view, the quick overview is in a first year text book, and a PHD takes more
than a year....
Sadly Tom and I dont seem to be able to communicate effectively anymore
without just slagging one another off. I know you wont have a problem with
that unk, enjoying as you do using a turettes like stream of abuse now and
then to check your opponents cool.
After all when I call him a narciscistic ignorant cult leader, you know it
is only words.
So if you could get him to explain to you, and then explain to me (and the
rest of usenet) how his model ties in to the formal academic model on that
level.
Well, if that happened I'll still be wondering why all the abuse has been
flying, but at least I'll understand why he thinks it has something to do
with science.
Cameron
Narcissists invariably react with narcissistic rage to narcissistic injury.
These two terms bear clarification:
Narcissistic Injury
Any threat (real or imagined) to the narcissist's grandiose and fantastic
self-perception (False Self) as perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, and
entitled to special treatment and recognition, regardless of his actual
accomplishments (or lack thereof).
The narcissist actively solicits Narcissistic Supply - adulation,
compliments, admiration, subservience, attention, being feared - from others
in order to sustain his fragile and dysfunctional Ego. Thus, he constantly
courts possible rejection, criticism, disagreement, and even mockery.
The narcissist is, therefore, dependent on other people. He is aware of the
risks associated with such all-pervasive and essential dependence. He
resents his weakness and dreads possible disruptions in the flow of his
drug - Narcissistic Supply. He is caught between the rock of his habit and
the hard place of his frustration. No wonder he is prone to raging, lashing
and acting out, and to pathological, all-consuming envy (all expressions of
pent-up aggression).
UnKa
resorting to name calling, the very same thing you accuse us of. So
where are the facts? Tom has asked you a few questions and no factual
reply, I've asked a few questions and again no factual reply.
>To participate in a scientific discourse, you have to undestand (to some
>degree) science. you can get that from kiddys books.
and still as of yet you supplied none, even from the kiddie books. When
you first started replying to this NG, I actually though you were
somewhat intelligent, boy was I fooled huh?
So far to date, you've supplied us with nothing but long posts ranting
about how Tom is a guru then sneak in other non issues pertinent to
this discussion. Thus far you've done nothing factual about anything,
when Tom mentioned the creative adaptive brain and seritonin, you cried
bullshit but as of yet have not come up with any information to dispute
that except your own opinion, if you can dispute it, then point us to
some references
UnKa
priest. We are going to do a ritual sacrifice to the goat God and was
hoping that you might volunteer, we will make it well worth your while,
we'll pay the rest of your tuition, and give you plenty of spending
money the rest of your college or under grad days and buy you a new car
every year anyone you choose. Ok, what if I say please, with a cherry
on top?
UnKa
the brain chemistry works. Remember I only read "a" book and Tom,
according to you, is ignorant, to please show us the error of our
ways?
Straighten us out and help us get the facts right, for we don't want to
be telling people the wrong facts.