Toward a Science of Consciousness 1998
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
> TOWARD A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS 1998
Why make it a science?
So some idiots eventually mess around connecting a square kilmoeter of
the right cells for that prupose with a ton of silicon chips?
The conscious areas are sacred.
Not something to be messed with.
They are not made for unnatural huge metal fields, most artificial
fields and so on.
>PL2: IMPLICIT PROCESSES
> * A. Greenwald: Simple mental feats that require conscious cognition
> (because unconscious cognition can't do them.)
Examples?
A lot sof simple feats I do not need to be around for.
I'd say fastest way to know is to watch a bunch of autsists.
If you ever do I'd like if you send me the results.
>PL3: PATHWAYS OF VISUAL CONSCIOUSNESS
What???
Since when is consciousness visual??!
Who said so, and which areas, and what's the access pathway to there
from the own areas (if this is serious I am tempted to try to check it
out some year)?
Or do you mean magic?
Like when you change occipital and other stuff and go to other
frequencies and link own centers to another? But I'd still not see
that as visual consciousness. I make the connections to the other
brain with the waves (or the other one, if (s)he is better) and I
receive via the fields into my areas and I steer, but that are just
carrier fields I make for exchanging data.
To call them conscious for me sounds like saying my phone is conscious
cause it talks.
Are you sure you are not mistaken?
> * D. Milner: Unconscious visual processing for action:
> neuropsychological evidence.
Most visual stuff for action is processed by the sequencer's areas;
guess folks, what it is good for; now, who would have thought that...
What's new about that?
Every autist who segregates the two CPUs of the brain and leaves
central command to the sequencer to go spacing off inside could have
told you that ages ago if he had the way to put it into words.
Of course the other CPU is not blind, esle you'd bash into things
every few minutes.
Did you seriously think that your areas in the head are the only ones
that can access optical data or what?
I believe Western science is often amazing in coming up with stuff
that is obvious and has been so for (thousnads of) years.
> * M. Goodale: Unconscious visual processing for action: evidence
> from normal observers.
How do you get evidence from normals about non-conscious areas?
If I was a little more prejudiced I'd say I do not believe you that
normals can segregate their area enough from the other ones and dock
into a non-conscious one without disturbing it well enough to come to
valuable results.
Or do you mean unconscious literal, that the person is uncosncious and
still does actions?
Whichever, to me at first it sounds like someone on my door wanting to
sell me THE insurance and vacuum cleaner "that I always needed iin my
life".
>PL6: COLOR AND CONSCIOUSNESS
b.s.
> * M. Nida-Rumelin: Pseudonormal vision and color qualia
Pseudonormal?
> * H. Hunt: Transpersonal and cognitive psychologies of consciousness:
> A necessary and reciprocal dialogue.
There are sentences where one sufferes from the distinct impression
that the person who made them does neither understand the consious
areas nor the main psyche-areas...
>PL8: EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE AND THE BRAIN
Why do you segregate from the body as if the adrenal glands and other
hormone generators would play no role?
The body systems belong to the brain systems, I do not believe it wise
to segregate them when discussion emotions.
> * R.D. Lane: Subregions within the anterior cingulate cortex may
> differentially participate in phenomenal and reflective conscious
> awareness of emotion.
Might be mistaken, but I do not believe so.
In case you mean the thingie with two halves that is like a vast black
dome and where you can play with data, that one is not conscious.
It's the playground! ;-)
And of course you get nice endorphine showers of you do the right
stuff there. You may have reached the point that many autists reach in
early childhood... Now you just need to come to understand the point
of repetitive movements...
Sorry, making stupid jokes...
>PL9: EVOLUTION AND FUNCTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS I
If you mean the own areas:
Have you ever watched "your consciousness" when going frequency
surfing? (And the emotional changes?)
And speculated about the original function of the mentioned
"playground"?
And then combined the two results?
I believe that that is most of the answer.
Selector. Priority giver.
> * M. Winkelman: The fundamental properties of systems with
> consciousness.
I am not that sure if there are fundamental ones.
There are so many who are conscious and they are so different.
An octopus is not like a dolphin and a dolphin not like a parrot.
Even just within ourselves I find there is a vast difference between
the two main conscious "blocks"..
>PL13: BLINDSIGHT
> * P. Stoerig, A. Cowey, R. Goebel: Blindsight and its neuronal basis.
Where can one get information about the previous and the next ones?
> * K. Yasue: Consciousness and photon dynamics in the brain.
> * B. Hiley: Quantum theory, the implicate order, and the mind/matter
> relationship
>C18: Altered states of consciousness
>C11: Parapsychology
>C13: Awareness, attention, and memory during sleep
>C6: Crosscultural perspectives
.................................................................................................................................
> * A. Bergesen: Artistic consciousness: the art faculty of mind.
You use consciousness in a strange way.
>C21: Unity of consciousness and the self
???
What is that for a b.s. ?
Does the speaker assume the "I"-areas are not conscious or what?
If I had money I'd say any bet the bloke is a headblind babbler, who
is talking a lot of nonsense.
>___ The Mammalian Visual System (C. Koch) $45.00
Are you sure that that can be expressed that way?
Different mammals seem to have different ranges.
To me is sounds weird if someone has a title that sounds as if he knew
all.
Actually sounds more like one of those who do not even get what Carlos
Cataneda calls "seeing" and is segregating senses and limiting himself
to a few narrow bands or the spectrum of what is.
And from there is judging the perception of others.
But maybe I am too prejudiced.
> Consciousness and Lucid Dreaming (S. LaBerge)
To anyone: How would you say it changes?
Jim Hunter
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>
> > TOWARD A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS 1998
>
> Why make it a science?
> So some idiots eventually mess around connecting a square kilmoeter
of
> the right cells for that prupose with a ton of silicon chips?
>
> The conscious areas are sacred.
>
> Not something to be messed with.
>
> They are not made for unnatural huge metal fields, most artificial
> fields and so on.
>
- There are no unnatural metal fields.
- All metal is natural.
- There's actually nothing sacred about matter. If matter is
capable of becoming conscious, then people who are unfamiliar
with the properties of matter should stay away.
- If matter can't become conscious, then we shouldn't
be talking.
---
Jim
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
Jim Hunter <jim.hunter@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
> >
> > > TOWARD A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS 1998
> >
> > Why make it a science?
> > So some idiots eventually mess around connecting a square kilmoeter
>of
> > the right cells for that prupose with a ton of silicon chips?
> >
> > The conscious areas are sacred.
> >
> > Not something to be messed with.
> >
> > They are not made for unnatural huge metal fields, most artificial
> > fields and so on.
> >
>- There are no unnatural metal fields.
>- All metal is natural.
Ah, so we have just nice natural metals, conveniently being on the
surface everywhere in the size of fridges, metal doors, trains,
bridges,... How could I have overlooked that metal fields the size we
have them today have been around the same force & spreading
on the surface before humans dug them out...
>- There's actually nothing sacred about matter.
Did I say that matter in general is sacred?
Maybe you should pay more attention to the actual sentences.
Hermital
On Thu 4/16/98 20:13 -0400 Jim Hunter wrote:
> cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
> >
> > > TOWARD A SCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS 1998
> >
> > Why make it a science?
> > So some idiots eventually mess around connecting a square kilmoeter
> of
> > the right cells for that prupose with a ton of silicon chips?
> >
> > The conscious areas are sacred.
> >
> > Not something to be messed with.
>
> capable of becoming conscious, then people who are unfamiliar
> with the properties of matter should stay away.
>
> - If matter can't become conscious, then we shouldn't
> be talking.
>
physical brain as the center of human phenomenological consciousness and
the center of speech, that's fine. But Descartes' Mind/Brain problem
concerning consciousness and matter is a bit more murky because
consciousness, per se, has not been satisfactorily defined even all
these centuries and millennia of human activity later. One huge
difficulty is that consciousness is still seen as a fortuitous
subjective phenomenon by most researchers. Perhaps that is the wrong
approach. Perhaps consciousness is a continuum or spectrum of physical
energy, just as electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is a continuum or
spectrum of physical energy. And perhaps it is some portion of the
immanent, transcendent continuum of consciousness that becomes gross
matter through the mechanisms we know as physics. See further
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/csenergy.htm.
Indeed, human phenomenological consciousness may arise in the mundane
scheme of things through the process outlined at
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/patterns.htm (among others).
--
Alan
Within the sub-light-speed spacetime continuum of our synergistic
material universe, higher order information produced in the
transcendent continuum of conscious energies devolves and directs
both the organization and the evolution of lower order aggregations
of energy called matter.
Consciousness, Physics and the Holographic Paradigm:
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/intro.htm
Jim Hunter
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>
> Jim Hunter <jim.hunter@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
> >cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Why make it a science?
> > > So some idiots eventually mess around connecting a square
kilmoeter
> >of
> > > the right cells for that prupose with a ton of silicon chips?
> > >
> > > The conscious areas are sacred.
> > >
> > > Not something to be messed with.
> > >
> > > They are not made for unnatural huge metal fields, most
artificial
> > > fields and so on.
> > >
>
> >- All metal is natural.
>
> Ah, so we have just nice natural metals, conveniently being on the
> surface everywhere in the size of fridges, metal doors, trains,
> bridges,... How could I have overlooked that metal fields the size
we
> have them today have been around the same force & spreading
> on the surface before humans dug them out...
What is the "thought" you are trying to communicate?
> >- There's actually nothing sacred about matter.
> Did I say that matter in general is sacred?
> Maybe you should pay more attention to the actual sentences.
You said the "conscious areas are sacred". That statement
is more than sufficient information for me to conclude that
you don't know what your talking about.
---
Jim
Jim Hunter
Hermital wrote:
>
> On Thu 4/16/98 20:13 -0400 Jim Hunter wrote:
> > cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Why make it a science?
> > > So some idiots eventually mess around connecting a square
kilmoeter
> > of
> > > the right cells for that prupose with a ton of silicon chips?
> > >
> > > The conscious areas are sacred.
> > >
> > > Not something to be messed with.
> >
> > capable of becoming conscious, then people who are unfamiliar
> > with the properties of matter should stay away.
> >
> > - If matter can't become conscious, then we shouldn't
> > be talking.
> >
> The above statement is rather ambiguous. If you are refering to the
The word "conscious" is also rather ambiguous. The whole subject
is ambiguous.
Let's make the assumption that minds
cannot be conscious in dead bodies.
> physical brain as the center of human phenomenological consciousness and
> the center of speech, that's fine. But Descartes' Mind/Brain problem
> concerning consciousness and matter is a bit more murky because
Well, I consider Descartes' problem rather irrelevant
to the 20th century. Let's assume that we all have
minds and brains and let Descartes rest in peace.
> consciousness, per se, has not been satisfactorily defined even all
> these centuries and millennia of human activity later. One huge
> difficulty is that consciousness is still seen as a fortuitous
> subjective phenomenon by most researchers. Perhaps that is the wrong
Yes, they would have to see it that way.
One subjective conscious mind/body system
per researcher is my motto.
> approach. Perhaps consciousness is a continuum or spectrum of physical
> energy, just as electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is a continuum or
> spectrum of physical energy. And perhaps it is some portion of the
> immanent, transcendent continuum of consciousness that becomes gross
> matter through the mechanisms we know as physics. See further
> http://www.livingston.net/hermital/csenergy.htm.
> Indeed, human phenomenological consciousness may arise in the mundane
> scheme of things through the process outlined at
> http://www.livingston.net/hermital/patterns.htm (among others).
> --
> Alan
> Within the sub-light-speed spacetime continuum of our synergistic
> material universe, higher order information produced in the
> transcendent continuum of conscious energies devolves and directs
> both the organization and the evolution of lower order aggregations
> of energy called matter.
> Consciousness, Physics and the Holographic Paradigm:
> http://www.livingston.net/hermital/intro.htm
Then again, perhaps not.
---
Jim
Hermital
On Fri 4/17/98 15:18 -0400 Jim Hunter wrote:
> Hermital wrote:
> > On Thu 4/16/98 20:13 -0400 Jim Hunter wrote:
> > > cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why make it a science?
> > > > So some idiots eventually mess around connecting a square
> kilmoeter
> > > of
> > > > the right cells for that prupose with a ton of silicon chips?
> > > >
> > > > The conscious areas are sacred.
> > > >
> > > > Not something to be messed with.
> > >
<cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> implied that you
wanted a serious discussion concerning the matter.
I apologize. I won't make that mistake again.
--
Alan
Spontaneous self-organization is to the life sciences
as perpetual motion machines are to physics.
Jim Hunter
Hermital wrote:
>
Thank you. When you take the matter of matter
seriously, give a ring.
---
Jim
JRStern
On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:26:34 -0500, Hermital <herm...@livingston.net>
wrote:
> One huge
>difficulty is that consciousness is still seen as a fortuitous
Along with the rest of the universe.
> ... by most researchers.
Joshua Stern
JRS...@gte.net
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
>consciousness, per se, has not been satisfactorily defined even all
>these centuries and millennia of human activity later.
And I do not care how others define them; of seven I know if they are
or are not conscious, and of another where I do not know I suspect it
might have a prestage of consciousness.
Actually, as long as the other areas function O.K. I am not sure why
it is so important if they are conscious or not.
You are with them in your head & body anyway.
> Perhaps consciousness is a continuum or spectrum of physical
>energy, just as electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is a continuum or
>spectrum of physical energy.
It's a bit more tricky than that.
Ask some neo-magician to restructure your occipital cortex & other
areas to go frequency surfing or ask some Red Indian who can do it to
teach you what Carlos Castaneda means with "seeing" and then look into
the different areas of a brain.
There are not just the conscious areas who have fields, there's
bunches of different ones, and you can alter them.
(But don't alter any down behind the ears in another person; there
seem to be sort of control thingies that usually do not appreciate
having their fields messed up by alien energies, and I believe they
are pretty important.)
If you alter them in a dreamer it's different than if you alter them
in someone awake, in case you learn it and find a willing victim give
that a try, too. But don't disturb in a brain when it goes to deep
sleep, and when the sleeper seems to be disturbed by what you do,
leave him alone for some minutes.
I can't put it into words, but if you energy-perceive the other and
send into his systems, then there is a very different reaction to what
you send; and also the energies as such of the sectors are fascinating
to watch for a while even if you do not send but just observe the
sleeper changing between different energy levels. It's tricky to
explain, but if you learn that and watch you'll perceive part of the
answers.
And some of the MBDs can subsegregate conscious areas or shift main
focus within them; they are the experts for the conscious areas as
such. If you nag a bunch of them then you have the answer.
Maybe they even allow you do dock in while they split inside,
not sure to what extent a trained normal can subperceive then, too,
nor to what extent it'd disturb the other one to run a docking off.
Might want to give it a try, though, in case it should be ever so
important to you.
(At least that's the way I'd probably try to get the answers to your
questions if that was my sort of thing.)
>And perhaps it is some portion of the
>immanent, transcendent continuum of consciousness that becomes gross
>matter through the mechanisms we know as physics.
And perhaps not.
>Within the sub-light-speed spacetime continuum of our synergistic
>material universe,
Errors.
>higher order information produced in the
>transcendent continuum of conscious energies devolves and directs
>both the organization and the evolution of lower order aggregations
>of energy called matter.
And who would those conscious energies be, what interests them ever so
much to spend such power on steering an evolution that would run
without them and why do you discent between energy and matter the way
you do and restrict it to matter...
In other words: I do not think so.
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
> > >- There are no unnatural metal fields.
> > >- All metal is natural.
> >
> > Ah, so we have just nice natural metals, conveniently being on the
> > surface everywhere in the size of fridges, metal doors, trains,
> > bridges,... How could I have overlooked that metal fields the size
>we
> > have them today have been around the same force & spreading
> > on the surface before humans dug them out...
>What is the "thought" you are trying to communicate?
The one that you are mistaken if you think the fields of huge metal
whatevers that would not be there in such form in nature are natural
for the systems of a human.
A lot of them cause disturbances, and some mmight even increase the
cancer rate.
> > >- There's actually nothing sacred about matter.
> > Did I say that matter in general is sacred?
> > Maybe you should pay more attention to the actual sentences.
>You said the "conscious areas are sacred".
Exactly. I did not talk about all matter in general.
>That statement is more than sufficient information for me to conclude that
>you don't know what your talking about.
The same.
I bet you a gummy bear that you can not even dock into the next
conscious area to yourself.
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
> You're gonna have to crank up the "concept former" power.
> I see words, but I can't find thoughts. Look around for
> the concept amplifier in there.
You do not perceive the thoughts because you do not know enough to
find them.
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
> You're gonna have to crank up the "concept former" power.
> I see words, but I can't find thoughts. Look around for
> the concept amplifier in there.
You do not perceive the thoughts because you do not know enough.
I believe there is a lot you'd not understand in Carlos Castaneda's
writings either. And I assume he wanted it the way that just certain
people could read & understand what he writes, as to me he seems to
leave out key information in a rather systematic manner.
There is stuff that is just meant for the brains of those who can
perceive certain things, and those who cannot can read them for a long
time and still not get them, and often that is meant so.
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>>
>> You do not perceive the thoughts because you do not know enough.
>>
>> I believe there is a lot you'd not understand in Carlos Castaneda's
>This sort of stuff appeals to the gullible fairly intelligent.
>Astrology, Tarot, I Ching, Crystal Chakra healing, are all fake
>and in the same category. All of it, including C Casteneda is
>a pile of spiritual hubris. You will never find a fact or evidence.
>This is what some grownups do instead of believing in Santa Claus.
It seems there is a lot that you do not understand.
And that you are proud of it.
What Carlos Castaneda writes, is, as he says, a guide to real sorcery.
But, as I said, he is leaving out key data, without which it is
unlikely that you understand what he says.
Sorcery is not meant for all according to many people's opinions; and
I heard that even for what he wrote he got complaints from many places
of the world. And I can see why.
There is data in there which much have taken centuries if not
thousands of years of research to get at it.
That you are too ... to see the incredible value of it is not speaking
for you.
And I do not say that all he says is correct; some is b.s., some is
dangerous b.s., and in his first books he is going forever after stuff
that is not so interesting if one is alteady knowing a bit about it
and is t=not paying attention to some of the stuff that is beyond
nominal value, so that it is just mentioned shortly but never
explained deeper. Argh.
The point of Tarot is a mental counselling.
Personally I do not like it, but for some people it is good if they
stop once a week or more often and look at where they are in life,
think about that, their past, their future.
It helps them to go a more steady and content course through life.
About Crystal Chakra healing I cannot say anything.
So far I do not have enough control over the Chakren in the body, nor
know about all crystals and their effect upon those centers, so I am
not able to judge.
With Astrology I believe that the planets still have effects upon us,
but not the stars, but that the time of the year y9u are born in plays
a high role in some cultures.
In my land in winter it is dark at five and in summer light till after
eleven. A child born in winter and learning to walk one year later can
not go out into the snowy land and has other melatonin levels than a
summer child who one year later might take first steps through the
garden and look at the flowers and insects...
That is a very different input and I believe it makes changes.
I-Ching I do not know.
I believe that you judge things fast without understanding them.
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
(Sorry, slightly stoned...;-)
> The problem is to predict
> how a person is going to behave. In what manner should
> we go about this prediction?
Ask them at the right time. Or someone who has known them real long.
> We may order
Who tries to order people might not have understood much about
equality and lag a bit behind even the French revolution...
Except if they make it clear beyond doubt that they like you to order
them to do something.
>The combination of all these data
> enables us to CLASSIFY the subject;
How do you wish to classify someone?
List dozens to hundreds of subprograms in the amygdala and
hypothalamus and elsewhere + their connections
that have to do with the troubles?
English and German do not have names for them, so it is impossible.
As long as the language is not constructed to name them, you can not
classify correctly.
I guess a language could be constructed and maybe should be
constructed, but I assume that might take a long time, and at the
moment the ones who might be able to do it often neither have the
money not the interest to do it.
My first idea would be to make the basolateral part of the amygdala 1,
the area from there forwards upwards that has to do with upsetment 2,
the one that makes the aggressions and rank stuff (hypothalamus?) 3,
the own emotions 4, the adrenal glands 5, etc.,
and to then add letters and more numbers within the blocks (f.e.1
pregn. for the pregnanacy programs in a woman in the first block, or 1
child-parent-binding-program, ...)
and other connections at the end. (f.e. 3 ...,...,... CRH-->ACTH--->5
Cortisol ----> blablabladecreaseofdendrites&axonsetc.inthebrain....)
Though I am not sure that that is a good system; just the first one
coming to mind when thinking about how to make a "classification",
though I would pick another name.
If one could list a lot of the subprograms and connections and
alterations, that might help some to find the solutions.
But I must admit that I am more for the old-fashioned ways that have
been highly effective for thousands of years and just adpat them to
the folks that have the problems.
It is tradition of a good healer to be able to help most people to
O.K. within a few hours or days, and I see it so, too.
Eternal listings and classifications are not going to make the person
stable enough and content enough with life and the living and being
able to handle death and responsible enough to see to one's tasks and
watching to not disturb the others too much in the ways they pick for
their lives..
If a healer who can subperceive was to list every bioprogram that is
on a not good setting, that would take longer than to get it back to
where is should be.
I think the power of a healer is better invested in getting the person
back to an O.K. life within the next hours or days,
than in making classifications as if one person was exactly like the
next, had the same connection- and cell-numbers, the same
transmitter-heights, the same past, the same parents...
Presonally I believe he might make classifications afterwards if that
is his sort of thing (though I am not really sure what for),
but first priority should be to balance the person back to feel O.K.
enough within and within society.
>and once having made such a classification, we enter a statistical or
> actuarial table which gives the statistical frequencies
> of behaviors of various sorts for persons belonging to
> the class.
I do not think so (probably you just mean how often they occur)
but are these real frequencies? (If so, please send me all info about
that and job-availabilities in that area.)
>... we formulate, as a psychiatric
> staff conference, some psychological hypothesis
> regarding the structure and the dynamics of this
> particular individual.
How the hell do you get, say the basolateral programs, into terms?
I have been struggling together with friends quite hard to describe
the structures of programs being connected with various other programs
in other sectors making sort of complicated structures, but usually we
gave up after a few minutes or just tried to send the program and hope
the other one catches it.
It's nearly futile. There are thousands of programs, and from the
rank-aggression-thingie there seem to be hundreds if not thousands
branching in and out, which were beyond the reach that I had back
then.
How the f... do you want to discuss "the structure"?
Enlish is not my language, and I feel awkward and restricted when
using it, so I might be mistaken, but I believe it is impossible to
put the structures of the subprograms of emotion-senders in the brain
and body into words in English or in German.
Last time I met some from the shrink front they were still classifying
the amygdala and hypothalamus and every endorphine and hormone to do
with emotions, etc., as the "ES" (it) or "the subconsious" in my
language
>In the actuarial or statistical method the human judge is
> eliminated and conclusions rest solely on empirically
> established relations between data and the condition or
> event of interest.
Robot, you have been classified with dysfunction "...",
you are ordered to move to class "..."!
Next one.
"I feel ignored by all."
"Classification: inferiority complex. Class "...". - Next one."
>....it is only if we have a
> reference class to which the event in question can be
> ordered that the possibility of determining or
> estimating a relative frequency exists..
The "reference class" is within the brain and it tells you a lot about
the other one. But there are also differences and these you have to
replace with questions and thoughts.
And it is not a class, it are like secondary programs and thousands of
primary programs, some likely dating back millions of years, others
comparatively young, a lot of which are on certain "levels", but some
can go "off the own" and generate other levels for a short time, and
then you observe what changes and that is how you know the answer, and
that is also one way how you advance as a healer.
If you need classes then download stuff from others into your systems
as far as you can.
Or read the shrink classifications and seek the according base
programs within yourself.
And, as said, my first move would likely be to ask the person about
their behaviours if I wonder about them, and if I want to estimate
anything about them to certainly listen to their own extimate about
themselves, and to listen to the seriousness / doubts / ... with which
they make it.
> It is proposed that when people attempt to
> report on their cognitive processes,
That would be tricky.
>... the standard means of
>obtaining information for 'reports' on inmates for purposes of review,
>and the standard means of assessing inmates for counselling is on the
>basis of clinical interview. In the Prison Service this makes little
>sense, since it is possible to directly observe behaviour under
>relatively natural conditions of everyday activities. The clinical
>interview, is still the basis of much of the work of the Prison
>Psychologist despite the literature on fallibility of self-reports,
>and the fallibility and unwitting distortions of those making
>judgments in such contexts has been consistently documented within
>psychology:
Aah, so you mess someone up by locking him up and then want him to
tell you exactly how much it messes him up.
Now, THAT would be worth a psychological study on a human doing that
to another human.
> 'Surely we all know that the human brain is poor at
> weighting
Lift a bottle. How often to YOU have to check how much is in it.
The human brain & body is amazing at knowing my muscle whatevers and
other stuff what is heavier than another thing, how much pressure and
what angle are needed to throw a stone of a certain size at a certain
target and so on.
> and computing.
And the data processed in the substations of my brain is so
mind-bogglingly high, that if I dock into the second "CPU" of my brain
I cannot even follow half of the data being processed there even if I
dock with my entire capacities.
I think you are not aware what amounts of data are processed if you
just go down a street,
just for moving your feet, legs, arm, processing the pictures, the
other freuquencies, the smells, comparing data, storing data and so
on.
And if you talk with someone there are many thousands of words, and if
I awitch to English a different grammar to my own, that are used in a
certain style, and though I am not good in English in it, there can be
already hell of a processing being going on to chose very specific
words that foten imply somthing else, too,
so say that for example in my language I would fall to an old style,
the other would know that it is ironic. Or in English the length of a
world can say a lot.
Take a little child and put them two years in a country with another
language.
You'd be amazed about the amounts of data they have about the words,
the implied meanings, when you are (not) to use which word, word games
and so on. Not to talk about the speed of adapting to the next
culture.
I think the human mind is not bad at weighing and computing, as when
it reaches it's limits it just grabs a pen and paper, builds a machine
or finds another way to solve what exceeds the own capacities.
>When you check out at a
> supermarket you don't eyeball the heap of purchases and
> say to the clerk, "well it looks to me as if it's about
> $17.00 worth; what do you think?" The clerk adds it up.
Actually there are people who do that.
Most are just too lazy to do that, put if some would train it real
hard for many years, you might be amazed at how fast a lot of them
might be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You talk a lot, but I do not see the point.
The methods yu mentioned did not sound suited to help someone to be
O.K. within a few hours or days, as is traditional custom
They sounded like making things more complicated than they are, and at
the same time ignoring the real sources for trouble.
I have noticed that you have been talking about "classifying" people
without ever mentioning even just the basolateral part of the amygdala
& that areas subprograms, nor the hypothalamus, nor own attitudes.
Excuse me, but to me it was like a long hollow babbling about
classifying and so on, but it said nothing about what you do if
someone comes to you and is crying, screaming or shaking and needs
direct help.
The real are of mental counselling is to be able to have someone come
in who is dumb like a brick, prejudiced and not willing to change, and
mentally totally out of balance, maybe on the brink of killing himself
or others, and to see to that that person is feeling O.K. within
himself and within society within a few hours to a few days again.
All this statics babbling did not tell how to do that.
You do not heal a person with statistics, you heal them by looking at
them inside, perceiving what is out of balance and how to balance them
again in a constructive way that is going to last for a while or
forever.
That is the art of the good mental healers of Earth.
Jim Hunter
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>
> > > >- There are no unnatural metal fields.
> > > >- All metal is natural.
> > >
> > > Ah, so we have just nice natural metals, conveniently being on
the
> > > surface everywhere in the size of fridges, metal doors, trains,
> > > bridges,... How could I have overlooked that metal fields the
size
> >we
> > > have them today have been around the same force & spreading
> > > on the surface before humans dug them out...
>
> >What is the "thought" you are trying to communicate?
>
> The one that you are mistaken if you think the fields of huge metal
> whatevers that would not be there in such form in nature are natural
> for the systems of a human.
> A lot of them cause disturbances, and some mmight even increase the
> cancer rate.
No! Disturbances from metals. Can't be! Everything's metal.
Don't you eat aluminum burgers on brass buns over there?
>
> > > >- There's actually nothing sacred about matter.
> > > Did I say that matter in general is sacred?
> > > Maybe you should pay more attention to the actual sentences.
>
> >You said the "conscious areas are sacred".
> Exactly. I did not talk about all matter in general.
>
> >That statement is more than sufficient information for me to
conclude that
> >you don't know what your talking about.
>
> The same.
>
> I bet you a gummy bear that you can not even dock into the next
> conscious area to yourself.
You're gonna have to crank up the "concept former" power.
I see words, but I can't find thoughts. Look around for
the concept amplifier in there.
---
Jim
Stephen Harris
Scot Mc Pherson
If you keep looking for evidence you will never find the truth, only the
results. Evidence is a result, not the truth.
Stephen Harris wrote in message <353A0D...@pacbell.net>...
David Longley
In article <6hdmhg$1nq$1...@fu-berlin.de> cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de writes:
> Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
> >>
> >> You do not perceive the thoughts because you do not know enough.
> >>
> >> I believe there is a lot you'd not understand in Carlos Castaneda's
>
> >This sort of stuff appeals to the gullible fairly intelligent.
> >Astrology, Tarot, I Ching, Crystal Chakra healing, are all fake
> >and in the same category. All of it, including C Casteneda is
> >a pile of spiritual hubris. You will never find a fact or evidence.
> >This is what some grownups do instead of believing in Santa Claus.
>
> >This sort of stuff appeals to the gullible fairly intelligent.
> >Astrology, Tarot, I Ching, Crystal Chakra healing, are all fake
> >and in the same category. All of it, including C Casteneda is
> >a pile of spiritual hubris. You will never find a fact or evidence.
> >This is what some grownups do instead of believing in Santa Claus.
Yes - well put.
It will help if an idea of what we mean by 'clinical' and 'actuarial'
judgement is provided. The following is taken from a an early (Meehl
1954), and a relatively recent review of the status 'Clinical vs.
Actuarial Judgement' by Dawes, Faust and Meehl (1989):
'One of the major methodological problems of clinical
psychology concerns the relation between the "clinical"
and "statistical" (or "actuarial") methods of
prediction. Without prejudging the question as to
whether these methods are fundamentally different, we
can at least set forth the main difference between them
as it appears superficially. The problem is to predict
how a person is going to behave. In what manner should
we go about this prediction?
We may order the individual to a class or set of classes
on the basis of objective facts concerning his life
history, his scores on psychometric tests, behavior
ratings or check lists, or subjective judgements gained
from interviews. The combination of all these data
enables us to CLASSIFY the subject; and once having made
such a classification, we enter a statistical or
actuarial table which gives the statistical frequencies
of behaviors of various sorts for persons belonging to
the class. The mechanical combining of information for
classification purposes, and the resultant probability
figure which is an empirically determined relative
frequency, are the characteristics that define the
actuarial or statistical type of prediction.
Alternatively, we may proceed on what seems, at least,
to be a very different path. On the basis of interview
impressions, other data from the history, and possibly
also psychometric information of the same type as in the
first sort of prediction, we formulate, as a psychiatric
staff conference, some psychological hypothesis
regarding the structure and the dynamics of this
particular individual. On the basis of this hypothesis
and certain reasonable expectations as to the course of
other events, we arrive at a prediction of what is going
to happen. This type of procedure has been loosely
called the clinical or case-study method of prediction'.
P. E. Meehl (1954)
The Problem: Clinical vs. Statistical Prediction
'In the clinical method the decision-maker combines or
processes information in his or her head. In the
actuarial or statistical method the human judge is
eliminated and conclusions rest solely on empirically
established relations between data and the condition or
event of interest. A life insurance agent uses the
clinical method if data on risk factors are combined
through personal judgement. The agent uses the actuarial
method if data are entered into a formula, or tables and
charts that contain empirical information relating these
background data to life expectancy.
Clinical judgement should not be equated with a clinical
setting or a clinical practitioner. A clinician in
psychiatry or medicine may use the clinical or actuarial
method. Conversely, the actuarial method should not be
equated with automated decision rules alone. For
example, computers can automate clinical judgements. The
computer can be programmed to yield the description
"dependency traits", just as the clinical judge would,
whenever a certain response appears on a psychological
test. To be truly actuarial, interpretations must be
both automatic (that is, prespecified or routinized) and
based on empirically established relations.'
R. Dawes, D. Faust & P. Meehl (1989)
Clinical Versus Actuarial Judgement Science v243, pp
1668-1674 (1989)
As long ago as 1941, Lundberg made it clear that any argument between
those committed to the 'clinical' (intuitive) stance and those arguing
for the 'actuarial' (statistical) was a pseudo-argument, since all the
clinician could possibly be making his or her decision on was his or
her limited experience (database) of past cases and outcomes.
'I have no objection to Stouffer's statement that "if
the case-method were not effective, life insurance
companies hardly would use it as they do in
supplementing their actuarial tables by a medical
examination of the applicant in order to narrow their
risks." I do not see, however, that this constitutes a
"supplementing" of actuarial tables. It is rather the
essential task of creating specific actuarial tables. To
be sure, we usually think of actuarial tables as being
based on age alone. But on the basis of what except
actuarial study has it been decided to charge a higher
premium (and how much) for a "case" twenty pounds
overweight, alcoholic, with a certain family history,
etc.? These case-studies have been classified and the
experience for each class noted until we have arrived at
a body of actuarial knowledge on the basis of which we
"predict" for each new case. The examination of the new
case is for the purpose of classifying him as one of a
certain class for which prediction is possible.'
G. Lundberg (1941)
Case Studies vs. Statistical Methods - An Issue Based
on Misunderstanding. Sociometry v4 pp379-83 (1941)
A few years later, Meehl (1954), drawing on the work of Lundberg
(1941) and Sarbin (1941) in reviewing the relative merits of clinical
vs. statistical prediction (judgement) reiterated the point that all
judgements about an individual are always referenced to a class, they
are always therefore, probability judgements.
'No predictions made about a single case in clinical
work are ever certain, but are always probable. The
notion of probability is inherently a frequency notion,
hence statements about the probability of a given event
are statements about frequencies, although they may not
seem to be so. Frequencies refer to the occurrence of
events in a class; therefore all predictions; even those
that from their appearance seem to be predictions about
individual concrete events or persons, have actually an
implicit reference to a class....it is only if we have a
reference class to which the event in question can be
ordered that the possibility of determining or
estimating a relative frequency exists.. the clinician,
if he is doing anything that is empirically meaningful,
is doing a second-rate job of actuarial prediction.
There is fundamentally no logical difference between the
clinical or case-study method and the actuarial method.
The only difference is on two quantitative continua,
namely that the actuarial method is more EXPLICIT and
more PRECISE.'
P. Meehl (1954)
Clinical vs. Statistical Prediction:
A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence
There has, unfortunately, over the years, been a strong degree of
resistance to the actuarial approach. It must be appreciated however,
that the technology to support comprehensive actuarial analysis and
judgment has only been physically available since the 1940s with the
invention of the computer. Practically speaking, it has only been
available on the scale we are now discussing since the late 1970s with
the development of sophisticated DBMS's (databases with query
languages based on the Predicate Calculus; Codd 1970; Gray 1984;
Gardarin and Valduriez 1989, Date 1992), and the development and mass
production of powerful and cheap microcomputers. Minsky and Papert
(1988) in their expanded edition of 'Perceptrons' (basic pattern
recognition systems) in fact wrote:
'The goal of this study is to reach a deeper
understanding of some concepts we believe are crucial to
the general theory of computation. We will study in
great detail a class of computations that make decisions
by weighting evidence.....The people we want most to
speak to are interested in that general theory of
computation.'
M. L. Minsky & S. A. Papert (1969,1990)
Perceptrons p.1
The 'general theory of computation' is, as elaborated elsewhere,
'Recursive Function Theory' (Church 1936, Kleene 1936, Turing 1937),
and is essentially the approach being advocated here as evidential
behaviourism, or eliminative materialism which eschews psychologism
and intensionalism. Nevertheless, as late as 1972, Meehl still found
he had to say:
'I think it is time for those who resist drawing any
generalisation from the published research, by
fantasising about what WOULD happen if studies of a
different sort WERE conducted, to do them. I claim that
this crude, pragmatic box score IS important, and that
those who deny its importance do so because they just
don't like the way it comes out. There are few issues in
clinical, personality, or social psychology (or, for
that matter, even in such fields as animal learning) in
which the research trends are as uniform as this one.
Amazingly, this strong trend seems to exert almost no
influence upon clinical practice, even, you may be
surprised to learn, in Minnesota!...
It would be ironic indeed (but not in the least
surprising to one acquainted with the sociology of our
profession) if physicians in nonpsychiatric medicine
should learn the actuarial lesson from biometricians and
engineers, whilst the psychiatrist continues to muddle
through with inefficient combinations of unreliable
judgements because he has not been properly instructed
by his colleagues in clinical psychology, who might have
been expected to take the lead in this development.
I understand (anecdotally) that there are two other
domains, unrelated to either personality assessment or
the healing arts, in which actuarial methods of data
combination seem to do at least as good a job as the
traditional impressionistic methods: namely, meteorology
and the forecasting of security prices. From my limited
experience I have the impression that in these fields
also there is a strong emotional resistance to
substituting formalised techniques for human judgement.
Personally, I look upon the "formal-versus-judgmental"
issue as one of great generality, not confined to the
clinical context. I do not see why clinical
psychologists should persist in using inefficient means
of combining data just because investment brokers,
physicians, and weathermen do so. Meanwhile, I urge
those who find the box score "35:0" distasteful to
publish empirical studies filling in the score board
with numbers more to their liking.'
P. E. Meehl (1972)
When Shall We Use Our Heads Instead of the Formula?
PSYCHODIAGNOSIS: Collected Papers (1971)
In 1982, Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky, in their collection of papers
on (clinical) judgement under conditions of uncertainty, prefaced the
book with the following:
'Meehl's classic book, published in 1954, summarised
evidence for the conclusion that simple linear
combinations of cues outdo the intuitive judgements of
experts in predicting significant behavioural criteria.
The lasting intellectual legacy of this work, and of the
furious controversy that followed it, was probably not
the demonstration that clinicians performed poorly in
tasks that, as Meehl noted, they should not have
undertaken. Rather, it was the demonstration of a
substantial discrepancy between the objective record of
people's success in prediction tasks and the sincere
beliefs of these people about the quality of their
performance. This conclusion was not restricted to
clinicians or to clinical prediction:
People's impressions of how they reason, and how well
they reason, could not be taken at face value.'
D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (1982)
Judgment Under Conditions of Uncertainty: Heuristics and
Biases
Earlier in 1977, reviewing the Attribution Theory literature evidence
on individuals' access to the reasons for their behaviours, Nisbett
and Wilson (1977) summarised the work as follows:
'................................... there may be little
or no direct introspective access to higher order
cognitive processes. Ss are sometimes (a) unaware of the
existence of a stimulus that importantly influenced a
response, (b) unaware of the existence of the response,
and (c) unaware that the stimulus has affected the
response. It is proposed that when people attempt to
report on their cognitive processes, that is, on the
processes mediating the effects of a stimulus on a
response, they do not do so on the basis of any true
introspection. Instead, their reports are based on a
priori, implicit causal theories, or judgments about the
extent to which a particular stimulus is a plausible
cause of a given response. This suggests that though
people may not be able to observe directly their
cognitive processes, they will sometimes be able to
report accurately about them. Accurate reports will
occur when influential stimuli are salient and are
plausible causes of the responses they produce, and will
not occur when stimuli are not salient or are not
plausible causes.'
R. Nisbett & T. Wilson (1977)
Telling More Than We Can Know: Public Reports on Private
Processes
Such rules of thumb or attributions, are of course the intensional
heuristics studied by Tversky and Kahneman (1973), or the 'function
approximations' computed by neural network systems discussed earlier
as connection weights (both in artificial and real neural nets, cf.
Kandel's work with Aplysia).
Mathematical logicians such as Putnam (1975,1988); Elgin 1990 and
Devitt (1990) have long been arguing that psychologists may, as
Skinner (1971,1974) argued consistently, be looking for their data in
the wrong place. Despite the empirical evidence from research in
psychology on the problems of self report, and a good deal more drawn
from decision making in medical diagnosis, the standard means of
obtaining information for 'reports' on inmates for purposes of review,
and the standard means of assessing inmates for counselling is on the
basis of clinical interview. In the Prison Service this makes little
sense, since it is possible to directly observe behaviour under
relatively natural conditions of everyday activities. The clinical
interview, is still the basis of much of the work of the Prison
Psychologist despite the literature on fallibility of self-reports,
and the fallibility and unwitting distortions of those making
judgments in such contexts has been consistently documented within
psychology:
'The previous review of this field (Slovic, Fischoff &
Lichtenstein 1977) described a long list of human
judgmental biases, deficiencies, and cognitive
illusions. In the intervening period this list has both
increased in size and influenced other areas of
psychology (Bettman 1979, Mischel 1979, Nisbett & Ross
1980).'
H. Einhorn and R. Hogarth (1981)
The following are also taken from the text:
'If one considers the rather typical findings that
clinical judgments tend to be (a) rather unreliable (in
at least two of the three senses of that term), (b) only
minimally related to the confidence and amount of
experience of the judge, (c) relatively unaffected by
the amount of information available to the judge, and
(d) rather low in validity on an absolute basis, it
should come as no great surprise that such judgments are
increasingly under attack by those who wish to
substitute actuarial prediction systems for the human
judge in many applied settings....I can summarize this
ever-growing body of literature by pointing out that
over a very large array of clinical judgment tasks
(including by now some which were specifically selected
to show the clinician at his best and the actuary at his
worst), rather simple actuarial formulae typically can
be constructed to perform at a level no lower than that
of the clinical expert.'
L. R. Goldberg (1968)
Simple models or simple processes?
Some research on clinical judgments
American Psychologist, 1968, 23(7) p.483-496
'The various studies can thus be viewed as repeated
sampling from a uniform universe of judgement tasks
involving the diagnosis and predication of human
behavior. Lacking complete knowledge of the elements
that constitute this universe, representativeness cannot
be determined precisely. However, with a sample of about
100 studies and the same outcome obtained in almost
every case, it is reasonable to conclude that the
actuarial advantage is not exceptional but general and
likely to encompass many of the unstudied judgement
tasks. Stated differently, if one poses the query:
Would an actuarial procedure developed for a particular
judgement task (say, predicting academic success at my
institution) equal or exceed the clinical method?", the
available research places the odds solidly in favour of
an affirmative reply. "There is no controversy in social
science that shows such a large body of qualitatively
diverse studies coming out so uniformly....as this one
(Meehl J. Person. Assess, 50,370 (1986)".'
The distinction between collecting observations and integrating it is
further brought out vividly by Meehl (1989):
'Surely we all know that the human brain is poor at
weighting and computing. When you check out at a
supermarket you don't eyeball the heap of purchases and
say to the clerk, "well it looks to me as if it's about
$17.00 worth; what do you think?" The clerk adds it up.
There are no strong arguments....from empirical
studies.....for believing that human beings can assign
optimal weight in equations subjectively or that they
apply their own weights consistently.'
P. Meehl (1986)
Causes and effects of my disturbing little book
J Person. Assess. 50,370-5,1986
'Distributional information, or base-rate data, consist
of knowledge about the distribution of outcomes in
similar situations. In predicting the sales of a new
novel, for example, what one knows about the author, the
style, and the plot is singular information, whereas
what one knows about the sales of novels is
distributional information. Similarly, in predicting the
longevity of a patient, the singular information
includes his age, state of health, and past medical
history, whereas the distributional information consists
of the relevant population statistics. The singular
information consists of the relevant features of the
problem that distinguish it from others, while the
distributional information characterises the outcomes
that have been observed in cases of the same general
class. The present concept of distributional data does
not coincide with the Bayesian concept of a prior
probability distribution. The former is defined by the
nature of the data, whereas the latter is defined in
terms of the sequence of information acquisition.
The tendency to neglect distributional information and
to rely mainly on singular information is enhanced by
any factor that increases the perceived uniqueness of
the problem. The relevance of distributional data can be
masked by detailed acquaintance with the specific case
or by intense involvement with it........
The prevalent tendency to underweigh or ignore
distributional information is perhaps the major error of
intuitive prediction. The consideration of
distributional information, of course, does not
guarantee the accuracy of forecasts. It does, however,
provide some protection against completely unrealistic
predictions. The analyst should therefore make every
effort to frame the forecasting problem so as to
facilitate utilising all the distributional information
that is available to the expert.'
A. Tversky & D. Kahneman (1983)
Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction
Fallacy in Probability Judgment Psychological Review
v90(4) 1983
'The possession of unique observational capacities
clearly implies that human input or interaction is often
needed to achieve maximal predictive accuracy (or to
uncover potentially useful variables) but tempts us to
draw an additional, dubious inference. A unique capacity
to observe is not the same as a unique capacity to
predict on the basis of integration of observations. As
noted earlier, virtually any observation can be coded
quantitatively and thus subjected to actuarial analysis.
As Einhorn's study with pathologists and other research
shows, greater accuracy may be achieved if the skilled
observer performs this function and then steps aside,
leaving the interpretation of observational and other
data to the actuarial method.'
R. Dawes, D. Faust and P. Meehl (1989)
ibid.
see http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm for elaboration.
--
David Longley (check end reply line #)
Longley Consulting London, UK
Behaviour Assessment & Profiling Technology,
Research, Data Analysis and Training Services,
Small IT Systems http://www.longley.demon.co.uk
Stephen Harris
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>
> Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
> >This is what some grownups do instead of believing in Santa Claus.
>
> It seems there is a lot that you do not understand.
> And that you are proud of it.
> What Carlos Castaneda writes, is, as he says, a guide to real sorcery.
You do not understand there is no such thing as sorcery, magick
wicca and so on. You seem to be proud that you read a book written
by a money-grubber and have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Castaneda nor any shaman, past present or future is real.
Nothing occult is real. No gurus are real. They are either
deliberate fakes like Casteneda or gullible fakes like gurus.
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>>
>> Stephen Harris <mulc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> It seems there is a lot that you do not understand.
>> And that you are proud of it.
>> What Carlos Castaneda writes, is, as he says, a guide to real sorcery.
>You do not understand there is no such thing as sorcery, magick
Of course there is. As I said, you are just too dumb to get it.
What you say is like someone who can't read standing in a library and
saying that there is no such thing like knowing the thoughts of people
who lived a long time ago by staring at some paper with black stuff on
it.
>wicca and so on.
Wiccas in the USA are generally a religion.
They are not like the witches in Germany.
Wiccans in the USA usually do not know about magical arts.
Nor do they seem to be aware that the practicers of the old religion
were persecuted, tortured and killed by the Christians for over 500
years, that in the Merseburger Zaubersprueche (spells) the old Gods
are listed, and that that to call oneself Christian at the same time
is even worse than that Moon Goddess Horned One whatever.
But that is another topic...
> You seem to be proud that you read a book written
>by a money-grubber and have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
I am very glad I found his books, I heard he got complaints from
practicers of magic from several continents, and I can see why.
There is data that can lead to suicide and data that can lead to
immense powers in there, and it tends to be custom that such data is
only transferred if the receiver is thought far enough.
Fortunately most US-Americans and even some Germans are so
mind-bogglingly dumb, that they do not reckognize the data-security
breach that he has done, and fortunately he was intelligent enough to
construct his books in a way that there is data left out in a very
wise way.
I am from another branch and think very different in a lot of areas,
and some of what he says I find dangerously wrong.
Some I cannot judge.
>Castaneda nor any shaman, past present or future is real.
>Nothing occult is real. No gurus are real. They are either
>deliberate fakes like Casteneda or gullible fakes like gurus.
Sure, they are all just phantoms, people's imagination, ethey were
never born, never lived and never carried the data of thousands of
years of human research into the mind, physics., plants or/and other
areas.
Let me ask you a basic questions:
1.:How does Carlos Castaneda's "seeing" work?
(You can use scientific terms or just own words for it or both.)
2.: Using that way to perceive and describing what is within half a
meter around the head & body of a shaman and someone who is not
knowing how to extend fields/ how to do magick,
what would you say are the differences / similarities (of that area
from his skin to half a meter away)
3. Would it be possible, that you are just able to perceive on the
narrow spectrum of hearing colour-seeing and the other senses, that
the Christians did not censor out, that you are not using the censored
senses, that you are not able to perceive on broadband spectrum and
therefore could have a magick user with a halo half a meter around
that shows clearly that he is in nearly perfect control of the waves /
fields generated of many of his cells and can extend many of them to
dozens of meters or hundreds of km at will, and you do not even
perceive that?
Excuse me, but a real practicer of the senses the Christians forbade
is not overlooked easily.
You switch to energy perception and attempt to scan his energy
structure.
And if it is freaking weird, amazingly powerful and if there are
clear, powerful, mentally aware&controlled reactions to your scan,
and his systems going to defense or his head extending brainwaves into
your brain to communicate or something like that, there is no way to
overlook that.
And if the halo is just looking like of a normal person and
unstructured / uncontrolled, and there is no flicker of response and
the the person maybe does not even notice the scan,
then there is little doubt that they are not a practicer of magick.
Maybe you simply never met a practicer of magick, but if you ever meet
one, just switch to what Carlos Castaneda calls "seeing" and scan his
fields in a way that will not be misinterpreted in a negative way.
You can't fail to see it.
Maybe you do not understand why people like Jesus and Buddha and
others who could extend fields far have a halo that is so powerful
that it is like a shine, maybe you do not understand what the old
meaning of the word "enlightened" is, maybe you do not understand
enough about real physics, your body and your mind to understand how
to alter your fields and extend them and change things with them.
But then do not judge the ones who do like a child not able to read
judging a book about the knowledge of a people.
Jim Hunter
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>
>
> > You're gonna have to crank up the "concept former" power.
> > I see words, but I can't find thoughts. Look around for
> > the concept amplifier in there.
>
>
> I believe there is a lot you'd not understand in Carlos Castaneda's
C.C.?? You can do better than that. I once thought I understood
it, but I recovered.
> people could read & understand what he writes, as to me he seems to
> leave out key information in a rather systematic manner.
> There is stuff that is just meant for the brains of those who can
> perceive certain things, and those who cannot can read them for a
long
> time and still not get them, and often that is meant so.
Yada, yada, yada. You got any them good "plants" going.
---
Jim
Jim Hunter
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>
>
> > You're gonna have to crank up the "concept former" power.
> > I see words, but I can't find thoughts. Look around for
> > the concept amplifier in there.
>
> find them.
Well, you're jumping ahead here. I know how to find
them. Knowing that, tells me where not to find them.
Stephen Harris
> >You do not understand there is no such thing as sorcery, magick
>
> Of course there is. As I said, you are just too dumb to get it.
Maybe so. I studied Crowley, Regardie, Franz Bardon and others.
I have never met anybody who can *do* anything. It is all in
the imagination and by that I mean no physical consequences.
You cannot *do* anything either. Just delusional talk.
> Wiccas in the USA are generally a religion.
> They are not like the witches in Germany.
There are no witches in Germany nor anywhere else.
Just people who call themselves that or other labels.
> Wiccans in the USA usually do not know about magical arts.
There are no magical arts. There are no spirits. I mean there
is nothing related to this that actually exists.
> > You seem to be proud that you read a book written
> >by a money-grubber and have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
> I am very glad I found his books, I heard he got complaints from
> practicers of magic from several continents, and I can see why.
> There is data that can lead to suicide and data that can lead to
> immense powers in there, and it tends to be custom that such data is
> only transferred if the receiver is thought far enough.
> Fortunately most US-Americans and even some Germans are so
> mind-bogglingly dumb, that they do not reckognize the data-security
> breach that he has done, and fortunately he was intelligent enough to
> construct his books in a way that there is data left out in a very
> wise way.
There was never data in there in the first place. This series
of books was occult science fiction. There was no Don Juan.
Anyone who objected to this book had no clue about sorcery,
or any occult, religious, paranormal understanding, because
there is no such thing.
>
> >Castaneda nor any shaman, past present or future is real.
> >Nothing occult is real. No gurus are real. They are either
> >deliberate fakes like Casteneda or gullible fakes like gurus.
> Sure, they are all just phantoms, people's imagination, ethey were
> never born, never lived and never carried the data of thousands of
> years of human research into the mind, physics., plants or/and other
> areas.
People have been called different things. But they are not special;
just ordinary people who have built on people's superstitions.
> Let me ask you a basic questions:
>
> 1.:How does Carlos Castaneda's "seeing" work?
>
It doesn't. There is no such thing.
> 2.: Using that way to perceive and describing what is within half a
> meter around the head & body of a shaman and someone who is not
> knowing how to extend fields/ how to do magick,
> what would you say are the differences / similarities (of that area
> from his skin to half a meter away)
There is no such thing as projected auras. There is no manipulation
of energy fields. That talk is superstitious nonsens.
>
> Excuse me, but a real practicer of the senses the Christians forbade
> is not overlooked easily.
> You switch to energy perception and attempt to scan his energy
> structure.
There is no such thing as reading auras. Nor are their halos or
angels. Don't get the idea I am a Christian.
>
> Maybe you simply never met a practicer of magick, but if you ever meet
No, I have not met one. Nor will I ever because they do not exist.
There are merely people who claim it, like yourself who can do nothing.
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
>Maybe so. I studied Crowley, Regardie, Franz Bardon and others.
seemed rather mad to me.
>I have never met anybody who can *do* anything. It is all in
>the imagination and by that I mean no physical consequences.
Ah, and because YOU never met anybody who can do anything it is not
there?
>You cannot *do* anything either. Just delusional talk.
I think you are the one who is delusional.
You presume to know that just because you never met anyone who can do
magick that no one can do it.
Tht is delusional.
That would be like me saying because I never saw anyone fly to the
mooon that no one ever did and that all claims along that line are a
line and all T.V. stuff some fake made up stuff.
And I also find it intersting that you can judge from whereever YOU
are what I can do...
So which part of what I said I can do or could do in the past is
delusional?
And how do you know that, since you were not around at the time?
>There are no witches in Germany nor anywhere else.
Ah, I am sure you know all 80 million Germans personally to know that
the Christians really killed all in the times of burning and
torturing, and that you are perfectly sure that though they have
learned to keep very secret over the centuries of persecution,
that there are none left.
I am deeply impressed.
I would not have thought I could check out 80 million in my life, and
that you can do it that fast is impressive.
>There are no magical arts. There are no spirits.
Of course there are.
Say, are you metnally limited to the colour sight of your eyes or
what?
Are you some sense-censored Christian just using the five senses they
want you to use, like some sheep of the big Catholic shephard?
Probably.
There are so many peoples practicing magick on this planet, that one
would nearly have to be retarded not to get it.
I could go to people in this country, in India, in Australia, in
Sounth America, in Middle America, .... and ask around and anyone not
dumb like a brick would be likely to know a bit about it , even if he
himself is not practicing.
To not know would be like not knowing what 400+400 is.
Maybe you should work on your education first.
Yiou sound like some Chrisian Westie who was taught not to use his
senses and remains in blissful dumbness to inherit Heaven.
>I mean there
>is nothing related to this that actually exists.
It is called "physics" and "biology" and "will-power"in the west.
It just does not exist for you because you do not want it to exist.
You restrict yourself to the narrow bands of frequencies of hearing
and colour-seeing and from there with your prejudices wish to judge
how many witches there are among 80million Germans and what is there
in the world.
>There was never data in there in the first place.
There is data of centuries if not thousands of years of research in
there. He mentions travelling vast distances with the mind, flying and
other stuff. There are instructions about dream-perceiving, how to
learn what he calls "seeing", how to use the water, and a bunch of
psychological tricks and a lot more.
Maybe you are so stupid that you really do not see data when it is in
front of you.
The trick with the flying I likely will not learn in the time of my
life.
>This series of books was occult science fiction. There was no Don Juan.
There might have been no Don Juan, as the data about him is not
congruent, but it is definitely not Castaneda's He is too dumb for
that. In the start he understands about as much about magick as you.
I find it unlikely that someone like him would co from zero to data
that must have taken centuries if not thousands of years of research.
And it is not science fiction.
It are fractions of data of cultures that have researched the mind
since humans can think enough for that and that was destroyed to vast
extents by the Europeans.
It is the equivalent of science of Middle America.
Because you are uneducate in their ways you do not understand.
The same as there someone might not be able to read, you are not able
to "see" or to stay awake and extend fields in your dreams.
>Anyone who objected to this book had no clue about sorcery,
>or any occult, religious, paranormal understanding, because
>there is no such thing.
Ah, so there are no religions, no occult and no sorcerers.
I am sure the religions and the sorcerers and the occult groups of the
world will agree completely with you.
>People have been called different things. But they are not special;
And old whatever says: "All people are even."
A sorcerer has his knowledge, a mother of eight children her
knowledge, a builder of houses his knowledge, a midwife her
knowledge,...
All humans are special on a level, cause they are only there once in
this universe.
>just ordinary people who have built on people's superstitions.
Some do that, and if you work as a healer or religious cousellor at
the same time that is important; espeically in many other societies.
>> Let me ask you a basic questions:
>>
>> 1.:How does Carlos Castaneda's "seeing" work?
>>
>It doesn't. There is no such thing.
Of course it does.
I can do it and I know dozens of people who understand it a bit.
You are just too dumb to get it.
That is what I mean.
One of the most basic things, and you cannot do them.
And because YOU are too stupid to learn what some others learn within
4 hours (though that is exceptionally fast) it does not exist.
There can be an American author telling about somebody in Mexico and
you can have a German veryfying that what he says is correct, and you
could have half of the planet standing in front of you and say that it
is correct, and still just cause YOU are too dumb to have enough self
control to take the colour transition out or/and to change energy
levels of the sectors in your brain so you can alter the waves you
send and can perceive on the other ranges,
you say it is not possible.
You are the one living in delusions.
You are too lazy to learn what others learn and then excuse your
laziness and dumbness by saying that what has been known and
researched in dozens if not hundreds of cultures does not exist.
Of course witches exist in Germany; if you really believe burning them
for some centuries has killed ALL the knowledge you are mistaken.
The Catholics and your type might hope so or assume, and go on to
supress the knowledge, but you are like the blind laughed at or
accepted as retarded children of Earth by many of the perceiving.
>There is no such thing as projected auras. There is no manipulation
>of energy fields. That talk is superstitious nonsens.
Of course one can manipulate energy fields.
Stick a few trodes on your heads of the neuros and go wild-firing or
calm, and you'll see that you can send to the outside. You are just
too dumb to control it.
Your talk is superstitious nonsense.
Of course trained people can alter energy fields, obviously you did
not get some of the most basic principles there are.
You are just too whimpish and weak with your mind to attain the
necessary control over the chakra- and other points of your body and
brain, and to alter the energies of sectors of your system .
And because you do not have the power nor the interst to learn the for
a few (dozen) years, you claim that no one else is doing it.
You are the one who is delusional.
You believe that just because you are too lazy to do something or are
too dumb, that all of Earth have to be.
And you believe that just cause your mother obviously has not
commmunicated with you as a baby when the axons were cast out with
brainwaves and you lost most connections for that, that all mothers of
Earth do want their babies head-blind.
You are dumb, you do not understand the differences in cultures, the
results of their research, the different ways to educate children, and
then you tell that you know for all of Earth of something is not so
cause YOU can't do it and cause YOU have not yet seen someone do it.
>There is no such thing as reading auras.
Well, reading is an odd term. But if you alter to different energy
levels you catch different frequencies better, and if you sort of look
from those different "angles"/energy-levels at the energies around a
person some can perceive a lot about them.
Maybe one of the next times I go frequency surfing with friends maybe
I ask them if they mind if we target the fields around us, and then
compare the fields of them, and think about the question of "reading",
but I have the suspicion that the few hundred whatevers I can read are
not sufficient, and that I'd have to train into the ranges of several
thousand of the odd frequencies to really start to be able to get some
sort of readout from the aura and to perceive it far better.
But I once saw a weird one:
It was not as dense as they normally are but more spread, and more
foggy, and many of the "sparks seemed to dance slower".
It was of a man who had cancer in the marrow of his bones of the cells
that are like base cells from where the (?)lympathic and (?)myeloic
cells are made. (Sorry, not sure about the English terms nor about
bio)
So I believe some people who can do many thousands of frequencies
maybe really can sort of make a readout by looking at the energies
around a person and if they are trained by their culture then they can
of course also look at the organs and bones and perceive stuff about
illnesses.
If you see them all together you can perceive a lot about a person.
Actually I often believe that they should rather use the mind than
machines to scan a person, and only use the machines if the mind is
not sufficient.
A lot of them machines make frequencies that are far worse than those
of another person running a scanning.
>> Maybe you simply never met a practicer of magick, but if you ever meet
>No, I have not met one.
That is what I say.
>Nor will I ever because they do not exist.
Again the old delusion that just cause YOU have not met someone they
do not exist.
I am sure you have gone into the high cultures for magick (India,
northern Peru, Australia, ...) and spent a few years in each going to
the greatest magicians they have and are positive on your judgement.
>There are merely people who claim it, like yourself who can do nothing.
Did I ever say that I am a magician?!
I mean, I like to go frequency surfing with someone, but that's about
it.
And I somehow don't foresee myself spending hours every day to get
central control over the charkra points and other centers & their
energy levels & practicing altering and extending fields forever and a
day.
There is stuff that is more fun in life than that.
(Though I know people who practice it.)
I said that I do understand a lot of what Carlos Castaneda said.
But if I watch a person balancing over a rope and understand a lot
about the principle involved that does not mean that I will not fall
from the rope after one or a few steps, when lucky maybe making a few
meters.
I might understand the principle of a long balancing-stick without
ever having used one,
and if someone tells me that no one can go over a rope I might be dumb
enough to start a discussion on the net with him trying to get his
dumb mind to realize that just cause he can't do it it does not mean
that no one on the whole planet can't.
But I guess if he then insists that he has never seen anyone going
over a rope and that therefore such a thing never has existed and
never will exist, the discussion is a bit too dumb to continue.
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
(Copyright 1998 by LSD Weaver, parts of the text already copyrighted
1997 in "...The Mind ...")
Maybe you could stop cutting optic nerves of others and the like?!
>Some animals (cats) still demonstrate vision awareness even though the optic
>nerves have been cut.
Of course they have that, they have whiskers and sensor hairs on their
body & legs & tail and they have ears and bunches of different cells
so on.
What you think to be optics is just a very narrow range of a vast band
of frequencies. And the same as when you switch to Carlos Castaneda's
"seeing" and the same as some who can hear high can hear when you
send brainwaves,
a lot of things can be perceived on very many frequencies.
So if you just get some of them, you still know the rest.
Imagine you'd just see black and white instead of colour, then you'd
still know who it is.
In the room with the two halves up front (part of the cingulate
gyrus?) the data of hearing seeing and feeling is not running together
by chance, and is not convertible into each other by chance for many
people.
The colours you see and the tones you hear are just
brain-amplifications of certain frequencies, but of course a lot of
the rest is still there, too, and if you switch back to the old ways
of perceiving broadband then they are running together again as a
unit.
The cat is also a night animal, so of course they are perceiving a lot
of the other frequencies as well.
If you can perceive on the other ranges, some cats, when they chase an
imagined inscet, even project an insect in front of the with energies
of their brain.
(By the way, many of the mammals perceive different parts of the
spectrum of what is than we do, and many perceive more.)
You are just using your cingulate gyrus to play with data of the sort
of big computer in the front and other data, and you do not use it the
way it was once meant, and the same goes for areas of your limbic
system, and you do not use the power of the occipital cortex to
convert the other frequencies into what Carlos Castaneda calls
"seeing", but just for the normal seeing frequencies.
That is why you do not understand that.
If you switch to the old way to perceive all the frequencies coming in
are parts of one vast range.
That is why the amygdala is different, cause that are not frequencies/
wave fields, that is smell; feels more like tiny substantial particles
in the air analyzed.
But the rest is basically one, and if you train, you can make it one
again.
And the waves go straight through your brain if they are powerful
enough.
You do not need the nerves of the eyes.
The same as when you teach a newie telepathy you might aim a lot
through his eyes along his eyenerves to restructure stuff in his
occipital cortex and other areas, cause that makes it easier,
but you do not have to and can send through his skull as well,
the same you do not need the optic nerves for perceiving frequencies.
That is why the blind seers are so famous all over history, cause they
tune more to the other frequencies and use a lot of their optic banks
for that.
You know them dish-thingies with which they catch satellite stuff?
Imagine the eye-bone-socket is like that and so the
(?)frequency-wave-fields get sort of caught there and then go in.
But of course they go in through the entires skull.
There is is just easier, sort of more bundled.
And when someone sends and you switch to the other frequencies, then
often the eyes turn like hollows of blazing energy, but also of course
the entire head-energy fields are there.
The eyes-socket are just power points and the eye-nerves are like
powerful transit cables through the brain.
But of course the brain can perceive energy waves going trough it,
too, without the cables, as many run through the entire brain.
And send through the skull, of course, too; it's not just where the
neuros stick the trodes people's heads that the stuff goes, there the
energy of the fields of the brain is just still very dense.
That's not the same, but imagine you have a radio in a car with and
without the antenna, then either way it can usually still catch
stations, because the waves are there, just not as many as with the
antenna.
If you see the eye and into - colour - transition and eye-nerves
similar to that example, then of course you can perceive without them.
And when you send brainwaves and make fields, then it is a bit like
the dolphins make when swim or communicate with each other.
It is like extending wires, only it are fields instead (different
"wave-fields" are for different ranges), and when something comes into
the fields that is of the sort of energies that alters something in
the fields, then because the fields come from/connect with areas of
your brain and body you you sense that there that something is there
and if you are trained also what. (For the details on that you better
ask Indian magicians, cause they have a reputation to be best on this
world in that sort of (bio-) physics and to have been researching that
for many thousands of years.)
Maybe you could stop crippling the eye-nerves of others
and instead move your lazy mental a.. and go to the researches of
other cultures who did not burn the carriers of such knowledge for
over 500 years, and ask them to teach you their current level of data
on that, and then you will understand how to extend the fields of
areas of your brain and body and perceive on thousands of different
frequencies for many kilometer and ho to communicate with many mammals
and others who communicate in those other freqeuncy ranges with each
other, and then you might learn far more about them then by crippling
them.
You are asking questions that people coming to me to learn about sense
enhancing drugs & areas/abilites of the brain either already know or
learn within a few hours to days.
And that is just some side area I teach, that others teach ways better
and that has been known for thousands of years since the dawn of human
time.
Maybe instead of crippling others you could travel the world and look
at the data about the mind that has been researched for thousands of
years in so many different cultures.
It keeps amazing me that there are questions like that one still
around. And that others are cripples for anwers that are there.
And that they are crippled in the first place.
As an LSD teacher I am of course a bit closer to the old branches
working with sense enhancing drugs, and to understand enough about
that to teach starters belongs to the profession, but I do not get how
one can ignore others to the extend you do.
Anyone seriously interested in the mind would keep an eye open for
interesting data in all the branches.
And THAT one is known by all real witches and shamans, many different
folks in India, quite some (?)Romany, many of the Aborigines, some who
communicate with some dolphins and so on; so it is a knowledge that
can be found all across the world.
I think you'd have to live with your head stuch into Western ground in
order not to know that, and somehow managed to overlook the research
data about the mind of half of the planet.
Maybe you should consider to catch up with the rest a bit, and I am
sure that some of the neuro stuff might interest a lot of them, too,
so that they might be quite willing to exchange data.
The research about the mind could be ways ahead if the data of Earth
was finally combined, and it is not as if today that was so impossible
anymore.
I hope that a lot of the data will be combined in the time of my life
about energy perception and alteration, MBD, autist & LSD perceptions
of the brain, neurology data about substructures, schizophrenic's
data, data of all continents about mental healing, data about dolphins
& the mind, drug alterations of areas in the brain & energy &
perception differences, data about illnesses and the mind, differences
concerning the old perception when having MS or other brain
differences, data about the structure differences of "kept axon grids"
in babies and what differences that makes, data about the fields of
recently dead people and if there is a difference in reaction of their
fields if you send into them between untrained people and magicians
that could extend fields many kilometers, tests of telepathy with many
mammals and others and data about their ranges (and not in a way
crippling or annoying them) and to what extent it is possible to
perceive more trying to tune in with them, artificial tuning methods,
a merging of the data of the studiers of magic / physics of Earth
and that Bill Gates and the likes remove their junk from the sky and
that then the most powerful magicians and best astronomers and
physicians of Earth take a very close "look" at the "gaps" between the
galaxies and galaxy clusters to determine if there might be anything
that seems suspiciously artificial and suspiciously like someone
cross-communicating something.
But I guess that's about as likely to happen as that people realize
and care that there are parents watching their children and partner
dying because they do not have a dollar a day.
Thousands each day.
This is a world where a child's hands get chopped off and a can stuck
between the stumps so the child makes more money begging and the
family survives and where other mammals get forced into cages, have
their eye nerves cut or entire areas of the brain and themselves
mutilated to satisfy questions of others who deem themselves more
worth than another.
And that is the course the world is to go, I suppose.
Jim Hunter
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
> (Copyright 1998 by LSD Weaver, parts of the text already copyrighted
> 1997 in "...The Mind ...")
... Something appearing to be "thought" deleted.
Theory of using Usenet.
Mindless posts can be beamed to N different newsgroups
simultaneously. This action does -not- violate the
theory of relativity.
See this same post in sci.logic in regards to frequency, bandwidth,
and encoding scheme for C.C. "seeing".
---
Jim
M.C.Harrison
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>
> >I have never met anybody who can *do* anything. It is all in
> >the imagination and by that I mean no physical consequences.
> Ah, and because YOU never met anybody who can do anything it is not
> there?
What happens is simple enough, scientists invite people to demonstrate
their powers so that science can take it seriously. Until that happens,
scientists will not take mystical powers seriously. On those occasions
that mystics have attempted to take scientifically conducted tests,
generally they are discovered to be faking their powers or fooling
themselves.
Often, they fool the scientists but the trick can be revealed by (e.g.)
a magician to be a trick rather than mystical powers. This is because
the scientists have been taken in by the trick, not that there isn't
one.
It's standard practice to assume that continued failure to demonstrate
mystical powers proves that no such thing exists, but those of us in the
know tend to agree, ignore invitations to demonstrate special powers and
merely continue to exploit them with the rock-hard defence that as
everyone knows they don't work, it's not viable to accuse me of using
telepathy to cheat at cards, etc. Or, I could be leading you on here.
> >You cannot *do* anything either. Just delusional talk.
> I think you are the one who is delusional.
> You presume to know that just because you never met anyone who can do
> magick that no one can do it.
> Tht is delusional.
Well no, not really. It's logical to assume that when no example is ever
observed, this is because there are no examples to be observed rather
than that everyone has missed seeing them. Flying pigs, for instance,
probably don't exist.
> That would be like me saying because I never saw anyone fly to the
> mooon that no one ever did and that all claims along that line are a
> line and all T.V. stuff some fake made up stuff.
Well no, we all watched them flying to the moon, and while it could have
been faked, if it had been then the russians would have carried on the
space race and done it for real, while loudly accusing the americans of
faking it.
> And I also find it intersting that you can judge from whereever YOU
> are what I can do...
> So which part of what I said I can do or could do in the past is
> delusional?
> And how do you know that, since you were not around at the time?
I daresay, if you claim to have mystical powers, you can make a lot of
money using them in various illegal acts.
But heed a warning, if you do something like foretelling at the horse
races, before long you end up being encased in concrete and lowered into
a river. Spend time at a real bookies and learn what percentage profit a
punter is allowed to make before being seen as a cheat. Then, keep
within that profit percentage by betting on races to lose (needs second
sight as well, of course). So long as you are turning 101% overall, you
can keep making money for as long as you like. You just need to hide
your "good luck" in the statistics of the business, rather than trying
to break their bank.
Other hints, never reveal telepathic powers to a would-be sexual
partner, always reveal necessary knowledge in a way which suggests you
have little or no control over the special power, and that in practice
it's probably just an artifact of an indeterminate universe, that sort
of thing. Else, you could wind up on daytime TV.
And believe me, that's the last thing you want. If you are gifted, it's
in your interests to prevent the rest legislating against you.
> >There are no magical arts. There are no spirits.
> Of course there are.
Depends on semantics, doesn't it? Even sceptics agree that there is such
a thing as the human spirit, or the spirit of football.
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de
Jim Hunter <jim.hunter@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>> (Copyright 1998 by LSD Weaver, parts of the text already copyrighted
>> 1997 in "...The Mind ...")
>... Something appearing to be "thought" deleted.
Man, are you fast, I am impressed.
How exactly did you (not) think I got the data to write a book with
theories about MBD folks & autsists with less cells in areas of the
brain & effects of such alterations concerning some sectors?
Do you think I needed a lot of neuroshrinkshit for that?
It might have escaped your attention, but having thought cells deleted
is fairly unimportant, as it is still no problem to get A-level and
make base studies at university and so on, as the stuff taught there
and teh ways it is taught are oftens so mind-bogglingly dumb, that it
seems dumb even to the brain damaged...
Unfortunately even that does not make some people reconsider the
education system...
Actually I just took one short glance at main studies and then left
university, cause that really got too dumb, for that I do not go
through the trouble to stay connected.
For the results of the research about the minds of thousands of years
I do.
Unfortunately your deeducation has somehow not achieved to bring your
up to current data with (Red-)Indian and Australian research it
seems...
Therefore it is no wonder that stuff that has been known several
thousand years ago is still not known by you or treated like THE new
thing.
LOL
Next time I meet with another brainsurfer I might bet with him when
you folks are reaching the data those of us reached who even had far
more thinking cells deleted than I and who have so few connections
that they can subperceive in many sectors far better than I can...
hehe...
My, if you go on torturing mammals for a while, maybe you finally
figure out where your own areas on the brain, now would that not be
nice for you to know? (If it weren't for what you do to other
mammals...) Mega-LOL
And another little advantage that you overlook is that the less cells
you have the more you might know about subareas of the brain.
All of the branches to do the mind of the world that are not stupid
know that some of the autist brainsurfers are one of the greatest and
possibly unique data-sources about some areas of the mind that normal
people can't access, and some are also aware that many of the games
some autists play in other sectors of the brain might be experiments
that show what might be possible for many normal brains, too, showing
possible new uses for sectors of the brain.
Even as an ex-brainsurfer you can get some of the magicians and others
realease normally well-guarded data to you if you indicate else you do
not tell them what you know about the brain, either.
Others have to train in some odd cult for many years or study ages; I
might straight tromp into the place and take the leader or someone
more interesting of the magic circle or that university building and
get him to answer my questions.
It certainly speeds a lot of things up, hehe...
And actually, even if you are thought deleted, once you figure out the
trick how to use other brains, that does not matter so much.
> theory of relativity.
Einstein did unfortunately not know how to go frequency surfing.
And I would not bet on that he did not have a MBD.
> See this same post in sci.logic in regards to frequency, bandwidth,
> and encoding scheme for C.C. "seeing".
In case you mean me I did not give out the encoding scheme.
That stuff goes through to and is sent by so many sectors that even
back then I could not perceive that I do not understand it well, and
also lowest I ever perceived aware and for sure was an area of
cell-cluster-area, but not single cells and synapses.
I do not KNOW what the encoding scheme is...
(....Though I might grin if I read questions about "oscillations of
the nervous membrane" ... ;-)
But as a teacher of two sense enhancers and teaching brains directly
with wave-fields I am occasionally having a thought or two about
certain things that are hard to fail to notice when receiving and
sending stuff and when teaching the brains of newies and comparing.
But thinking of course just occurs occasionally; the by you mentioned
thought deletion is a nice stage, and I would not want to disturb it
too much ....while frequency surfing. ;-)
The Neanderthaler troll life has the advantages that not thinking you
are consdierably less prejudiced by other people's opinions about what
you perceive and the death of thinking areas has the advantages that
the signals from the other sectors can't pass there anymore, so that
you get a deeeep insight into autism and can make areas of the brain
function so autonomically, that they can independently run the body
and develop capacities, that yours will never have, and watch things
in the mind, that you can study all your life and yet will never
understand, hehe.
F. Frank LeFever
Let's try something else: cast swine before pearls??
In <353BFAAB.1213@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu> Jim Hunter
<jim.hunter@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu> writes:
>
>cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>
>> (Copyright 1998 by LSD Weaver, parts of the text already copyrighted
>> 1997 in "...The Mind ...")
>
>
>... Something appearing to be "thought" deleted.
>
>
>
>Theory of using Usenet.
>
> Mindless posts can be beamed to N different newsgroups
> simultaneously. This action does -not- violate the
> theory of relativity.
>
>
>
>
> See this same post in sci.logic in regards to frequency, bandwidth,
> and encoding scheme for C.C. "seeing".
>
>
> ---
> Jim
Jim Hunter
cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>
> Jim Hunter <jim.hunter@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
> >cij...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
>
> >> (Copyright 1998 by LSD Weaver, parts of the text already
copyrighted
> >> 1997 in "...The Mind ...")
>
> >... Something appearing to be "thought" deleted.
>
> Man, are you fast, I am impressed.
> How exactly did you (not) think I got the data to write a book with
> theories about MBD folks & autsists with less cells in areas of the
> brain & effects of such alterations concerning some sectors?
I'm not really -that- fast. I've simply seen your "theory"
hundreds of times before. All you've really done was
rearrange some words on the basic theme. Reference for
analagous theories: "Theories of Time".
> Do you think I needed a lot of neuroshrinkshit for that?
That's a really good word, I'll have to remember it.
> It might have escaped your attention, but having thought cells
deleted
> is fairly unimportant, as it is still no problem to get A-level and
> make base studies at university and so on, as the stuff taught there
> and teh ways it is taught are oftens so mind-bogglingly dumb, that it
> seems dumb even to the brain damaged...
>
Yes, yes. Well that was the plan. C.C. went out of vogue for
intelligent Americans some time ago. We exported it over
there to see if you would take the bait, and you did! Sucker.
> Unfortunately even that does not make some people reconsider the
> education system...
The education systems around the world most likely
aren't a problem. Goofy professors and assistants was the
major problem I remember. I had to boot some of them to
"thought" several times a class at times. School was a
50-50 proposition from what I recall.
> Actually I just took one short glance at main studies and then left
> university, cause that really got too dumb, for that I do not go
> through the trouble to stay connected.
> For the results of the research about the minds of thousands of years
> I do.
Well, like I said above. You have to be smart to
get through school. You gotta size up the profs/
curriculum on day one. Obviously, you didn't
have what it takes.
> Unfortunately your deeducation has somehow not achieved to bring your
> up to current data with (Red-)Indian and Australian research it
> seems...
>
Current data: "Red" Indians are still "Red".
> Therefore it is no wonder that stuff that has been known several
> thousand years ago is still not known by you or treated like THE new
> thing.
>
Was known, and was forgotten; forcefully.
>
> Next time I meet with another brainsurfer I might bet with him when
> you folks are reaching the data those of us reached who even had far
> more thinking cells deleted than I and who have so few connections
> that they can subperceive in many sectors far better than I can...
> hehe...
Tell one of them to beam me a few thoughts through
the aether. I tune my receivers in the 4-10 THz region.
> My, if you go on torturing mammals for a while, maybe you finally
> figure out where your own areas on the brain, now would that not be
> nice for you to know? (If it weren't for what you do to other
> mammals...) Mega-LOL
>
Hypocrite! I'm a mammal and being brutally tortured as we speak!
I have to decode you, when I could actually be thinking.
> And another little advantage that you overlook is that the less cells
> you have the more you might know about subareas of the brain.
> All of the branches to do the mind of the world that are not stupid
> know that some of the autist brainsurfers are one of the greatest and
> possibly unique data-sources about some areas of the mind that normal
> people can't access, and some are also aware that many of the games
> some autists play in other sectors of the brain might be experiments
> that show what might be possible for many normal brains, too, showing
> possible new uses for sectors of the brain.
> Even as an ex-brainsurfer you can get some of the magicians and
others
> realease normally well-guarded data to you if you indicate else you
do
> not tell them what you know about the brain, either.
Well, I never said I was a brainsurfer. I read C.C. for its
sci-fi and entertainment value. I decided it wasn't very
good sci-fi.
> Others have to train in some odd cult for many years or study ages; I
> might straight tromp into the place and take the leader or someone
> more interesting of the magic circle or that university building and
> get him to answer my questions.
If your question is "Can you tell me how to think?", the
answer might be "Let's see, it looks like a tough job;
but, I'm up to the challenge."
Recommendation: Leave inferior modes of thinking outside the classroom.
> It certainly speeds a lot of things up, hehe...
>
> And actually, even if you are thought deleted, once you figure out
the
> trick how to use other brains, that does not matter so much.
>
> > theory of relativity.
I already know how to use other brains. You came back didn't you?
> Einstein did unfortunately not know how to go frequency surfing.
>
> And I would not bet on that he did not have a MBD.
>
> > See this same post in sci.logic in regards to frequency,
bandwidth,
> > and encoding scheme for C.C. "seeing".
>
> In case you mean me I did not give out the encoding scheme.
>
Of course you didn't dummy. You were reading what I wrote.
> That stuff goes through to and is sent by so many sectors that even
> back then I could not perceive that I do not understand it well, and
> also lowest I ever perceived aware and for sure was an area of
> cell-cluster-area, but not single cells and synapses.
>
> I do not KNOW what the encoding scheme is...
>
No need to yell, I know you do not KNOW.
> (....Though I might grin if I read questions about "oscillations of
> the nervous membrane" ... ;-)
>
> But as a teacher of two sense enhancers and teaching brains directly
> with wave-fields I am occasionally having a thought or two about
> certain things that are hard to fail to notice when receiving and
> sending stuff and when teaching the brains of newies and comparing.
>
> But thinking of course just occurs occasionally; the by you mentioned
> thought deletion is a nice stage, and I would not want to disturb it
> too much ....while frequency surfing. ;-)
>
The quality of frequency surfing is something like those
old hand-held transitor AM radios built in the early 60s.
You need to get yourself a CD.
> The Neanderthaler troll life has the advantages that not thinking
you
> are consdierably less prejudiced by other people's opinions about
what
> you perceive and the death of thinking areas has the advantages that
> the signals from the other sectors can't pass there anymore, so that
> you get a deeeep insight into autism and can make areas of the brain
> function so autonomically, that they can independently run the body
> and develop capacities, that yours will never have, and watch things
> in the mind, that you can study all your life and yet will never
> understand, hehe.
There's your trouble. You can't let the body go into automatic
babble mode. You gotta be the master control what comes out.
---
Jim
GLYPH
Scot Mc Pherson wrote:
>
> If you keep looking for evidence you will never find the truth, only the
> results. Evidence is a result, not the truth.
Ah, but the truth can only be judged based on evidence. All modelling /
hypothesis / prediction is entirely based on past evidence. We can
never know the real truth, since we can only use past evidence to judge
it.
For instance, if I flipped a coin a million times and got about 50%
heads and 50% tails, it would be incorrect for me to say that I'm 100%
certain that the coin produces about 50% heads and 50% tails. That is
based on past evidence only. Maybe the state of the universe changes
suddenly every 12 billion years, and it changes right when I'm flipping
my coin. I would not expect it to, but only because I've never seen it
happen before.
(just thought I'd join the fray)
- GLYPH
Jim Hunter
This is all lies. Not one statement is a clear truth
about Jim Hunter. I look for evidence of thinking on
the Internet everyday. The results of my searches
are dismal.
---
Jim
GLYPH
Stephen Harris wrote:
> Castaneda nor any shaman, past present or future is real.
> Nothing occult is real. No gurus are real. They are either
> deliberate fakes like Casteneda or gullible fakes like gurus.
I don't mean to intrude on this rather personal-sounding discussion, but
since it's all over 8 different newsgroups I think I'll join in. Though
I do not agree with most of what cijadra is saying, I wouldn't dismiss
the benefits of guru-like activities such as meditation and different
sorts of mental excercises. Not very many people know of the simple
relaxation / concentration techniques that make life so much less
stressful.
By the way, I'm not so sure this fits into ALL 8 of the newsgroups it's
being posted to. Maybe you guys can decide on one or two groups for
continuing this discussion. (but if you don't, I'm not going to do
anything about it :)
- GLYPH
GLYPH
Jim Hunter wrote:
>
> GLYPH wrote:
...
> > For instance, if I flipped a coin a million times and got about 50%
> > heads and 50% tails, it would be incorrect for me to say that I'm
> 100%
> > certain that the coin produces about 50% heads and 50% tails.
> This is all lies. Not one statement is a clear truth
> about Jim Hunter. I look for evidence of thinking on
> the Internet everyday. The results of my searches
> are dismal.
> Jim
Um, sorry Jim, did I offend you in some way by not personally attacking
you? Notice that I did not, and will not personally attack you. I'm
trying to raise a serious point about prediction, not about you.
- GLYPH
Jim Hunter
No big whoop GLYPH. I didn't take your post as an attack.
I'm just trying to determine what in the hell you're trying
to predict about me. If you're trying to raise a serious
point I would think the tread should be named something
like "I have a serious point". You're more likely to get
serious responses that why. You're also more likely to
get serious responses if you consider the question you
have and make a determination of which newsgroups will most
likely have the answers. I see that you have a question
about probability and you didn't post to "sci.math" but you
did post to "bionet.neuroscience". The folks in that newsgroup
aren't stupid, of course, but probability theory isn't known to
be a function of how the brain is put together.
---
Jim
Juan Guirao
Jim Hunter wrote:
> ... but probability theory isn't known to
> be a function of how the brain is put together.
>
Some (including myself) believe that the brain is actually, among
other things, an inference machine with the ability to discover
statistical regularities in the stream of sensory input. One of its
functions is to predict the probability of future events, based on
past experience. This can be though of as an application of Bayesian
inference, which is a part of probability theory.
Juan Guirao
F. Frank LeFever
Please, PLEASE decide not to continue it in MY newsgroup, which has
barely survived a flood of "yes/no" nonsense about Alien
Obductions--and may relapse at any moment if someone carelessly
triggers another "debate" (sic).
sten...@cc.helsinki.nospam.fi
In bionet.neuroscience GLYPH <graham...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, I'm not so sure this fits into ALL 8 of the newsgroups it's
> being posted to. Maybe you guys can decide on one or two groups for
> continuing this discussion. (but if you don't, I'm not going to do
> anything about it :)
> - GLYPH
Yes, you are correct. This discussion has NOTHING to do in
bionet.neuroscience. Can everybody delete this group from the address
list?
Dag Stenberg
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dag Stenberg MD PhD sten...@cc.helsinki.fi
Institute of Biomedicine tel: (int.+)358-9-1918532
Department of Physiology fax: (int.+)358-9-1918681
P.O.Box 9 (Siltavuorenpenger 20 J)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki,Finland
------------------------------------------------------------------
GLYPH
Juan Guirao wrote:
> Jim Hunter wrote:
Exactly. Humans can predict stuff (guesses, inferences, whatever).
*All prediction* involves probability theory. Thus, Humans must involve
probability theory, either explicitly or implicitly.
- GLYPH
Jim Hunter
Juan Guirao wrote:
>
> Jim Hunter wrote:
>
> > ... but probability theory isn't known to
> > be a function of how the brain is put together.
> >
>
> Some (including myself) believe that the brain is actually, among
> other things, an inference machine with the ability to discover
> statistical regularities in the stream of sensory input. One of its
> functions is to predict the probability of future events, based on
> past experience. This can be though of as an application of Bayesian
> inference, which is a part of probability theory.
>
> Juan Guirao
An inference machine? Are you trying to tell me
that a brain is something like a COMPUTER?
---
Jim
Jim Hunter
GLYPH wrote:
>
> Juan Guirao wrote:
>
> > Jim Hunter wrote:
>
> > > ... but probability theory isn't known to
> > > be a function of how the brain is put together.
>
> > Some (including myself) believe that the brain is actually, among
> > other things, an inference machine with the ability to discover
> > statistical regularities in the stream of sensory input. One of its
> > functions is to predict the probability of future events, based on
> > past experience. This can be though of as an application of
Bayesian
> > inference, which is a part of probability theory.
> >
> > Juan Guirao
>
> *All prediction* involves probability theory. Thus, Humans must
involve
> probability theory, either explicitly or implicitly.
>
> - GLYPH
Outstanding probabilistic inference.
Humans invented probability theory -> Humans involve probability
theory.
The chances of this occuring are calculated from a normal distribution
with a mean value of pi and a standard deviation of (1 solar mass/1
electron mass).
Prob("Humans involve probability theory") = 0.845 +/- 0.001
---
Jim
Juan Guirao
Jim Hunter wrote:
>
> Juan Guirao wrote:
> >
> > Jim Hunter wrote:
> >
> > > ... but probability theory isn't known to
> > > be a function of how the brain is put together.
> > >
> >
> > Some (including myself) believe that the brain is actually, among
> > other things, an inference machine with the ability to discover
> > statistical regularities in the stream of sensory input. One of its
> > functions is to predict the probability of future events, based on
> > past experience. This can be though of as an application of Bayesian
> > inference, which is a part of probability theory.
> >
> > Juan Guirao
>
> that a brain is something like a COMPUTER?
>
> ---
> Jim
No, that is not what I am trying to say.
Our computers (or our computer programs) are still unable
to do the same kind of statistical inference that brains do.
Besides that, there is much more to brains than statistical
inference.
What I am trying to say is that it is important for the survival
of an organism to be able to predict the probabilities of
future events as a result of a given action, as well as the
probabilities
of different "causes" (objects in the world, other organisms, etc)
producing the sensory information that the organism receives.
Hence, the organisms' brains have evolved the ability to perform
such statistical inference.
Juan J. Guirao-Garcia
________________________________________________________________________
Center for Neuroscience E-mail: jgu...@ucdavis.edu
1455 Newton Court Home: (530) 753-9440
University of California Office: (530) 757-8789
Davis, CA 95616 Fax: (530) 757-8827
USA http://aspen.ucdavis.edu/~jguirao/
________________________________________________________________________
GLYPH
Jim Hunter wrote:
>
> Juan Guirao wrote:
> > Some (including myself) believe that the brain is actually, among
> > other things, an inference machine with the ability to discover
> > statistical regularities in the stream of sensory input.
> An inference machine? Are you trying to tell me
> that a brain is something like a COMPUTER?
The brain can make inferences. Therefore, it is an inference machine.
It's that simple. In this context, I do not restrict the word "machine"
to man-made machines, since I feel that to be an artificial restriction.
Inference implies prediction, and prediction implies probability
modelling. So, the brain is also a probability estimation machine.
- GLYPH
Jim Hunter
Well it doesn't really matter if you call then man-made "machines",
man-made machines, God-made machines or whatever. That brains
can do probability type estimations is probably well know to frogs.
---
Jim
F. Frank LeFever
Better yet, do not respond, pro or con; let it die a death of neglect.
In <6irhqd$nfm$2...@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI>
Jerry Hull
On Thu, 07 May 1998 18:21:35 +0100, GLYPH <graham...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Jim Hunter wrote:
>>
>> Juan Guirao wrote:
>
>> > Some (including myself) believe that the brain is actually, among
>> > other things, an inference machine with the ability to discover
>> > statistical regularities in the stream of sensory input.
>
>> An inference machine? Are you trying to tell me
>> that a brain is something like a COMPUTER?
>
>The brain can make inferences. Therefore, it is an inference machine.
>It's that simple. In this context, I do not restrict the word "machine"
>to man-made machines, since I feel that to be an artificial restriction.
>Inference implies prediction, and prediction implies probability
>modelling. So, the brain is also a probability estimation machine.
Minds (or people) make inferences, not brains.
--
Jer
"Stop, stop. Do not speak. The ultimate truth
is not even to think." -- Sakyamuni
Maxxwell Dugay
Jim Hunter wrote:
> GLYPH wrote:
> > Exactly. Humans can predict stuff (guesses, inferences, whatever).
> > *All prediction* involves probability theory. Thus, Humans must
> involve
> > probability theory, either explicitly or implicitly.
> >
> > - GLYPH
> Outstanding probabilistic inference.
> Humans invented probability theory -> Humans involve probability
> theory.
> The chances of this occuring are calculated from a normal distribution
> with a mean value of pi and a standard deviation of (1 solar mass/1
> electron mass).
> Prob("Humans involve probability theory") = 0.845 +/- 0.001
> ---
> Jim
I have finally noticed that you have little or no understanding of what
you write about, and so I must conclude that you no longer merit my
attention.
- GLYPH
Jim Hunter
You must do what you must do. I only wish that you concluded
that I didn't merit your attention before you decided to
investigate the mysteries of what every amoeba knows.
---
Jim
Juan Guirao
Do you mean...
1) the mechanism for inference is not in the brain
OR
2) the mechanism for inference is in the brain, but it is not
semantically correct to say that a brain makes inferences?
Paul Corvo
> We can never know the real truth, since we can only use past evidence to
> judge
> it.
>
> For instance, if I flipped a coin a million times and got about 50%
> heads and 50% tails, it would be incorrect for me to say that I'm 100%
> certain that the coin produces about 50% heads and 50% tails. That is
> based on past evidence only. Maybe the state of the universe changes
> suddenly every 12 billion years, and it changes right when I'm flipping
> my coin. I would not expect it to, but only because I've never seen it
> happen before.
>
The universe has no power over the laws of probability and logic. That's what
is so cool about math and logic. For example, p cannot, I repeat, CANNOT
equal not p. The universe obey's laws, it does not have influence over them.
In addition, while it is true that the universe can really be sitting in a jar
in some super beings, science class room as part of his project on "universe
building", assumptions are part of how we make sense of our world and it
would be stupid to constantly wonder, "hmmm, maybe I shouldn't get out of bed
today and go outside because maybe the universe has changed the rules and
outside of buildings, anti-gravity dominates and I'll go floating into
space." All truth is subjective. That's all we can hope for and that's good
enough for me.
Jim Hunter
Paul Corvo wrote:
>
....
>
> The universe has no power over the laws of probability and logic. That's what
> is so cool about math and logic. For example, p cannot, I repeat, CANNOT
> equal not p. The universe obey's laws, it does not have influence over them.
I would explain to you the REAL theory of the universe,
but I have to go home.
Neither probability, logic, nor the universe have laws.
That's really what's so cool about them. You don't have
to don't have to listen to a lot of alt.theory.
---
Jim
Jerry Hull
>Paul Corvo wrote:
>> The universe has no power over the laws of probability and logic. That's what
>> is so cool about math and logic. For example, p cannot, I repeat, CANNOT
>> equal not p. The universe obey's laws, it does not have influence over them.
The universe couldn't care less about P & not-P. The latter is a
feature of certain grammars complex enough to support the negative
operator. It tells us no more about the universe than an inverted
image in a telescope tells us anything about the moon.
Jim Hunter
You are correct. "Null-thought" tells you no more about
me than the information I have already released.
"Start. Start. Do speak. The ultimate truth
is to think." -- Inumaykas
---
Jim
Hans Moravec
> For example, p cannot, I repeat, CANNOT equal not p.
It does in Bayesian belief, if the confidence of p is 0.5
Jim Hunter
Hans Moravec wrote:
>
> > For example, p cannot, I repeat, CANNOT equal not p.
>
> It does in Bayesian belief, if the confidence of p is 0.5
Bayesian probability theory beliefs are old, and
possibly untrue. A newer and possibly more accurate
theory of probability is "Quantum Null Thought".
The truth of all predictions is bounded above at
the level of (1 - QNT). QNT is the experimentally
determined quantum of quantum null thought.
---
Jim
ra...@freemail.nl
In article <355666C1.BC8@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu>,
Jim Hunter <jim.hunter@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu> wrote:
> A newer and possibly more accurate
> theory of probability is "Quantum Null Thought".
> The truth of all predictions is bounded above at
> the level of (1 - QNT). QNT is the experimentally
> determined quantum of quantum null thought.
>
> ---
> Jim
>
Doesn't this theory stands or fall with the dogma "I think therefor I am"
What if this dogma is wrong and and it turns out to be for instance "I am
therefore I think"?
John
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Hermital
On Fri 5/8/98 22:49 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> Jerry Hull wrote:
> >
> > Minds (or people) make inferences, not brains.
> >
> > --
> Do you mean...
>
>
IMHO, the mechanism for inference is not in the brain. See further
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/antenna.htm and
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/becoming.htm.
--
Alan
Consciousness is a transcendental continuum or spectrum of
physical energy that may interface with the zitterbewegung,
the trembling movement, of the electromagnetic zero-point
field.
Consciousness, Physics and the Holographic Paradigm:
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/intro.htm
Hermital
On Mon 5/11/98 21:59 GMT ra...@freemail.nl wrote:
> In article <355666C1.BC8@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu>,
> Jim Hunter <jim.hunter@REMOVE_TO_EMAIL.jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>
> > A newer and possibly more accurate
> > theory of probability is "Quantum Null Thought".
> > The truth of all predictions is bounded above at
> > the level of (1 - QNT). QNT is the experimentally
> > determined quantum of quantum null thought.
>
> What if this dogma is wrong and and it turns out to be for instance "I am
> therefore I think"?
>
physical energy of the continuum of consciousness rather than the
tangible realm in which humankind manifests. See further
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/personae.htm and
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/becoming.htm.
--
Alan
There are no shortcuts to wisdom and there is no end
to learning.
Jim Hunter
Hermital wrote:
>
> On Fri 5/8/98 22:49 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> > Jerry Hull wrote:
> > >
> > > Minds (or people) make inferences, not brains.
> > >
> > > --
> > Do you mean...
> >
> > 1) the mechanism for inference is not in the brain...
No. Those pages necessarily contain "null thought"
if the mechanism which infers is also not the
mechanism for inference.
> IMHO, the mechanism for inference is not in the brain. See further
> http://www.livingston.net/hermital/antenna.htm and
> http://www.livingston.net/hermital/becoming.htm.
> --
> Alan
Juan Guirao
Hermital wrote:
>
> On Fri 5/8/98 22:49 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> > Jerry Hull wrote:
> > >
> > > Minds (or people) make inferences, not brains.
> > >
> > > --
> > Do you mean...
> >
> > 1) the mechanism for inference is not in the brain...
> >
> http://www.livingston.net/hermital/antenna.htm and
> http://www.livingston.net/hermital/becoming.htm.
> --
The mechanism for inference is in the brain. See further
http://www.liglobal.com/walt/songofmyself/song33.html
http://www.liglobal.com/walt/songofmyself/song24.html
Juan J. Guirao-Garcia
Jim Hunter
Juan Guirao wrote:
>
> Hermital wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 5/8/98 22:49 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> > > Jerry Hull wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Minds (or people) make inferences, not brains.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > Do you mean...
> > >
> > > 1) the mechanism for inference is not in the brain...
> > >
> > IMHO, the mechanism for inference is not in the brain. See further
> > http://www.livingston.net/hermital/antenna.htm and
> > http://www.livingston.net/hermital/becoming.htm.
> > --
>
> The mechanism for inference is in the brain. See further
Are you sure? Did you around everywhere in there?
Both the theory that the mechanism for inference is
in the brain, and the theory that the mechanism for
inference is not in the brain are both really
trivial special cases of the complete general theory
"Quantum Null Thought".
---
Jim
Juan Guirao
Jim Hunter wrote:
>
> Juan Guirao wrote:
> >
> > Hermital wrote:
> > >
> > > IMHO, the mechanism for inference is not in the brain. See further
> > > http://www.livingston.net/hermital/antenna.htm and
> > > http://www.livingston.net/hermital/becoming.htm.
> > > --
> >
> > The mechanism for inference is in the brain. See further
> [snip]
>
>
> Are you sure? Did you around everywhere in there?
>
No, I am not sure. I was just referring Hermital to some poetry,
as that seems to be a valid argument for him. I did not get your second
question.
> Both the theory that the mechanism for inference is
> in the brain, and the theory that the mechanism for
> inference is not in the brain are both really
> trivial special cases of the complete general theory
> "Quantum Null Thought".
>
I am not familiar with this theory. Can you hint an introduction
to the basic idea behind it and its application to the question
of the mechanism for inferences.
As an aside, from what you say, I understand that the theory
allows you to derive these two facts:
(1) The mechanism for inference is in the brain
AND
(2) The mechanism for inference is not in the brain.
There is a fundamental result of mathematical logic that states that
IF
a theory can be used to prove a certain proposition and its
negation (as it seems to be the case here)
THEN
the theory can be used to prove any proposition
(such as 2+2=5)
This, of course, renders the theory useless.
But then, maybe I did not get what you meant.
Juan J. Guirao-Garcia
Jim Hunter
Juan Guirao wrote:
>
> Jim Hunter wrote:
> >
> > Juan Guirao wrote:
> > >
> > > Hermital wrote:
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, the mechanism for inference is not in the brain. See
further
> > > > http://www.livingston.net/hermital/antenna.htm and
> > > > http://www.livingston.net/hermital/becoming.htm.
> > > > --
> > >
> > > The mechanism for inference is in the brain. See further
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > Are you sure? Did you around everywhere in there?
> >
>
> No, I am not sure. I was just referring Hermital to some poetry,
> as that seems to be a valid argument for him. I did not get your
second
> question.
>
> > Both the theory that the mechanism for inference is
> > in the brain, and the theory that the mechanism for
> > inference is not in the brain are both really
> > trivial special cases of the complete general theory
> > "Quantum Null Thought".
> >
>
> I am not familiar with this theory. Can you hint an introduction
> to the basic idea behind it and its application to the question
> of the mechanism for inferences.
Hint: You should have a brain, try USING it.
We aren't actually talking about anything you
need a Nobel prize for.
> As an aside, from what you say, I understand that the theory
> allows you to derive these two facts:
>
> (1) The mechanism for inference is in the brain
>
> AND
>
> (2) The mechanism for inference is not in the brain.
>
> There is a fundamental result of mathematical logic that states that
> IF
Fundamental theorem of physics. We aren't doing mathematics.
Hermital
On Mon 5/11/98 20:05 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> Hermital wrote:
> > > Jerry Hull wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Minds (or people) make inferences, not brains.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > Do you mean...
> > >
> > >
> > IMHO, the mechanism for inference is not in the brain. See further
> > http://www.livingston.net/hermital/antenna.htm and
> > http://www.livingston.net/hermital/becoming.htm.
> > --
>
> The mechanism for inference is in the brain. See further
>
> http://www.liglobal.com/walt/songofmyself/song24.html
>
I disagree. Walt Whitman's physics are 150 years out
of date and he had no way of knowing that consciousness,
per se, is a continuum or spectrum of physical energy, just
as electromagnetic radiation is a continuum or spectrum
of physical energy.
Perhaps a look at http://www.livingston.net/hermital/csenergy.htm
and http://www.livingston.net/hermital/noncompu.htm will further
explain my position in this matter.
--
Alan
Consciousness is a transcendental continuum or spectrum of
physical energy that may interface with the zitterbewegung,
the trembling movement, of the electromagnetic zero-point
field.
Juan Guirao
Jim Hunter wrote:
>
> > Jim Hunter wrote:
> > >
> > > Both the theory that the mechanism for inference is
> > > in the brain, and the theory that the mechanism for
> > > inference is not in the brain are both really
> > > trivial special cases of the complete general theory
> > > "Quantum Null Thought".
> > >
> >
> Juan Guirao wrote:
> >
> > I am not familiar with this theory. Can you hint an introduction
> > to the basic idea behind it and its application to the question
> > of the mechanism for inferences.
>
> Hint: You should have a brain, try USING it.
> We aren't actually talking about anything you
> need a Nobel prize for.
>
I use it all the time.
Is your frontal lobe damaged?
> > As an aside, from what you say, I understand that the theory
> > allows you to derive these two facts:
> >
> > (1) The mechanism for inference is in the brain
> >
> > AND
> >
> > (2) The mechanism for inference is not in the brain.
> >
> > There is a fundamental result of mathematical logic that states that
> > IF
>
> Fundamental theorem of physics. We aren't doing mathematics.
All scientific reasoning is based on logic.
That includes physics.
Juan Guirao
Hermital wrote:
>
> Perhaps a look at http://www.livingston.net/hermital/csenergy.htm
> and http://www.livingston.net/hermital/noncompu.htm will further
> explain my position in this matter.
I understand that you are very proud of your web pages. You probably
worked very hard to build them and would like other people to visit
them. However, a scientific discussion is about giving arguments, not
just refering people to web pages.
In any case, I have read your pages. Here is what I think about them:
Hermital wrote:
"...the physical evidence now available points directly to the
all-inclusive pre-existing omnipresent physical energy of ontological
consciousness as the underlying ground of uncreated absolute pure being
within which both mind and matter emerge. "
-----
What evidence?
In your pages there is no trace of reference to any piece of physical
evidence. There isn't any reasoning either. There are only assertions.
You say:
"In search of the scientifically rational solution of the Holographic
Paradigm, I gradually came to understand that ontological consciousness
is a continuum or spectrum of physical energy,..."
but you do not give any argument or explain what reasoning led you
to "gradually come to understand".
Are your beliefs based on intuition, rather than reasoning?
Jim Hunter
Juan Guirao wrote:
>
...
> > >
> > > (2) The mechanism for inference is not in the brain.
> > >
> > > There is a fundamental result of mathematical logic that states
that
> > > IF
> >
> > Fundamental theorem of physics. We aren't doing mathematics.
>
> All scientific reasoning is based on logic.
> That includes physics.
You have that upside down and backwards as usual.
All logic is based on reasoning.
---
Jim
Jim Hunter
Juan Guirao wrote:
>
> Hermital wrote:
>
[ snip drivel ]
You two pathetic morons must be permanently unconscious.
What are you trying to do, bootstrap a theory of
Quantum Unconsciousness.
---
Jim
Hermital
On Wed 5/13/98 14:38 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
>
> What evidence?
> In your pages there is no trace of reference to any piece of physical
> evidence. There isn't any reasoning either. There are only assertions.
>
> You say:
> "In search of the scientifically rational solution of the Holographic
> Paradigm, I gradually came to understand that ontological consciousness
> is a continuum or spectrum of physical energy,..."
>
> but you do not give any argument or explain what reasoning led you
> to "gradually come to understand".
>
I'm just a maverick poet, my friend. Poems describe conclusions. The
"arguments" underlying every poem are implied.
> Are your beliefs based on intuition, rather than reasoning?
>
As with all poets, both intuition and reason.
As the late, great John Wayne might have said, "You've got to start
somewhere, pilgrim."
--
Alan
There are no shortcuts to wisdom and there is no end
to learning.
Juan Guirao
Goodbye Jim Hunter
Juan Guirao
Jim Hunter wrote:
>
> Juan Guirao wrote:
> >
Jim, are you jealous because no one pays attention to you?
Juan J. Guirao-Garcia
Jim Hunter
Juan Guirao wrote:
>
> Goodbye Jim Hunter
>
> Juan J. Guirao-Garcia
Bye Juan
Juan Guirao
Hermital wrote:
>
> On Wed 5/13/98 14:38 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> >
> > What evidence?
> > In your pages there is no trace of reference to any piece of physical
> > evidence. There isn't any reasoning either. There are only assertions.
> >
> Are you asserting that assertions are not based on reason?
>
Many assertions are not based on reason. For instance:
"I like apples"
That is an assertion and it is not based on reason.
The assertions that I am interested in discussing in this newsgroup are
those that are based on some reasoning.
> > You say:
> > "In search of the scientifically rational solution of the Holographic
> > Paradigm, I gradually came to understand that ontological consciousness
> > is a continuum or spectrum of physical energy,..."
> >
> > but you do not give any argument or explain what reasoning led you
> > to "gradually come to understand".
> >
> I'm just a maverick poet, my friend. Poems describe conclusions. The
> "arguments" underlying every poem are implied.
>
I can appreciate the beauty of peotry, but I think using poetry to
discuss science or even phylosophy is like trying to fish with a
violin. You can make beautiful sounds, but I do not think you are
going to catch many fish.
Poetry is inherently ambiguous, whereas intellectual discussion requires
a precise use of language.
> > Are your beliefs based on intuition, rather than reasoning?
> >
> As with all poets, both intuition and reason.
>
> As the late, great John Wayne might have said, "You've got to start
> somewhere, pilgrim."
Of course, you have to start somewhere. That is why we have to agree on
the
basic assumptions and discuss based on them. But if you start by
assuming what
you have to prove (because your intuition tells you it is true), there
is
not much room left for discussion.
Hermital
On Wed 5/13/98 17:08 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> Hermital wrote:
> > On Wed 5/13/98 14:38 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> > >
> > > What evidence?
> > > In your pages there is no trace of reference to any piece of physical
> > > evidence. There isn't any reasoning either. There are only assertions.
> > >
> > Are you asserting that assertions are not based on reason?
> >
> Yes.
Please do not generalize your opinion to all assertions.
> Many assertions are not based on reason.
This implies that some assertions are based on reason. Indeed, mine
are.
> For instance:
> "I like apples"
> That is an assertion and it is not based on reason.
But perhaps it is. For a given person, you do not know if the
assertion, "I like apples", is based on reason or not.
> The assertions that I am interested in discussing in this newsgroup are
> those that are based on some reasoning.
>
OK.
> > > You say:
> > > "In search of the scientifically rational solution of the Holographic
> > > Paradigm, I gradually came to understand that ontological consciousness
> > > is a continuum or spectrum of physical energy,..."
> > >
> > > but you do not give any argument or explain what reasoning led you
> > > to "gradually come to understand".
> > >
> > I'm just a maverick poet, my friend. Poems describe conclusions. The
> > "arguments" underlying every poem are implied.
> >
>
> I can appreciate the beauty of peotry, but I think using poetry to
> discuss science or even phylosophy is like trying to fish with a
> violin. You can make beautiful sounds, but I do not think you are
> going to catch many fish.
> Poetry is inherently ambiguous,...
I prefer to think of it as open-ended.
> ...whereas intellectual discussion requires
> a precise use of language.
>
It is well-known that David Bohm used "informal language" and that
Albert Einstein used "intuitive linkage". And if the poetry you are
accustomed to does not use precise language, it is rather poor quality
poetry.
> > > Are your beliefs based on intuition, rather than reasoning?
> > >
> > As with all poets, both intuition and reason.
> >
> > As the late, great John Wayne might have said, "You've got to start
> > somewhere, pilgrim."
>
> Of course, you have to start somewhere. That is why we have to agree on
> the basic assumptions and discuss based on them.
I appreciate the fact that you have gone from framing an argument to
having a discussion. 8^)
> But if you start by
> assuming what you have to prove (because your intuition tells you it is > true), there is not much room left for discussion.
>
IMHO, at that point it would be time for the scholars, mathematicians,
theorists and experimenters to go to work.
Jim Hunter
Juan Guirao wrote:
>
> Jim Hunter wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hermital wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> > You two pathetic morons must be permanently unconscious.
> > What are you trying to do, bootstrap a theory of
> > Quantum Unconsciousness.
> >
> > ---
> > Jim
>
> Jim, are you jealous because no one pays attention to you?
>
Juan, if you could read and understand words, I would
think you would have picked up the hint about 10 messages
ago that I did -not- want your attention. The emphasis
is on "not" Juan. Can you see the word "not", Juan? Are
you conscious of the word "not", Juan? Say it five times
to yourself so that you can become conscious of it.
Write it down and send a copy to Hermi.
---
Jim
Juan Guirao
Hermital wrote:
>
> On Wed 5/13/98 17:08 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> > Hermital wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What evidence?
> > > > In your pages there is no trace of reference to any piece of physical
> > > > evidence. There isn't any reasoning either. There are only assertions.
> > > >
> > > Are you asserting that assertions are not based on reason?
> > >
> > Yes.
>
> Please do not generalize your opinion to all assertions.
>
> > Many assertions are not based on reason.
> > This implies that some assertions are based on reason. Indeed, mine
> are.
>
I believe you, but I have not seen any of that reasoning yet.
> > For instance:
> > "I like apples"
> > That is an assertion and it is not based on reason.
>
> But perhaps it is. For a given person, you do not know if the
> assertion, "I like apples", is based on reason or not.
>
In my case it isn't, I just know I like them. So there you have an
example.
> > Poetry is inherently ambiguous,...
>
> I prefer to think of it as open-ended.
>
> > ...whereas intellectual discussion requires
> > a precise use of language.
> >
> It is well-known that David Bohm used "informal language" and that
> Albert Einstein used "intuitive linkage".
Informal language can be very precise.
Did Einstein use intuitive linkage to prove anything?
> And if the poetry you are
> accustomed to does not use precise language, it is rather poor quality
> poetry.
>
Poetry is far more concerned with aesthetics that it is with providing
good framework for discussion. We just seem to have different points of
view on that.
> I appreciate the fact that you have gone from framing an argument to
> having a discussion. 8^)
>
Oh, argument and discussion translate to the same word in Spanish. I
tend
to mistakingly interchange them. Sorry, I always meant discussion.
> > But if you start by
> > assuming what you have to prove (because your intuition tells you it is > true),
> > there is not much room left for discussion.
> >
> IMHO, at that point it would be time for the scholars, mathematicians,
> theorists and experimenters to go to work.
Good, we agree on that. So you have told us what your intuitions are.
No it is time for the scholars, mathematicians, theorists and
experimenters
to discuss whether these intuitions are correct, using evidence and
reason.
Hermital
On Thu 5/14/98 15:54 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> Hermital wrote:
> > On Wed 5/13/98 17:08 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> > > Hermital wrote:
> > > > On Wed 5/13/98 14:38 -0700 Juan Guirao wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What evidence?
> > > > > In your pages there is no trace of reference to any piece of physical
> > > > > evidence. There isn't any reasoning either. There are only assertions.
> > > > >
> > > > Are you asserting that assertions are not based on reason?
> > > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Please do not generalize your opinion to all assertions.
> >
> My mistake. Some assertions are based on reason.
>
> > > Many assertions are not based on reason.
> > > This implies that some assertions are based on reason. Indeed, mine
> > are.
> >
> I believe you, but I have not seen any of that reasoning yet.
>
> > > For instance:
> > > "I like apples"
> > > That is an assertion and it is not based on reason.
> >
> > But perhaps it is. For a given person, you do not know if the
> > assertion, "I like apples", is based on reason or not.
> >
> In my case it isn't, I just know I like them. So there you have an
> example.
>
A doubtful example at best. I would think that your
knowing was based on reason even though you state
the contrary.
> > > Poetry is inherently ambiguous,...
> >
> > I prefer to think of it as open-ended.
> >
> > > ...whereas intellectual discussion requires
> > > a precise use of language.
> > >
> > It is well-known that David Bohm used "informal language" and that
> > Albert Einstein used "intuitive linkage".
>
> Informal language can be very precise.
Yes it can. Please check my web pages.
> Did Einstein use intuitive linkage to prove anything?
>
Why not read his writings and find out?
> > And if the poetry you are
> > accustomed to does not use precise language, it is rather poor quality
> > poetry.
> >
>
> Poetry is far more concerned with aesthetics that it is with providing
> good framework for discussion. We just seem to have different points of
> view on that.
>
You are speaking in generalities again, and it is
obvious that you have not yet read my writings.
> > > But if you start by
> > > assuming what you have to prove (because your intuition tells you it is > true),
> > > there is not much room left for discussion.
> > >
> > IMHO, at that point it would be time for the scholars, mathematicians,
> > theorists and experimenters to go to work.
>
> Good, we agree on that. So you have told us what your intuitions are.
> No it is time for the scholars, mathematicians, theorists and
> experimenters to discuss whether these intuitions are correct, using
> evidence and reason.
>
Excellent conclusion: Jump on it.
Goodbye.