|
Post by aogop on Aug 27, 2010 15:10:45 GMT
Interesting concept. 15 years or so ago I was at the US Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, attending a coaching class for a Maitre' certification in Fencing. What Brandt said was absolutely correct, studies have shown (even back then) that once the body does enough of certain motion for a long number of repetitions, "muscle memory" kicks in and much of the training can be done by just visualizing that same motion. The saying at the session went "Practice doesn't make perfect, it makes Permanant."
I'm not sure if I have ever "fought" certain thoughts, but I have certainly done things like think about the consequences before saying or doing something.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Aug 27, 2010 15:56:00 GMT
Aogop, Interesting. I fancy myself as a bit fencer also though clearly not at the level of expertise that you obviously have. Fencing is a great discipline for training focus.
Thinking about consequences and making decisions is one of the most interesting things that the human brain does. It requires imagination and the ability to view previous experience in a novel manners. That is not "fighting" one's self, it is a normal function that we do. The more experience and knowledge one gains the more adept at that process one becomes. There has been shown distinctive differences in the efficacy of problem solving in different age groups. Younger subjects seem to learn new material faster but older subjects are more thoughtful in decision making. Perhaps this is what we call "wisdom," and what sometimes looks all too much like being "tired."
Science should improve our personal journey. Learning how babies are developed during gestation just makes the event for more "magical" for lack of a better word.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Aug 30, 2010 14:16:33 GMT
Im a bit concerned Brandt because either 1. you dont understand what ive been saying or 2. you have seriousely been duped by your own brain. Where as the mental fight im discussing has been reduced to "deduction" in us, you do place thoughts as either good or bad regardless of not wanting a "metaphysical battle". For example ill use fencing, responding to an attack in a way to riposte is a good thing. Screwing up the riposte by losing your balance however is bad and you fight that possibility. You would argue this is body but it is infact one before the other. Like you were saying "Practice doesn't make perfect, it makes Permanant.".
This quote is almost the exact point I have been discussing here. It would be the frame of mind thats achieved or I call it "cumulous" or the over all thoughts to create that mind frame. As you well know all the moves to fencing exist, your just trying to get your body and mind to coincide with now a third entity and I see this as how we grow. We cant just put all the moves into us and have them stick in perfection. We have to fight who we are to become who we want to be, I also see this as a death of who you were to who you are. However no matter how much you do this you are still tied to your original self giving us individuality "subconscious/memory foundation", it might be easier in a "matrix" type of existence but who would we be if we could instantly and wholey drop who we were for something else? Again these are just thoughts and the only thing serious about it is to not take it seriously so the thoughts can either grow into nothing or something, but atleast have a chance "have we learned nothing from the catholics?".
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Aug 30, 2010 19:32:25 GMT
Just so that it is on paper, one cannot be duped by their own brain. There is a chance that I am not understanding what you are attempting to say. "Thought" is not processed, stimuli is. The way the brain works is wonderful and a great deal more interesting than raw speculations that are contrary to the empirical evidence. There are no shared experiences. People can be exposed to the same stimuli but how that stimuli is processed and how that information is correlated into experience/memory will be different.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Aug 30, 2010 21:09:45 GMT
Then where does halucination come into the scheme of things ?
Wiki ? In a stricter sense, hallucinations are defined as perceptions in a conscious and awake state in the absence of external stimuli which have qualities of real perception, in that they are vivid, substantial, and located in external objective space.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 1, 2010 3:22:57 GMT
If one were to hallucinate it is a matter or some trauma (drugs, injury, extremis) that changes the chemistry or function of the brain. That is not a brain duping a person. We don't drive our brain. The "ghost in the machine" and the "blank slate" ideas have been thoroughly debunked.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 1, 2010 7:33:32 GMT
Well that does not sit with the definition from Wiki does it. Lets try Answers.com 1. a.Perception of visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory experiences without an external stimulus and with a compelling sense of their reality, usually resulting from a mental disorder or as a response to a drug. b.The objects or events so perceived.
2.A false or mistaken idea; a delusion.
So the point I was making is there seems to be some involutary way the brain may deceive us. I certainly had some terrible 'seeings' when I had pneumonia. The Brain is full of and depends on chemical balances, so it seems odd to dissmiss that as not part of the brain function. Imagination for example, my children most certainly had invisible friends, only they could see. There is no drug, injury or extremism there.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 1, 2010 12:00:54 GMT
Well said bill. Perhaps some need to be old and fighting for breathe before they realize thier fighting themselves to be here. At any rate I am allready aware that my body sometimes wants things that are good and sometimes wants things that are bad. I fight for that control even though its minimal. Im still not sure where "ghost in the machine" and "blank slate" came from never mentioned those either. Only thing close is a exercise I do when im starting a fresh idea ill picture a blank type of canvas to start it out. Maybe its just me but it seems like brandt is fighting someone in his brain that isnt me but is convinced is like me, but according to him that kind of thing doesnt happen HAHA.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 1, 2010 12:57:52 GMT
In order for one's brain to dupe itself there would have to be two separate entities. This is where the "ghost in the machine" comment comes in. Pretty standard fare from earlier times in which it was believed that the body was some type of vehicle that is driven by the soul. The "blank slate" suggests the same thing in that the mind comes into the world empty and with nothing in it.
You are your body. Your decision making mechanisms are also part of your body. Since you seem to believe otherwise now you can understand why I say "ghost in the machine."
We are not fighting Sammy, we are discussing an interesting topic.
Optical illusions are a good place to start as the scientific community has a mountain of research on the subject. This is not the brain duping the person, it is a limitation of body (brain included) in being able to process stimuli. Some of it comes from the odd way that our eye is put together. Some of it comes from the limitations imposed by the geography of our brains. In either case the brain is not duping the person. The brain and the person are one and the same.
Your brain doesn't trick you. It has no dark agenda that you have to fight, unless of course you have a dark agenda. The brain is not a car, it is us.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 1, 2010 21:42:45 GMT
Of course this will depend on from where you view the world, a Schizophrenic would or could see you as the person outside of reality.
Schizophrenia
I just do not see how any complete or finite statement of the workings of the human brain can be accurate. It would be like saying we know where the universe ends. We just do not know enough, I think.
So while the brain is a bio mechanical organism as you say it is us, it does not start of as us, we build it over the years of our life. It becomes the sum total of all our experiences. US.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 2, 2010 2:51:11 GMT
There is also a host of scientific evidence that is brought to the fore on this subject. The person is not different from his body. As long as we are here we are in our bodies. After that, well, we have a lot more to discuss.
My world view on this subject is informed by the current cognitive and biological sciences. I could be schizophrenic, my wife might agree with that. Of course she is an accountant type so I get bored when she starts talking numbers (that is a joke by the way, everything my wife says is like the music of angels to my ears). That being said, we are not discussing my horrid mental disorders. We are discussing the general way in which a healthy brain works.
You are right Bill. Your brain (you) did not start as it is 30 years ago when you were a baby. It began with many formed areas (the frontal lobe not amongst them). It takes about 20 years for the brain to complete its formation. Not my opinion.
We do slow down in our ability to form new neuronal connections as we age but we become more efficient at our older connections. A decent trade off.
Interesting to note that schizophrenia is well known to have a strong genetic component.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 2, 2010 13:03:37 GMT
Actualy im discussing how "WE" process thought, meaning on any scale or any reality. Schizophrenia has actualy been one of my focuses on this because of the effects it has from the perspective of the victim and how its similair to "alternate realities". Im trying to understand the oddidities and quirks of thought. We were "discussing" untill you recomended I seek psychiatric help (not very classy). When you start waving a red cloth at a bull it will eventualy get mad and charge... the difference is im not aiming for the blanket.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 2, 2010 13:33:40 GMT
The reason I suspect schizophrenia about anything is that it doesnt effect the person till later in thier life or untill the brain is more developed. When someone is effected by this they view thier existence as seperate from our reality. From what people have explained to me that are effected they become convinced a non-real event in thier mind is going to effect reality, because it effected thier reality. Its almost as though thier consciousness is unable to discern thoughts from physical reality, because they are presented in a similair fashion to them.
What im trying to figure out is why is thier brain is letting subconscious activity effect thier visual reality (consciousness) and if there might be a way to make a distinction on this line of reality. What I think it might be connected to is many "gifts" that people claim like psychics and guides. Wich in this understanding would be accessing that subconscious activity as thier "focus" for the current reality, but able to pull out of it before fully emersed. Again this is just thoughts but there are many sides (schizo, phsycic, visions, religious manifestation, etc...), It seems like this has to be comming from somewhere with how widespread it is. Most native tribes have and still do push for these sights as being gifts from thier spirits, and is considered important for growing into yourself. Id also like to note untill probably the past 100 years the regular reality was that God and satan were physical manifestations of Earth and could become a part of you permanently. So from the beggining of recorded history we have believed the reality of what you are saying isnt real. Im not even trying to say "it is real or else" but I am saying something is there... history shows it and it still shows in today thousands of years later. *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 2, 2010 14:39:24 GMT
I guess all im really saying is that there is a line, consciousness and subonciousness. In addition to that I think sometimes they cross (schizophrenia), coaxed (psychics), maybe even the connection pushes out (visions, etc...). To me personaly it would explain alot about history or atleast how things were seen back then, because today we can explain it as experiencing a cumulous of our own thoughts based off of events we encountered in reality (similair to dreams).
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 4, 2010 13:15:51 GMT
We should be careful about history. Historically the Earth was the center of all creation and everything went around it. The Earth was also flat.
Schizophrenia is an interesting topic by itself. The differences in how things are perceived is hard to explain as schizophrenia does not manifest in the same way in every patient. Perhaps it is a difference in brain structure that is brought about by some arrangement of genes which would explain the seemingly hereditary nature of the disorder. Abnormal psychology really isn't my strong point. I do read on it occasionally but it is not my focus of research.
We are still discussing and I didn't tell you to seek help. I did mention the presence of two or minds to be a problem that would need help. As to not aiming for the red cloth. Settle down there cowboy, this isn't personal. It is just a lively discussion that I have been enjoying.
It was my assumption that you broached this subject for discussion. It could lead to others, who may have some experience in this area, assisting with making the original hypothesis more concise. There are a number of studies that discuss how people think. It would be reasonable to at least entertain the evidence for various theories and hypotheses before we run into gross speculation.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 4, 2010 14:05:36 GMT
Im glad you want this goal because thats my intent as well. I do not seek out for friction and BTW you did say I am certainly not at war with myself but this isn't about me or you is it. If you are fighting thoughts perhaps you should take that up with an advisor or therapist of some sort. Personaly I dont care at all, but the act did still happen. I dont want to you think that I dont apreciate your two cents, because id take the debate heated or not and I think you have alot of say on the subjects discussed.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 4, 2010 14:23:40 GMT
Note that I did not tell you that you needed help.
We can continue right?
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 4, 2010 19:55:09 GMT
Ofcourse we can continue that hasnt been the issue. The context was that I was suggesting we all "struggle" with thoughts. You were saying this isnt so and if I feal that way to take your suggestion. On the note of continuing I have a theory that skizo and many other ailments are connected to a similair issue. I think that we have tried to "dupe" our brains to believing what we proclaim is real by todays standards. As the mind progresses though it starts to connect all of its workable areas, trying to tie everything together as a collective. I say this because most mental disorders like OCD, ADD, anxiety, depresion, etc.. are a result of thier life choices in support of thier thoughts. Getting people to get over these disorders is basicly reorienting them to thier surroundings but in a new aspect of understanding, so that its at a level they can deal with and grow into.
What I speculate about schizophrenia is that its the mind basicly forming this collective but areas clash similair to the mind saying "theres no connection" but you keep insisting to make it as a part of your reality. So when this tries to tie together the mind see's its reality is fractured (or not congruant with eachother) and starts to take away conscious control. I have been doing some background work on growth of mind peaking at certain ages, the early 20's and then again around 30. The early 20's isnt as obvious so it isnt as remarked on, but many have commented on a "mental spurt" around 30. Another thing I find odd about this is that schizophrenia hits around the age of 20, around the time of the speculated spurt. Im not sure if having a way of being able to make everything connect in thought would get rid of schizophrenia but I know it would deffinately help those people with anxiety and depression, I know it has helped for sure with my ADHD and dyslexia emensely using (-O+).
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 4, 2010 23:11:09 GMT
Maybe, a big maybe, schizophrenia has something to do with the development of the frontal lobe. We finish the development of our frontal lobe around age 20.
Maybe we can start here. Considering what we do know about neuroscience and cognitive psychology how does your idea overturn or support the current theories? Your idea isn't bad, it is just unformed as you alluded to at the beginning of this thread. Maybe I can help with the small amount of knowledge I have on this subject.
I can drag out the research papers and we can examine what the scientific community is doing with the topic, we can also take a close look at what others are doing. I have mentioned a couple of books in this thread (at least I think that I have). Maybe together we can put something together that addresses the issue?
If I may offer a different view. I don't think that we struggle with thoughts. Thought is a broad term. Thought is actually what happens as a result of our cognitive and neurological processes. Since we can't measure anything "esoteric" we can measure what can be seen. This shouldn't be a problem because of "as above, so below." If I may, if I am understanding the issue correctly we are dicussing the mind's occasional trouble with fitting the perceived world into our mental paradigm.
A couple of interesting items on dyslexia. First, dyslexia has been mitigated by martial arts training. I am not sure why but there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence in support of it. Second, people with dyslexia tend to evidence far higher levels of accomplishment after they have learned the tools necessary to overcome their relatively minor impediment. No worries there. I was diagonosed with dyslexia years back. We learn more about the condition every year. I think that ADD/ADHD are over diagnosed. I have seen some co-morbidity with ADD/ADHD and dyslexia in some case studies. Not enough to state that they stem from the same source. I have always wondered if those two conditions are symptoms of another phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 5, 2010 14:12:13 GMT
Im not sure I remember any books mentioned but ill look again. I have overcome both disorders atleast mostly, I just have some words and letters switch if im not paying attention. It is one of the easier to overcome though if its not a horrible case, mostly reading and writing will get rid of it from effecting important things. I also had done therapy for the ADHD with a brain wave sensor program that would allow me to "focus my distractions to concentration". I had to stop after several monthes though because it was giving me horrible headaches, so I just did practices that were similair in effect since I had allready gained a sense for it. Also I agree I think ADD/ADHD are way over labeled, especialy since the main "fix" is a form of speed predisposing them to drugs and experimenting in bad ways. For me both have coincided in perpetuating the struggle for controlling my results physicaly. As I said my dyslexia is worse when im not paying attention and its hard to pay attention because of ADHD. The only real way I can describe how my mind has always worked was things just pop up, all kinds of things I know about and some I dont. The things I dont know about and pop up I can only describe as my mind took what I allready knew and put a possibility together out of that. It then goes as far as to bombard me with the scenario untill I consciously process "how I would do it" for being mentaly prepared for future events/possibilities. At any rate Ive never realy fully understood whats happening I just do my best to try and keep up with what I notice, in an attempt to understand why we all do what we do. This was hard for me though because I had many sides of rational reason to tie together while growing up (my parents taught youth groups and We whent to alot of different churches) so religion was a big part of my cumulative understanding. We had foreign exchange students as well so culture was also a big influence. I have posted my thoughts on religion and culture being same in goal and intent just the interpretation is different, but I dont think another unity speach is needed for this topic HAHA. Anyway Ill read up on the current studies of psychosis and see what I can come up with for you on putting something together, most of my background with it is person to person experience from a psychology perspective in revision. Thanks for the suggestions.
|
|