The brain as a computer - A proposal for the advanced.

[Asmus]

The brain is often times compared to a computer. In a way, this isn't far from the truth, for a few very good reasons. For instance, your "personality" can be compared to an operating system, and traits to processes. Or, if you're a big fan of Mr. Gurdjeff, the multiple I's can be viewed as the different processes which compose the functionality of an operating system.

This is all going somewhere, believe me. Now, if the personality you have is an operating system, or in the case of Gurdjeffian thought, the "I's" as an operating system or multiple operating systems, would it be possible to "dual boot"? I hypothesize that the answer is yes; after all, we can observe people with multiple personalities in every-day life, can't we? Why is it that we can't choose which personality/"i" is dominant?

I know what you're thinking: "Why would this be useful? How could you possibly benefit from this?" To answer this question, consider that people with multiple personalities can have personalities that develop different skill sets - and develop them easier - than the "primary personality". In fiction, you see characters whose personalities are triggered by words or phrases. What I want to know, is if anyone one this forum has any idea how to "craft" a separate, independent personality that can be triggered with a phrase, word, or symbol. The possibilities for this are infinite; it literally allows anyone to be anything they want to be.

On the OTHER HAND! If there is no magick for such a crafting, I am looking for competent occultists to help me in my quest to craft such a thing. Details for contacting me will be given on an interest-basis. Happy brain crafting! [happy]

[dodaive]

My favorite system for categorizing is Meyers-Briggs Please Understand Me II by David Kersey. Gurdjieff created the whole idea of the enneagram, he classifies nine different kinds of personalities. The thing about Meyers Briggs is it is all classified by different types of intelligence. The model also shows that when you get better at one type, you get worse at its shadow side. My focus has mostly been how to make quick transitions from one state to enough. Studying the enneagram is profound, I can't really say I have a grasp of it. Phrases, words or symbols can be very powerful. There is a special feeling whenever you are able to create one with power.

[Asmus]

That system of categorization is profoundly interesting. However, an understanding of it will not allow for a "dual boot" in and of itself. Over the past weeks, I've been researching MPD. Apparently, it most frequently occurs in people abused as children. This is unfortunate, but also a good idea as to one of the possible triggers of MPD - extreme trauma. This would be alright, if it weren't so entirely unpredictable, uncontrollable, and only a factor in children.

That said, I would really like to know if there's anyone out there who has experience with multiple personalities, or in this particular school of thought. If there is magick for this already, that would be fantastic, but if not, a competent individual with the aforementioned skill sets is DEFINITELY very highly called for in the research of said magick. The research will require documentation, safety, and above all, a large amount of time. Techniques i want to try:

1) Hypnosis (Auto-hypnosis, preferably)
2) Meditation
3) Astral Projection (Forming an alter in an astral plane, perhaps?)

I left out halucinogens, because they decrease cognition and make it more difficult to form complex thoughts or carry out goals. Maybe people on this forum have some ideas on how developing multiple personalities would be carried out? Replies and knowledge are very much appreciated!

[hyperRitual]

"The brain is often times compared to a computer. In a way, this isn't far from the truth, for a few very good reasons. For instance, your 'personality' can be compared to an operating system, and traits to processes."

Worth noting that comparing one thing to another does not make them equivalent or isomorphic. Lots of good stuff came out in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, about how the brain is a computer. Lots of other good stuff came out in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, about how it is not.

I like Von Foerster's wide definition ("On Constructing a Reality"): "I shall use this term [computation] in this most general sense to indicate any operation (not necessarily numerical) that transforms, modifies, rearranges, orders, and so on, observed physical entities ('objects') or their representations ('symbols')."

Modeling multiple personalities as computer processes is only really useful if it leads to novel experiences of self (or selves). As I understand it, self is mostly (entirely?) a memory construct, and it may be experienced in a variety of ways as the construct is un/intentionally re/configured.

There are many magic practices related to the discovery of the True Self or other selves, the mutability of personality, etc. But AFAICT, the narrative is always singular even if it shifts from one personality to another or experiences the presence of other personalities.

[Asmus]

If you're saying that personalities are only memory constructs, than personalities by necessity require different memories, unless you can classify another aspect of an individual's character that causes them to act on these memories differently. Anyway, I never said that brains were equivocal to computers, only that they're compared to them. I also said that there were a few good reasons for it. This simply illustrates my main ideas; please don't think that I'm proposing brains are computers.

Like you said, there are lots of magickal techniques for DISCOVERING your "true self" or even other "personalities", but this isn't what I'm looking for. I'm looking to craft, per se, an entirely new personality of my own design. I'm not looking to replace the present one, although to me that's seeming to be a necessity. Before I continue, let me pose the pros of having MP, and the problems it poses.

PROS:
1) Develop multiple facets and skills.
2) Interact with different people differently, based on the kind of person they react best to.

But having multiple personalities isn't a massive benefit in and of itself. Perhaps if there were a way to make the personalities aware of eachother, and operable all the same time (much in the same way VMWare can have operating systems share hardware). Personally, none of this seems extremely far fetched, although this particular proposal is a little bit more complex than the previous ones. Moving on..

Problems:
1) Personalities that are unaware of other personalities may become schizophrenic/insane (eg, they will not have good memory if not used frequently, and find certain things to have changed about them or the environment around them that would be unexplainable to them without mentioning other personalities).
2) Assuming the personalities are aware of eachother, unless you specifically "craft" them to be willing to give up ownership of the host body, or implant a trigger at say, the end of every day, they may not want to change over to other personalities. This would be an enormous problem.
3) More than 2 personalities may not be stable. Contrary to popular belief, human beings use ALL OF THEIR BRAIN over the course of the day. Yes, all of it. So even having 2 personalities may turn out to be a fantastical strain on your mind.

Ideas much appreciated. Especially with fixing the problems, but moreso with actually performing this trick on your brain.

[dodaive]

Well I just took a look at the DSM IV pg 526-529. It is currently officially called DID ( Dissociative Identity Disorder). It seems the major defining condition is multiple sets of memories that are isolated from each other. I am still trying to work with some of your ideas, so I can speculate on what might be possible.

[Asmus]

If what you and hyper said is true about personalities being memory constructs, then yes, the obvious conclusion is that multiple personalities have different sets of memories.

It seems to me now that, since DID (previously MPD or MPS) requires ISOLATED memories, it may very well be impossible (at the very least, very difficult) to "craft" another personality. In a controlled environment, it would be mainly be a matter of implanting "seperate" memories. But how to switch from personality to personality...? A scenario like this makes the personality switch random, almost by necessity, which isn't preferable if you're going to make good use of your alter self. How are personality "shifts" normally triggered in DID, anyway?

[dodaive]

Here is just a list of brainstormed items to think about. The way the brain thinks is very much based on the language that a person uses. When you think, you are using language. What if you created two different contrasting languages to think alternating between the two. Both languages are of course English. But the choice of words, the level of conceptualizing, the level of visualizing (with natural graphically descriptors). Focus on two different contrasting ways of speech. In Nursing theory there is the idea of holding something in abeyance. A scientist needs to hold his own opinions and desires in abeyance so that he/she can be objective. Nurses deal with all kinds of personalities, nurses use the idea of holding certain parts of their beliefs in abeyance. The reason it actually works, is that there is practiced control over awareness in the moment. With practice the memory of the conflicting believes are forgotten for the moment. I didn't see anything in the DSM IV about what actually triggers the transitions. It does state that they are immediate and often in the middle of a social interaction.

[Asmus]

The bit on language certainly helps to facilitate the crafting of another personality. As far as abeyance, that shows how it can be carried out. But the trigger...?

As far as changing to another personality goes, maybe attention should be focused on Chaos Magick's principles; in other words, if you believe you're someone else with enough zeal, you will "be" someone else. This seems infinitely less complex than triggers, but it may be all the more dangerous, considering you may not be aware of your orriginal self. This kind of transition seems more permanent, and permanency would remove one of the main benefits of having "many personalities".

[dodaive]

Actually I see chaos magic as diving into to reality head on. I would see chaos magick as losing all your coping mechanisms and embracing reality without any negative labels for anything. Actually if you think about it, we all have created a comfortable, fictitious world, that gives us enough escapism to deal with life. Chaos magick makes you throw all that away. All the artificial boundaries that have been created by social convention go out the window. scary stuff [eek]

[Asmus]

Really? I've been sorely misinformed; i visited the chaos magick part of this forum, and the first topic "What is chaos magick, exactly?" said that it was as i described. Ah well.

Still, the elements DESCRIBED are... well, flawed, since it's permanent. I'm hoping for a non-permanent transition to a personality that stays with you forever; and retains it's assets.

[hyperRitual]

"Like you said, there are lots of magickal techniques for DISCOVERING your 'true self' or even other 'personalities', but this isn't what I'm looking for. I'm looking to craft, per se, an entirely new personality of my own design."

Discovery was only one of the activities I mentioned. See Liber III vel Jugorum (cf. Carroll's stuff on metamorphosis in MMM). See Dave Lee's work on multiple selves. See Phil Farber's Meta-Magick techniques for invoking and anchoring new personalities. See various good books on improvisational and method acting, role-playing, and working with archetypes. Etc. Much of this stuff can be applied regardless of whether the new personality is "discovered" or "constructed".

[hyperRitual]

"i visited the chaos magick part of this forum, and the first topic 'What is chaos magick, exactly?' said that it was as i described."

Without dis/agreeing with dodaive's comments, I will say the thread you refer to does not constitute nor represent a good summary of Chaos magic, in my opinion.

[dodaive]

Meditation is a great key, think about it there is no memory while a person is meditating. If 100% of a person's awareness is in the now second, nothing is left for memory. A trained meditator can in one moment be in negative social reaction, turn consciously for 3 or 4 seconds then turn back at the person, and feel fresh like he starting all over, nothing carrying over from just 4 seconds before. The key here is that for 4 seconds the time is experienced absolutely fully by the five senses.

[dodaive]

I would think that a person has to deal with the belief that a person already has and is deeply ingrained, before belief could be something that is fluid enough to manipulate. I would love to hear how you would you summarize it hyperRitual. I don't actually practice chaos magick,and I have read limited sources.

[Asmus]

Discovery was only one of the activities I mentioned. See Liber III vel Jugorum (cf. Carroll's stuff on metamorphosis in MMM). See Dave Lee's work on multiple selves. See Phil Farber's Meta-Magick techniques for invoking and anchoring new personalities. See various good books on improvisational and method acting, role-playing, and working with archetypes. Etc. Much of this stuff can be applied regardless of whether the new personality is "discovered" or "constructed".

By god! So many quoted works! I love you, hyper! [yay] [yay] [yay]

I'll have to get these sometime soon. Don't know how i can ever repay you for this resource, but you will be having my gratitude for the rest of the foreseeable future. Is there a rep button somewhere on this site?


Oh, and Dodaive, your meditation thing is interesting. I'm guessing that you mean meditation could be used to initiate an alter's possession of the "host body". It's a pretty interesting concept; since there's no memory, there's no risk of damaging your brain, i suppose you're saying. Might be worth looking into.

[hyperRitual]

"I would think that a person has to deal with the belief that a person already has and is deeply ingrained, before belief could be something that is fluid enough to manipulate."

Some beliefs are easier to change than others. Some are very ingrained, and may approach something more or less than a mere belief.

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."

"I dare say you haven't had much practice," said the queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

"I would love to hear how you would you summarize it hyperRitual. I don't actually practice chaos magick,and I have read limited sources."

Here we go.

[reptilian]

I've made a lifelong hobby of examining and altering my psyche and I would imagine that this is highly possible. In my limited research, I've started to suspect that many people experience their own minds as a range of pluralities. In fact, I have a few highly developed and individualized parts of my mind that are not able to function independently but do exhibit unique skills or knacks, as well as differing or conflicting feelings or opinions.
Since a human being is a highly variable, changing and complex-to-the-point-of-contradiction, sometimes people become conflicted and fragmented in some ways out of necessity. I have no reason to think that one couldn't do it voluntarily.

However, dissociative identity disorder is not a very well documented condition and some psychologists dispute it's existence. Fictional accounts of multiple personalities are usually wildly fantastical, and rarely, if ever, based on documented cases of dissociative identity. So, while I imagine that this idea is something that could be possible, I wouldn't look too much into fiction for information or theories about how it can/should work. Rather, I would suggest that you look into the nature of real documented cases of DID.

[Nahemah]

Hmm.....I think in pictures and smells etc,as well as language,when I think of folks I know,for instance, I see them,rather than have wordy thoughts of them,I hear their voices as well,in my mind.Certain smells and scents are assocaitive qwith individuals for me.
Thinking is a multi faceted sensory experience,in my opinion.Just saying.

Oh and also ,'personas',we slip in and out of these depending on situational context,our 'faces to the world,so to speak,so our personalities are able to mutate in and out of various sets or constructs,without being dysfunctional.

Cognitive dissonance can sometimes be a problem,but it can also be integrated,Paradigm shifting anyone?

Our minds are amazing really,think of Apophenia,it's in our natures to connect the dots and cross the ts,patterns and forms take shape in our minds as we are built for problem solving and we have so many tools to use,once we allow ourselves to explore them.Fuzzy logic and lateralism too,some of us excel at those also.

[Sory ,a bit tired atm,will get on boeard with the Sciencey terminology later]

[Asmus]

I've made a lifelong hobby of examining and altering my psyche and I would imagine that this is highly possible. In my limited research, I've started to suspect that many people experience their own minds as a range of pluralities....

...So, while I imagine that this idea is something that could be possible, I wouldn't look too much into fiction for information or theories about how it can/should work. Rather, I would suggest that you look into the nature of real documented cases of DID.

Research into your typical DID case isn't promising. Most people with DID are quite insane & harmed by the experience (it's main "side effects" are horrible memory lapses/bad recall, and terrible bouts of insomnia).

Nahemah had a reasonable point; that "thinking" is a multi-faceted sensory experience. I wouldn't relate what he's talking about to thinking, however; it seems to me it would be more of a memory thing, or a perception thing. At the very least, it's definitely not thinking (Thinking has to be active, and perceiving something, for instance, is passive). But as far as your main points go, nahemah, I can't argue with your conclusion of us slipping in and out of different "personas" to deal with people/situations differently. That would imply some pretty interesting things; for instance, it implies that we are fully capable of having multiple personalities, and easily shifting through them. Since they already exist, I would imagine there'd be relatively little risk in altering them.

HOWEVER! There is a problem with these alternate personas, and that is that they aren't really independent entity's from your main personality. This might be overlookable for MY purposes, if they can still learn traits independently, but really what's called for here is a separate consciousness taking residence in the same body as the present consciousness. Personas seem to me to be... micro-consciousnesses, incapable of thought independant of the primary conciousness. This might impair learning and skill retention. Interesting thing, though; if these DO impair these faculties of the mind, than would removing them make it easier for you to learn? [shock2]

[Nahemah]

Perception is not passive,it can be at times , but not exclusively so.We percieve through our other senses too,not just our eyes,ever identified an object by touch or smell alone?

How do you think your brain does that?

I am a kinaesthetic learner,moving around helps me learn.Learning requires thought processes and my thought process work best with movement and rhythm.

Quid pro quo: there is an active principle in thinking.

Oh,yeh,nearly forgot......the firing of synapses in the brain,how can you deny that is activity? [lol] [grin]

PS.I am a Woman.

Also think of synaesthesia,that is a quirk of the brain,but it's a very interesting one,is it not?

[Asmus]

Perception is not passive,it can be at times , but not exclusively so.We percieve through our other senses too,not just our eyes,ever identified an object by touch or smell alone?

How do you think your brain does that?

Quid pro quo: there is an active principle in thinking.

*trollface* you used quid pro quo incorrectly... [rolleyes]


Nah, but seriously, perception is definitely 100% exclusive to our passive portions of the brain. Our brain AUTOMATICALLY interprets signals from the eyes/ears/nose/hands/etc to define objects & their place in the world. If it didn't, and we had to actively THINK to visualize our world, we would be at a huge disadvantage to other species (given your brains typical inability to multi-task thought and reason).

I suppose what you're saying is that, say you blindfold someone. If you put a book to their nose, they may recognize the smell of paper and conclude that it's probably a book. The fact that they thought about it shows that people CAN think about something to perceive it, right? Well, let's take that example a step further. Say they identify the book, and they're correct about it. They didn't have to rationalize the smell of the book; they simply made a conclusion as to what the object is based on the signal the brain AUTOMATICALLY receives from the nostrils. The brain passively (and surprisingly quickly) identifies it as a familiar smell, and then the critical thinking portion is left to conclude what the object is, based on the kinds of objects that have that kind of smell. Even in this scenario, it is EXCLUSIVELY the "identification" of the object that is active, the rest is passive. Since identification is separate from perception (one can perceive an object, but not identify it), one can easily conclude they perceived only a smell, and identified it as an object. Site is a different matter, but only barely; we perceive objects as shapes with our eyes, and our brain then concludes what these shapes are. The conclusion is not as "active", but it's still a separate function of the brain. I mentioned that someone can perceive an object, but not identify it. However, the inverse of that is an impossibility. Curious, eh? [happy]


Later on in your response, nahemhh, you completely bamboozled me by saying "there is an active principle in thinking". I think what you mean is thinking, which is different from perception. In which case I agree with you. If you mean perception, however, than the above is my response to that.

[Nahemah]

Err,yes,should've written perception instead of thinking in that sentence.Do excuse that,like I said I was tired,but I wanted to respond,at least a little.

"I am a kinaesthetic learner,moving around helps me learn.Learning requires thought processes and my thought process work best with movement and rhythm.
Quid pro quo: there is an active principle in perception.

Oh,yeh,nearly forgot......the firing of synapses in the brain,how can you deny that is activity? [lol] [grin] "
FIXED.

I used Quid pro quo correctly,but we can argue the semantics of it if you wish,though that might detract from the subject somewhat.

[Incidentally,I do have a habit of discussing serious material with a touch of humour added.But I can stop that,if you find it annoying. [crazy] ]

I have a lot more to say on perception and the active principles therein,but I will wait til I'm more awake and alert,as I might be inclined to erroneously make a typo or use the wrong word and discounting what I have to say,based on this,while relatively easy to do ,is by no means akin to providing a counter argument.[Ahem.This is a pre emptive generalisation,just in case,not a snipe.]

Computers are modelled on our brains/minds,not the other way round,surely?

Jobs and Gates ,et al,made a Pan Human interface,based on their own perceptions and thought processes,both ably aided by psychedelic substances ingested in their student days,as far as I 'm aware.Steve Jobs is quoted as saying taking LSD was the best decision of his entire life.Just 'thought' {Lol} I 'd bring this argument in to the topic,while it's still developing.I have my reasons,which may become clearer later,lol. [eg]

The book example you used is a rather poor one,by the way.Just saying.

[Asmus]

Glad we cleared that bit about perception and thinking up. I was just a wee bit confused there.

[Incidentally,I do have a habit of discussing serious material with a touch of humour added.But I can stop that,if you find it annoying. [crazy] ]

I don't mind at all! Humor is great! I've been told I'm too tight with my grammar and writing and whatnot, and that I'm not... friendly enough. That kind of stuff probably makes me look pompous on a casual place like a forum, so I apologize if I gave you the impression that i don't appreciate humor. I do! =)

The book example you used is a rather poor one,by the way.Just saying.

What? What was wrong with it? I thought it was fine. [grump]

Oh, and you DID use quid pro quo incorrectly... hate to sound like an asshole. =\ Quid pro quo essentially means "equivical exchange". It especially applies to other humans (this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo) lovingly uses the example of: "You scratch my back, i'll scratch yours"). I think the word you meant to use is "ergo" (therefore), although even that only loosely fits.

I'll agree with you in one respect: There is an active process that occurs when you perceive something, but I don't see how perception itself is an active state of mind. I'm sure you can tell me all about it, though, after you get some sleep. [wink]



[edit] Also, as far as the "who's modeled after who thing" goes, i would agree. But honestly, guys (girls, too) can we stop focusing on this analogy so much? I KNOW brains aren't computers. I'm simply saying the two things are similar. Gawd, can't a guy use a comparative around here, without everyone critiquing it? [rofl]

[hyperRitual]

"Nah, but seriously, perception is definitely 100% exclusive to our passive portions of the brain. Our brain AUTOMATICALLY interprets signals from the eyes/ears/nose/hands/etc to define objects & their place in the world. If it didn't, and we had to actively THINK to visualize our world, we would be at a huge disadvantage to other species (given your brains typical inability to multi-task thought and reason)."

The identification of perception with passivity is greatly exaggerated, as is the identification of sensor-motor with passive-active (or reception-transmission, inside-outside, toward-away, etc). While I agree with you about the role and value of automatism, any neophyte magician should understand (via direct experience) that not only how but what we perceive and are aware of can actively be changed.

E.g., as I listen to a piece of music, I can choose to emphasize different parts of it; I can listen to it more carefully and so "pick up" on things I had previously missed (i.e. was not aware of); I can "tune it out" and stop being aware of it altogether (although I concede there may be unconscious parts of my nervous system that are still activated by the presence of the music); I can even change the quality of the music -- manipulate the equalizer, alter the volume, turn the station -- and so change what I am perceiving and aware of. And that's mostly just quantity stuff. The quality of the music is determined by my history of interactions with it, and I can consciously select a new vector of interactions that may cause me to perceive the music differently in the future. Even my "gut reaction" to the music can change, or something that was noise may become music, or what was music may become noise. You can argue that these are thoughts about the sounds that are perceived, but the distinction between percept and concept is not very clear. What is clear is that if I desire to see, hear, smell, touch, or taste someone other than what I am now, I can do something about that.

"If you desire to see, learn how to act." // Heinz von Foerster, "On Constructing a Reality"

I recommend reading about embodied cognition and constructivist epistemology, for some additional perspectives on perception, action, and active participation in experience and knowledge.