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

[Asmus]

I know about constructing reality. What I've not heard of is this "over-rating of automated processes of the brain" thing. I still agree with you about actively constructing a reality, however. Or even pre-constructing an active reality, to some extent.

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

And, as always, I'm impressed by your thoroughness and your references. Thanks again for that, it'll be something to check out.

[Nahemah]

Ok...

Firstly,Hyper Ritual I cxould hug you for that post.Wonderfully put. [yay]

Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of the environment by organizing and interpreting sensory information.[1][2] All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical stimulation of the sense organs.[3] For example, vision involves light striking the retinas of the eyes, smell is mediated by odor molecules and hearing involves pressure waves.
Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but can be shaped by learning, memory and expectation.
[4][5] Perception involves these "top-down" effects as well as the "bottom-up" process of processing sensory input.[5] Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but
subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception

I bolded the parts which relate to what I spoke of earlier.Yes ,it's a Wiki article but it gives a decent baseline.

Now, on Quid pro Quo: the interpretation can be based on direct translation or on transliteration,I used the transliterative version here.Something for something.If I provide a proof for an example of use,I am in a de facto sense,exchanging 'something for something'.I used the term correctly.Are we done on this now?

More later after some sleep.

[Asmus]

The quid pro quo thing is really bugging me now, [rofl] . You're not exchanging a question for a solution; that's not what exchange is. Even if a question is posed, you're not exchanging a solution for it. You don't "receive" the question and "loose" the solution. Ignoring that, it would still only be quid pro quo if we both gave eachother a solution. As it is right now, if you have an answer to a question that i pose, you are not gaining anything. You already had the solution to the problem. You would need to pose a question that I answer, as well. BUT EVEN WITH ALL THIS! That's not how you used the word! You said: "Quid pro quo, there is an active principle in perception". What are you exchanging for this statement? I don't see the connection. [eek]

Anyway, i don't have a problem with you using wikipedia articles in support of your claim. I love wikipedia! Just let me point out, firstly, that one of your underlined sentences supports precisely what I've been saying: "...this processing happens outside conscious awareness". Also, the first statement does not disagree with me. It says that it's not the passive receipt of these signals, and can be shaped with knowledge, expectation, memory, blah blah. It simply says that reality can be shaped by these concscious efforts to RESHAPE IT, something i agreed with hyper on in my last post. So we are apparently in agreement here. [happy2]

[Nahemah]

Do pardon my French here,but oh Fuck,shit,shit,shit.....stupid me,your'e right there...should've been QED [quod erat demonstrandum] I bolloxed that one.Then I bolloxed it worse by sticking to my guns.Oh dear. [blush]

I won't be so silly henceforth,I 've slept now and can see and think clearly again.

....................................

However,given that, I should also have bolded the whole of the last sentence in the excerpt,so as to be completely clear:it does not agree with what you've previously stated,but nice mixing up of the statement anyway.Lol.

You do see the 'seems' part of the sentence don't you,Even though I forgot to bold it?

Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness.[3]

Also, the first statement does not disagree with me. It says that it's not the passive receipt of these signals, and can be shaped with knowledge, expectation, memory, blah blah. It simply says that reality can be shaped by these concscious efforts to RESHAPE IT, something i agreed with hyper on in my last post. So we are apparently in agreement here. [happy2]

It does not simply say what you assert further.Being outside of conscious awareness does not imply passivity.

[Asmus]

Do pardon my French here,but oh Fuck,shit,shit,shit.....stupid me,your'e right there...should've been QED [quod erat demonstrandum] I bolloxed that one.Then I bolloxed it worse by sticking to my guns.Oh dear. [blush]

I won't be so silly henceforth,I 've slept now and can see and think clearly again.





It does not simply say what you assert further.Being outside of conscious awareness does not imply passivity.

It was bolloxed, sure, but it's not super important. If anything, my bringing it up detracted from the topic, so it's really a mutual bolloxing. hehe.

Anyway, I think that being outside conscious awareness necessitates at the LEAST sub-consciousness, which is in some amount passive. I would say that any kind of thought is active, and that anything that's automated in your mind is passive. Does that make my point more clear?

[Nahemah]

Sigh,

If I repeat some terms I posted previously would you at least look them up/do some reading?

Apophenia
Kinaesthesia
Synaesthesia.

Please?

[dodaive]

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.

I would say the central issue here is how much plasticity you would ascribe to one's belief. I actually can only speak from my own experience. I have many beliefs that I would need to tear down, before I would be able to go to the next step to shape my belief.

I guess the question of whether or not a person has to destroy his/her beliefs before crafting belief, would be different for everyone. Some people may find it very easy shape his/her belief. The topic of this thread is IMHO is also very relevant. Belief seems to be the very foundation to one's personality. If a person hypothetically created three conflicting beliefs, would he be able to rotate these beliefs at will. Would the three conflict with each other or could each one be held separately. RPG players create characters that are in conflict to one's values all the time.

[hyperRitual]

I would say the central issue here is how much plasticity you would ascribe to one's belief. I actually can only speak from my own experience. I have many beliefs that I would need to tear down, before I would be able to go to the next step to shape my belief.

I guess the question of whether or not a person has to destroy his/her beliefs before crafting belief, would be different for everyone. Some people may find it very easy shape his/her belief. The topic of this thread is IMHO is also very relevant. Belief seems to be the very foundation to one's personality. If a person hypothetically created three conflicting beliefs, would he be able to rotate these beliefs at will. Would the three conflict with each other or could each one be held separately. RPG players create characters that are in conflict to one's values all the time.

Tangent (from the OP) alert....

Like I said, some beliefs are more deeply set than others. The practice of Chaos magic helps to work the plasticity. I have performed multiple rituals in the same night, that required contradictory beliefs.

I doubt that belief is the very foundation of personality; I do not have a strong argument against that statement; it just does not feel right. Perhaps belief gets overused, misused, exaggerated. Specifically, it refers to holding a proposition to be true. Originally it was a not a noun, and the verb believe meant to hold dear or love. Now, there are many assumptions about reality that become embodied in our cognition through our histories of interactions with the world, but I am not sure those qualify as beliefs. To me, the classical sense of belief was more like faith -- belief in a deity, a loved one, one's self -- and the modern sense of belief really only applies in logic or rhetoric, vis-a-vis doubt -- one uses it to affirm what she holds true in the context of some question about the truth of something.

Many years ago, there was a television show called Werewolf, and the teaser for it had a big impact on my childhood. It went like this: The camera slowly zooms in on a man sitting alone in a room with his back turned toward us. As the camera approaches, a narrator says, "There are those who believe..." The man stands up and turns to face us with white light glowing out of his eyes. "...and those who will." The light saturates the screen, the screen fades to black, and the word Werewolf appears in red. Today, I understand that the narrator intended to express futurity by his use of the word will -- i.e., there are those who will believe (in the future). But my young mind (mis)interpreted his statement to mean that there are people who believe things, and there are people who will things, and that a werewolf was obviously the latter, someone who wills things (such as transforming into a wolf). I wanted to be someone who wills.

This misunderstanding soon led to my refusal to employ the words belief or believe in anything, and I never cared to discuss what people believed in or didn't. It all seemed so passive and arbitrary. I was much more interested in what people did, what they created -- what they willed. Of course, many of the things people do are based on or in their beliefs, and I eventually came around to understanding that pretty well.

[dodaive]

Belief as I see it exists on a continuum. On one side the mind is in a perpetual beginner state and using all of its resources to learn new things, on the other end of the spectrum there is belief, which I tend to call judgement. A person at any given time is somewhere on this continuum. The farther the mind is in discovery mode the harder it will be to act on anything, the farther a person is on the judgement side, the quicker one can act, but the harder it is to learn anything new. Obviously where a person is on this scale is going to be highly variable, depending on the topic of concern. So what you might be saying is that a person needs to identify an area of concern, and other beliefs should have no effect on the topic at hand.

[Nahemah]

Apophenia
Kinaesthesia
Synaesthesia

Oops I forgot a very important 'ia'...

Tachypsychia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachypsychia

[Or as it also was once known,in the Good Ole/Bad Ole days :Berserkergang [geek2]]

[Asmus]

Sigh,

If I repeat some terms I posted previously would you at least look them up/do some reading?

Apophenia
Kinaesthesia
Synaesthesia.

Please?

Synaethesia, and recently Tachypsychia, are definitely the most interesting of these... disorders? But they don't seem to support anything you've said. Maybe you could elaborate as to how they support your theory?

[Nahemah]

No.

Here's a thought out of left field...

How about you alter your theory to fit the facts,instead of the other way round ?

I am starting to believe you might be confusing the definition of perception with that of cognition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cognition

[Asmus]

No.

Here's a thought out of left field...

How about you alter your theory to fit the facts,instead of the other way round ?

I am starting to believe you might be confusing the definition of perception with that of cognition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cognition

But... you... I...

See, I've been saying all along that perception and cognition are seperate entities. This appears to be what you're saying, also. Unless you're going to tell me wikipedia is wrong or something... You're confusing the shit out of me, nahemah. You agree with me then you tell me you don't. [zomg] Quite the conundrum.

[dodaive]

Thank you for the great Wiki link Nehamah I am finding it very useful [thumbup] .Asmus I hate the word "perception". It used so much in Nursing literature, but it entails a very complex process which has variations that focus on specific parts of the process. I can go more in to detail, but I am thinking that here it would greatly detract from the main topic at hand.

The major flaw that I see with multiple personalities as they are described in the DSM IV is that the personalities that are developed in these individuals have severe flaws and deficits. Maybe we should start with the idea of putting down on paper a set of blueprints of personalities that would be mostdesirable.

[Asmus]

Way ahead of you. I've already come up with a large list of things necessary for another personality. I won't be posting it here, but we can discuss it later on.

As far as desirable personalities, they should have traits that a person finds desirable on an individual level. I'm debating whether they should be self-aware (aware of their existance as an alter-ego), but if they're not then they should be less intelligent than your "base personality", for sure.

Anyway, I think the major flaw with MPD/DID is not that the personalities have flaws, but that they take such a toll on... well, themselves, and other personalities! Not to mention the host body. Take a look at what wikipedia has to say:

* Multiple mannerisms, attitudes and beliefs which are not similar to each other
* Unexplainable headaches and other body pains
* Distortion or loss of subjective time ( a long time)
* Depersonalization
* Derealization
* Severe memory loss
* Depression
* Flashbacks of abuse/trauma
* Sudden anger without a justified cause
* Frequent panic/anxiety attacks
* Unexplainable phobias



I bolded everything negative. Mr. Hyper provided us with what seemed exceptionally well-cited works, and I think I'll try my local library for them on my next visit. Or maybe I'll have a look around for the pdf. You never know.


Anyway, I think as long as you can construct an isolated section of memories (esp. behavioral memories!), and a trigger along with them, you should be able to meld a new ego for yourself. It would take an AWEFUL lot of description, though... I'm thinking a two-person hypnotic routine, where one enters a meditative state, and the other reads off traits their other personality has as facts. The other person would then implant a trigger, (the old, "when I snap my fingers, you will return to normal" trick, but with a phrase or symbol) and hopefully you would have a functional, permanent alter to revert to. You could probably implant a trigger in the original consciousness to cause a reversion, as well. Otherwise, you'd need to be hypnotized every single time you want to enter your other... mental state.

There are some interesting points about this particular method, which I will discuss with Dodaive in person (they're hard to express, and everyone would probably wonder what I mean).

[SolarFlea]

hyperRitual,

I would have to say that the brain is indeed a computer. It has different modules for different functions, temporary memory (RAM), Neurons (Buses) etc. In some cases of Savants unintentionally reprogram a part of the brain that has a traditional function being utilised in an entirely different way. It is as if custom firmware has been installed. A good example is the use of video card ram being allocated to farm "Bitcoins".
Religious people are noted for compartmentalizing the brain, much like partitioning a hard drive to run another OS, or more aptly keeping a separation, so if one partition is corrupted the other remains untouched. If one can indeed allot space for two sets of rules you can avoid comparisons, that would otherwise instantly reveal the glaring inconsistencies of fundamental religions to come to light.
Asmus has a brilliant point here, because it is exactly what a Chaos Magickian needs to temporarily adopt a belief system, to accomplish his work.The brain is adaptive and organic, but it functions for all practical purposes like a computer.The human brain was the first computer able to 'Model", or create worlds and scenarios that did not otherwise exist. This is vital to Magick, and as far as I am concerned it's birthplace. The more we learn about neuroscience, the more we are intentionally modeling computers after the brain. It is a wonderful example of reciprocal evolution.
The working ritual one devises, is the key to successfully creating new partitions, and reformatting.


Regards, SolarFlea

[Asmus]

Thanks for that solar, glad someone agrees! Partitioning the brain would be fantastic for not only chaos magi, or magicians in general, but anyone who could use some extra skills or different beliefs. I bet the CIA would love to get to see the development of such a ritual! The uses are endless, but there are just a few problems, as listed in the other posts here...

For starters, the development of a separate "partition" is much more complex than it sounds; and I'm sure to many it sounds complex already. Then there are the problems like reduced cognition, memory loss... insanity.. if you add it all together, you get a very substantial heap of problems that very nearly outweighs the actual goal. But I think I've got a fairly good idea where to start; and that's with "installing a different os". Reformatting.

Yep, I'm pretty confident that the answer lies in magick literature regarding establishing a "new self", or something similar. Either that, or (like solar said) study the religious and see how they do it. Any books on either subject (compartmentalizing the brain or creating a "new self") would be VASTLY appreciated and commemorated with large ammounts of internet cookies, home-made and fresh from the oven. [happy2]

[dodaive]

I think that fully partitioning areas of the brain is not really that useful except for only a few specific situations. These types of situations can afford a little bit of preparation time which could include an oblation following up with a practiced ritual. I think the key is understanding what cognitive functions enhance each other, and what cognitive functions compete with each other.By diagraming all of the cognitive functions and the parts of the brain that are being used you might be able to get an idea how to make the transitions. Most of the partitioning, should actually consist of partial partitioning of cognitive functions. This allows for smoother and faster transitions. Cognitive functions usually go in wave-like patterns of increases and decreases. If you really want to understand the results when functions become fully partitioned you should study the Meyers-Briggs personality model.

[Nahemah]

Ooh Myers Briggs.I think I posted here on the forum about it ages ago,with a link for taking the test.I 'll go dig it up now.

I score as INTJ,Dodaive,bet you aren't surprised by that,lol.Have you taken it too?


My results back then:

Original post: Eretik

To read about all the different personality types: http://typelogic.com/


There are 16 different personality types possible depending on your preference of:

Introversion vs Extraversion

Intuition vs Sensation

Thinking vs Feeling

Judging vs Perceiving

The percentages of each type in the general population:

ISTJ - 6% ISFJ - 6% INFJ - 1% INTJ - 1%
ISTP - 6% ISFP - 6% INFP - 1% INTP - 1%
ESTP - 13% ESFP - 13% ENFP - 5% ENTP - 5%
ESTJ - 13% ESFJ - 13% ENFJ - 5% ENTJ - 5%

I am an INTJ, my scores were -

Introverted 33

intuitive 62

thinking 1

judging 22

Link to the test:

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

I should retake it,it's been 4 years,lol,the percentages can shift,over time.

I 've also done the full OCEAN test,with all the facets,it's incredibly detailed ,but very boring to take,over 300 Qs to fill out,lol.
I 'll link to that too,later.

[SolarFlea]

I am an INTJ, my scores were -

Introverted 22

intuitive 75

thinking 1

judging 11

[Nahemah]

Heya fellow INTJ,lol.

Here's my scores now:

Your Type is
INTJ
Introverted Intuitive Thinking Judging
Strength of the preferences %
67 38 50 33





Qualitative analysis of your type formula

You are:

distinctively expressed introvert
moderately expressed intuitive personality
moderately expressed thinking personality
moderately expressed judging personality

It's good to note and retake after a while,the percentages can shift quite a bit.I this is saying I 'm more balanced now,than I was then.That is good and is a marker for my progress spiritually and holistically.

[Nahemah]

INTJ in a nutshell...


INTJ
Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging

INTJs are very analytical individuals. They are more comfortable working alone than with other people, and are not usually as sociable as others, although they are prepared to take the lead if nobody else is up to the task, or they see a major weakness in the current leadership. They tend to be very pragmatic and logical individuals, often with an individualistic bent and a low tolerance for spin or rampant emotionalism. They are also commonly not susceptible to catchphrases and commonly do not recognize authority based on tradition, rank or title. Hallmark features of the INTJ personality type include independence of thought, strong individualism and creativity. Persons with this personality type work best given large amounts of autonomy and creative freedom. They harbour an innate desire to express themselves; that is to be creative by conceptualizing their own intellectual designs. Analyzing and formulating complex theories are among their greatest strengths.

I 'm curious about other members now.Go on take the test,plse? [thumbup]

[Nahemah]

http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/

A short version of the OCEAN big five test.

[Nahemah]

Some more handy reading material:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_perception

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprioception

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatosensory

[SolarFlea]

I have leaned a great deal from Nahemah, dodaive, and others on this forum. I am very glad I stumbled onto it.