Okay, so I found the assertion that people often consider certain BIP Bars part of their personality when they're not, very illuminating. In a way, it made me understand very suddenly who I am (and I'm grateful to you who wrote the pamphlet for that, by the way.)
But I've been wondering now if Bars don't still quite directly affect who we are. I'm beginning to think they do.
Case at point, I was recently romantically involved with someone you might label feminist hippie. For a while she had me very cautious about male tendencies towards aggression and over-assertiveness, and while I now realize I got too caught up in that specific reality tunnel at the time, I can't help but notice that I now only like pron where the woman seems to be enjoying herself (this was not a main criterion to me before). My personality seems to have been affected in a rather direct way by a Bar I spent a while building and later discarded.
Or maybe I just haven't really torn off that Bar yet.
Short answer: ABSOLUTELY.
Medium-sized answer: ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY.
Longer answer: Of course, since the BIP is nothing more than an externalized metaphor for how you see the world and how you act and react in it. If you date someone who reconstructs your cell (substituting misogynistic pporn for couple-friendly, for example), then you, as a person, will change because of it.
Of course, as you get further down into it, you can have internal conflicts if some of the more modern reconstruction is built on counter-foundations. From here, you might want to shift into the "conditioning vs imprinting" metaphors of RAW and Leary.
The thing with the prawn might simply be that your consciousness expanded to notice an additional level of "hot/not hot": that sex is sexier when all involved parties are actually enjoying it. I don't know if that's a bar; it might be the discarding of a bar.
What do you mean, who we "are"?
Everything changes who you "are".
We're all just a pile of memes anyway - memes precariously balanced and glued together in a way which seems like a personality.
The Black Iron Prison is just another meme - it's a meme which encourages you to look at the shadow of that pile and make some choices about it. It's a good meme to keep around. Hopefully it'll help you act differently than the guy you were yesterday. Does that change who you *are*?
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on February 12, 2008, 11:25:36 PM
What do you mean, who we "are"?
Everything changes who you "are".
We're all just a pile of memes anyway - memes precariously balanced and glued together in a way which seems like a personality.
The Black Iron Prison is just another meme - it's a meme which encourages you to look at the shadow of that pile and make some choices about it. It's a good meme to keep around. Hopefully it'll help you act differently than the guy you were yesterday. Does that change who you *are*?
Paging Dr. Hume :lulz:
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on February 12, 2008, 11:25:36 PM
What do you mean, who we "are"?
Everything changes who you "are".
We're all just a pile of memes anyway - memes precariously balanced and glued together in a way which seems like a personality.
The Black Iron Prison is just another meme - it's a meme which encourages you to look at the shadow of that pile and make some choices about it. It's a good meme to keep around. Hopefully it'll help you act differently than the guy you were yesterday. Does that change who you *are*?
Niiiiiice!
I think you may be asking a question that begins with a false premise... that we ARE anything. Or, at least that we ARE anything that we can well define. Every experience we have seems to have the potential to change us, be it romantic, sexual, psychological, or physical.
My first experience in rock climbing and rappelling doesn't seem to have been breaking a bar, but it definitely seemed to change how I perceived myself afterward.
Yeah I think the BIP can change who we are, or at least, how we behave. It occurs through recognition of the bars that are informing and shaping who and what you are. You see that an aspect of yourself is making you behave in a certain way. You decide you don't want to act that way anymore. So you do as the Asprin commercial suggested to Mal, you stop.
Of course, as you change how you behave you are changing your cell. You are making new bars, or altering pre-existing bars (e.g. your porn bar.)
I think this is where the line, "we invite you to a jailbreak, just turn around" comes into play.
Recognition can help you choose whether to stay where you are, or to try moving in a different direction. If people don't know that its there, they don't change. Especially when they put their fate in the hands of some deified warden.
another approach, perhaps redundant:
Q: Does the BIP actually change who you are?
A: No, you change who you are.
The BIP is a Catalytic Converter
The BIP is not something outside of yourself, of "who you are". The Black Iron Prison is you, and you are it.
I don't think the BiP is necessarily who you ARE, but maybe its who you perceive yourself to be. I think confusing who you are with the filters you use to interpret reality may be akin to eating menus ;-)
I'm saying that your filters are not an external thing. They are not artificial constructs that Lord Xenu has placed upon your eyes.
No, they are artificial constructs that your very own brain has constructed.
How could they not be part of you?
I think it depends on how one defines the BIP.
I tend to think of the BIP, and the bars that make up the BIP, my Reality.
But of course, I can only perceive so many of the bars. Which means I can only react to what I can observe.
For example, let's say I've got a cancerous tumor somewhere that I am currently unaware of. I tend to think of that as a bar of physiology that does impact who I am. It certainly would be affecting parts of my physiology, while those affects may not be manifesting in any way that I detect or pay attention to. But at some point, it will become apparent and then become on of the visible bars that I can perceive and react to.
But again, this is my personal definition and I think it's clear we all have our own variations of it.
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2008, 03:30:17 PM
I'm saying that your filters are not an external thing. They are not artificial constructs that Lord Xenu has placed upon your eyes.
No, they are artificial constructs that your very own brain has constructed.
How could they not be part of you?
I agreee with your position... which is why I said they are not YOU, they are how you (the homunculus sitting in your seat of perception) perceive yourself to be. Of course, your perceptions are a part of you... if if the Bars were really YOU, then we couldn't change them could we? If however, the bars were our own imposed perceptions, our own imposed constraints, beliefs etc... then those can be changed.
This is one of the reasons I find the BiP somewhat limited as a metaphor for reality. There seem to be some physical constraints which will forever limit our Reality (or till we die or get enlightened or eat just the right amount of acid), but most of what we seem able to effect is in letting our little homunculus see moar. ;-)
Maybe it would be more clear to state that experiences which change who you are also modify your prison bars and sometimes modifying prison bars may expose you to an experience which will change the person you perceive yourself to be.
Or is that just dancing in circles?
Quoteif if the Bars were really YOU, then we couldn't change them could we?
Are you saying we can't change ourselves?
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2008, 07:27:55 PM
Quoteif if the Bars were really YOU, then we couldn't change them could we?
Are you saying we can't change ourselves?
I'm saying that it appears to me that:
1. We can change how we perceive ourselves and our environment.
2. Such a change in perception,
coupled with experiences can affect our behavior.
Changing some perceptions (changing some bars in the prison) doesn't necessarily modify who we are.... only the data we're currently considering at the time.
Like I said, I think this is an area where the metaphor feels kinda constraining.
For example, I used to identify myself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I eventually broke down those bars... but I was still me, even though I was considering new ideas, I'm still me, even though the me that is typing this, perceives things differently than I did before.
Maybe the problem here is that the OP and most of our discussions are still using the 'is' of identity.
This is not a criticism, this is an observation:
You seem to have an idea that who you "are" is a fixed thing, and our behavior and thoughts and beliefs are somehow separate from this core thing.
Further, if one's perceptions changes one's thoughts, and one's thoughts change one's behavior, that is only an external process, and the core thing remains as it was.
I tend to think in more integrated terms, that the "is" tends to be more malleable, and while perceptions are filtered, if the thoughts and behaviors change because of that, the "is" changes as well.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 08:04:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2008, 07:27:55 PM
Quoteif if the Bars were really YOU, then we couldn't change them could we?
Are you saying we can't change ourselves?
I'm saying that it appears to me that:
1. We can change how we perceive ourselves and our environment.
2. Such a change in perception, coupled with experiences can affect our behavior.
Changing some perceptions (changing some bars in the prison) doesn't necessarily modify who we are.... only the data we're currently considering at the time.
Like I said, I think this is an area where the metaphor feels kinda constraining.
For example, I used to identify myself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I eventually broke down those bars... but I was still me, even though I was considering new ideas, I'm still me, even though the me that is typing this, perceives things differently than I did before.
Maybe the problem here is that the OP and most of our discussions are still using the 'is' of identity.
So you think that you as the JW is exactly the same you as you, not the JW? No difference at all?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 13, 2008, 08:26:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 08:04:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2008, 07:27:55 PM
Quoteif if the Bars were really YOU, then we couldn't change them could we?
Are you saying we can't change ourselves?
I'm saying that it appears to me that:
1. We can change how we perceive ourselves and our environment.
2. Such a change in perception, coupled with experiences can affect our behavior.
Changing some perceptions (changing some bars in the prison) doesn't necessarily modify who we are.... only the data we're currently considering at the time.
Like I said, I think this is an area where the metaphor feels kinda constraining.
For example, I used to identify myself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I eventually broke down those bars... but I was still me, even though I was considering new ideas, I'm still me, even though the me that is typing this, perceives things differently than I did before.
Maybe the problem here is that the OP and most of our discussions are still using the 'is' of identity.
So you think that you as the JW is exactly the same you as you, not the JW? No difference at all?
Yes, there's a very big difference in the data I perceive. Experiences that I have had, have further modified the aspects of reality I focus on, and even what I consider reality to be... but the little homunculus that looks out of my eyes is still the same little homunculus. He has a much nicer view though.
Do we change who the horse is, if we take off his blinders? Do we change who the person is, if we make them wear sunglasses? Or are we just changing the input stream between their homunculus and reality?
But isn't a change in perceptions still a change?
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 08:39:12 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 13, 2008, 08:26:11 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 08:04:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2008, 07:27:55 PM
Quoteif if the Bars were really YOU, then we couldn't change them could we?
Are you saying we can't change ourselves?
I'm saying that it appears to me that:
1. We can change how we perceive ourselves and our environment.
2. Such a change in perception, coupled with experiences can affect our behavior.
Changing some perceptions (changing some bars in the prison) doesn't necessarily modify who we are.... only the data we're currently considering at the time.
Like I said, I think this is an area where the metaphor feels kinda constraining.
For example, I used to identify myself as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I eventually broke down those bars... but I was still me, even though I was considering new ideas, I'm still me, even though the me that is typing this, perceives things differently than I did before.
Maybe the problem here is that the OP and most of our discussions are still using the 'is' of identity.
So you think that you as the JW is exactly the same you as you, not the JW? No difference at all?
Yes, there's a very big difference in the data I perceive. Experiences that I have had, have further modified the aspects of reality I focus on, and even what I consider reality to be... but the little homunculus that looks out of my eyes is still the same little homunculus. He has a much nicer view though.
Do we change who the horse is, if we take off his blinders? Do we change who the person is, if we make them wear sunglasses? Or are we just changing the input stream between their homunculus and reality?
By changing the input, you change that person. Our experiences, as we perceive them, define at least some of our personality. Wouldn't changing a person's environment change their personality, at least a little? That's as much of a change in perception as altering their perception of their current environment, or at least can be.
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2008, 08:08:50 PM
This is not a criticism, this is an observation:
You seem to have an idea that who you "are" is a fixed thing, and our behavior and thoughts and beliefs are somehow separate from this core thing.
I think that who you think you are changes all the time, with every experience and every new bar you break in the BiP.
Quote
Further, if one's perceptions changes one's thoughts, and one's thoughts change one's behavior, that is only an external process, and the core thing remains as it was.
Yes. I think that's true in some sense. If we were to use Leary's 8-circuit model... I would argue that the basic preprogrammed YOU (Circuits I-IV) remains YOU unless specifically modified through some sort of 8th circuit metaprogramming. It's possible to change YOU, but not just through perceiving new data, or modifying behavior.
Quote
I tend to think in more integrated terms, that the "is" tends to be more malleable, and while perceptions are filtered, if the thoughts and behaviors change because of that, the "is" changes as well.
I think that sort of change CAN happen... but usually only if the change in perception is coupled with action and experience....
That's why I think the BiP metaphor gets stretched a little far. When I was a JW I had no idea that a prison existed... I had no clue that my beliefs really altered my perceptions. I think the BiP is a wonderful metaphor for this point in my life.
When I started questioning my beliefs, when I finally looked at data outside the JW's official literature, I broke some bars... I saw new data. But I was still me, I was just me with access to some data I didn't have access to before. When I decided to read about magic, I broke some more bars, but I was still me. When I experienced an invocation to Therion for the first time, it changed how I perceive myself in a huge way. But, I was still me inside... just me with a much more interesting view of the universe around me.
When I got into chaos magic, I used Carroll's technique of rolling dice to determine a belief system (6 systems, roll a die, be X for a month etc). Every time I stuck my head into a new system, I saw new data. This, I think was most obvious for me when I played across political systems for awhile and realized that both sides had some insanely good ideas and other absolutely horrific ones. However, breaking bars, bashing doors, stealing locks from the jailer while he sleeps, still hasn't changed the ME inside me... It's allowed that me to access all sorts of new and interesting pieces of data, which has further encouraged me to examine yet more ideas. But, the me inside bears a striking resemblance to the me that has always been inside.
I don't think that I'm in a prison any longer... for me the prison was being trapped in that single world view. Now, I can change my views and opinions on a die roll. I've made liberals turn red in the face and call be a horrible and evil conservative... I've had conservatives call me a peacenik hippie liberal. But the me inside me isn't really either... never has been.
I can argue Christian beliefs just as well as I always have (and I still do on occasion). The only difference is that the me inside me doesn't actually believe that bullshit.
I think we can change our beliefs and preferences, just like we can change our web browser, or internet service provider... it doesn't change who we are, or how innane our posts are :evil:, it just changes how we access and perceive some of the data available.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 13, 2008, 08:46:18 PM
But isn't a change in perceptions still a change?
Quote from: The Littlest Ubermensch on February 13, 2008, 09:02:50 PM
By changing the input, you change that person. Our experiences, as we perceive them, define at least some of our personality. Wouldn't changing a person's environment change their personality, at least a little? That's as much of a change in perception as altering their perception of their current environment, or at least can be.
Changing perceptions seems to me like... changing perceptions, not changing who we are.
I'll go back to Leary here. Let's say that we imprinted Low on the first circuit (fight/flee) as a child. No matter what perceptions we change... what new ideas we think about. We don't change that basic program. We might learn to compensate for it in some manner, but the basic YOU would still have the initial response to run when faced with danger.
Now, if you take up a martial art, or live through a horrific event, there may be a metaprogramming change to that circuit and fundamentally modify the homunculus inside you. However, thats not gonna happen by breaking a few bars... it takes a lot more than that, I think.
To wrap this back around to the OP, st verbatim is talking about a preference shift in what pron turns him on, that's not a change to who he is necessarily... now, if we say that st. verbatim used to only enjoy rape and bondage pics, and thought that lap dances were always better when the stripper was crying... then, after experiencing life with this particular female, only liked porn where the two appears as partners. I would say that we have an argument for actual change to the person, particularly to the fourth circuit metaphor. I would also guess that the experience was something extreme in one way or another to evoke such a change (and that it was the physical experiences, not just expanding perceptions that caused the change).
If however, his criteria for good porn was "nice ass and nice tits" and now they take second place to "woman is enjoying herself"... he's still him, but he's got a bit of a broader (no pun intended) perspective.
Does that seem sensible?
I'll provide another example that I just thought of.
I have always been infophilic. I have always craved to know more. However, as one of JW's, the information pool was very limited. My BiP simply made lots of potential information invisible. Instead, I was infophilic within the pool of information that I was exposed to. I studied all sorts of "the deeper things", detailed discussions of prophecy and fulfillment in Type and Anti-type. I studied other religions from the perspective of how to beat them... but really, in some sense, because I was fascinated with the other belief structures.
Once I broke out of prison, my small pool of information to swim in, turned into a raging ocean... but I'm still infophilic.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 09:20:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 13, 2008, 08:46:18 PM
But isn't a change in perceptions still a change?
Quote from: The Littlest Ubermensch on February 13, 2008, 09:02:50 PM
By changing the input, you change that person. Our experiences, as we perceive them, define at least some of our personality. Wouldn't changing a person's environment change their personality, at least a little? That's as much of a change in perception as altering their perception of their current environment, or at least can be.
Changing perceptions seems to me like... changing perceptions, not changing who we are.
I'll go back to Leary here. Let's say that we imprinted Low on the first circuit (fight/flee) as a child. No matter what perceptions we change... what new ideas we think about. We don't change that basic program. We might learn to compensate for it in some manner, but the basic YOU would still have the initial response to run when faced with danger.
Now, if you take up a martial art, or live through a horrific event, there may be a metaprogramming change to that circuit and fundamentally modify the homunculus inside you. However, thats not gonna happen by breaking a few bars... it takes a lot more than that, I think.
To wrap this back around to the OP, st verbatim is talking about a preference shift in what pron turns him on, that's not a change to who he is necessarily... now, if we say that st. verbatim used to only enjoy rape and bondage pics, and thought that lap dances were always better when the stripper was crying... then, after experiencing life with this particular female, only liked porn where the two appears as partners. I would say that we have an argument for actual change to the person, particularly to the fourth circuit metaphor. I would also guess that the experience was something extreme in one way or another to evoke such a change (and that it was the physical experiences, not just expanding perceptions that caused the change).
If however, his criteria for good porn was "nice ass and nice tits" and now they take second place to "woman is enjoying herself"... he's still him, but he's got a bit of a broader (no pun intended) perspective.
Does that seem sensible?
It's totally sensible, but this goes back to the question of what defines "you". IMO, there isn't really a "core" of being that is "you", so as I perceive it, to change something even as miniscule as taste in porn is to change at least part of that person's personality. It seems like your concept of "you" is based around the basic traits which inform nearly all of a person's actions, and from that sort of definition, breaking a bar is less likely to alter a person.
Quote from: The Littlest Ubermensch on February 13, 2008, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 09:20:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on February 13, 2008, 08:46:18 PM
But isn't a change in perceptions still a change?
Quote from: The Littlest Ubermensch on February 13, 2008, 09:02:50 PM
By changing the input, you change that person. Our experiences, as we perceive them, define at least some of our personality. Wouldn't changing a person's environment change their personality, at least a little? That's as much of a change in perception as altering their perception of their current environment, or at least can be.
Changing perceptions seems to me like... changing perceptions, not changing who we are.
I'll go back to Leary here. Let's say that we imprinted Low on the first circuit (fight/flee) as a child. No matter what perceptions we change... what new ideas we think about. We don't change that basic program. We might learn to compensate for it in some manner, but the basic YOU would still have the initial response to run when faced with danger.
Now, if you take up a martial art, or live through a horrific event, there may be a metaprogramming change to that circuit and fundamentally modify the homunculus inside you. However, thats not gonna happen by breaking a few bars... it takes a lot more than that, I think.
To wrap this back around to the OP, st verbatim is talking about a preference shift in what pron turns him on, that's not a change to who he is necessarily... now, if we say that st. verbatim used to only enjoy rape and bondage pics, and thought that lap dances were always better when the stripper was crying... then, after experiencing life with this particular female, only liked porn where the two appears as partners. I would say that we have an argument for actual change to the person, particularly to the fourth circuit metaphor. I would also guess that the experience was something extreme in one way or another to evoke such a change (and that it was the physical experiences, not just expanding perceptions that caused the change).
If however, his criteria for good porn was "nice ass and nice tits" and now they take second place to "woman is enjoying herself"... he's still him, but he's got a bit of a broader (no pun intended) perspective.
Does that seem sensible?
It's totally sensible, but this goes back to the question of what defines "you". IMO, there isn't really a "core" of being that is "you", so as I perceive it, to change something even as miniscule as taste in porn is to change at least part of that person's personality. It seems like your concept of "you" is based around the basic traits which inform nearly all of a person's actions, and from that sort of definition, breaking a bar is less likely to alter a person.
Yeah, I think that pretty much nails it (and why I don't like the metaphor of the BiP as being a prison you're in for life). Through all the experiments that I've done, there is still a Me in the core that is... well... Me. Now maybe its because I have failed in my experiments. But based on what I've experienced (which is really all I can base this conversation on)... there seems to be something that is You, some base set of operating parameters that were programmed by DNA or by imprints or something. That you can be temporarily constrained or uplifted by variations in perception... but I don't think perception is me... any more so that my perception of you, IS you.
I think breaking bars in the BiP may expose us to more of who we are. We may find ourselves taking positions, holding opinions or doing things that we didn't realize we would or could do... but that seems more like discovery than modification of the individual, to me anyway. I think we humans often try to define who we ARE, by our beliefs... but that seems prone to the same kinda Cosmic Schmuck position we fall into when we try to define who someone else is by their beliefs.
Maybe I could say that I don't think we know ourselves as well as we think we do. More broken bars, exposure to more information and (most important IMO) exposure to more experiences, may help us to discover more of who we are. IE we change our perception of ourself.
I don't identify myself at all with porn preferences, so a modification in what porn I happen to get off on would probably not feel like a change. St. verbatim, may personally perceive porn preference part of who he is (5 P's w00t!)... but again, I think that may be our perception of who we think we are.
Personally, I think changing one's filters IS changing one's behavior, even though that seems inherently incorrect to me.
Changing the filters = changing the way data is recieved in the brain = changing the way you think about that data = changing the way you think = changing the way you behave because of those thoughts.
Maybe there's a flaw in my logic. Please point it out.
Quote from: Epimetheus on February 13, 2008, 11:34:53 PM
Personally, I think changing one's filters IS changing one's behavior, even though that seems inherently incorrect to me.
Changing the filters = changing the way data is recieved in the brain
I disagree. Changing filters seems (to me) to modify the data we choose to focus on. It's still received the same way, through the neurological system. It still gets modified by our first four circuit imprints (if you're familiar with leary's metaphor)... we just choose to focus on that particular data rather than other data (see Wilson's quarter experiment).
Putting different data into a program doesn't change the program.. it just changes the data.
Quote
= changing the way you think about that data = changing the way you think = changing the way you behave because of those thoughts.
I think that if we have different data that we're focused on, we may learn more about how we think about that data, but its not changing the fundamental You (The Hardware, Operating System etc... just new web pages, new databases, new photo galleries).
More knowledge seems able to lead to real changes, but not through knowledge processing alone. Through processing new ideas, we might decide that we need to change ourselves. Metaprogramming, physical experiences that evoke a paradigm shift... those can fundamentally change stuff. But, I don't think data alone does this.
I also think that line of thought may be dangerous, not only because we make make cosmic schmucks out of ourselves (confusing who we are, with who we think we are), but it may also lead to people thinking that they are making a lot more progress on themselves that may actually be the case.
I like the reality tunnel metaphor a lot for this reason, we can grow or shrink our tunnel, it can take in more or less data, we can point it in different directions... but the person looking down the tunnel is still the person looking down the tunnel.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 11:50:30 PM
I like the reality tunnel metaphor a lot for this reason, we can grow or shrink our tunnel, it can take in more or less data, we can point it in different directions... but the person looking down the tunnel is still the person looking down the tunnel.
But if you're looking down the tunnel and a gnat buzzes out at you, versus if you're looking down the tunnel and the train comes, there's a difference there, and there's a difference in the effect it has on you. I think every experience has the potential to change who you are on a fundamental level.
At some point, you guys are going to realize how masturbatory this all sounds.
Quote from: Epimetheus on February 14, 2008, 02:08:43 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 11:50:30 PM
I like the reality tunnel metaphor a lot for this reason, we can grow or shrink our tunnel, it can take in more or less data, we can point it in different directions... but the person looking down the tunnel is still the person looking down the tunnel.
But if you're looking down the tunnel and a gnat buzzes out at you, versus if you're looking down the tunnel and the train comes, there's a difference there, and there's a difference in the effect it has on you. I think every experience has the potential to change who you are on a fundamental level.
I agree...
Experiences have the potential to change you. Paradigm Shifts, Metaprogramming etc. a near death experience can definately act like a train coming straight down your tunnel...
But that's a very different thing than simply exposing yourself to new ideas. In the BiP metaphor there's not really a clear difference between saying "I'm gonna examine things from a different perspective for a bit" and "Holy Crap, I'm An Entirely Different Person".
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 02:43:10 AM
At some point, you guys are going to realize how masturbatory this all sounds.
That's why we have :fap:
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2008, 03:39:00 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on February 14, 2008, 02:08:43 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 11:50:30 PM
I like the reality tunnel metaphor a lot for this reason, we can grow or shrink our tunnel, it can take in more or less data, we can point it in different directions... but the person looking down the tunnel is still the person looking down the tunnel.
But if you're looking down the tunnel and a gnat buzzes out at you, versus if you're looking down the tunnel and the train comes, there's a difference there, and there's a difference in the effect it has on you. I think every experience has the potential to change who you are on a fundamental level.
I agree... Experiences have the potential to change you. Paradigm Shifts, Metaprogramming etc. a near death experience can definately act like a train coming straight down your tunnel...
But that's a very different thing than simply exposing yourself to new ideas. In the BiP metaphor there's not really a clear difference between saying "I'm gonna examine things from a different perspective for a bit" and "Holy Crap, I'm An Entirely Different Person".
From where I'm standing, it sounds like you could just classify anything experiential as sensory input that gets hashed out, reacted to, and incorporates into our set of dynamic behaviors.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 03:41:05 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2008, 03:39:00 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on February 14, 2008, 02:08:43 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 11:50:30 PM
I like the reality tunnel metaphor a lot for this reason, we can grow or shrink our tunnel, it can take in more or less data, we can point it in different directions... but the person looking down the tunnel is still the person looking down the tunnel.
But if you're looking down the tunnel and a gnat buzzes out at you, versus if you're looking down the tunnel and the train comes, there's a difference there, and there's a difference in the effect it has on you. I think every experience has the potential to change who you are on a fundamental level.
I agree... Experiences have the potential to change you. Paradigm Shifts, Metaprogramming etc. a near death experience can definately act like a train coming straight down your tunnel...
But that's a very different thing than simply exposing yourself to new ideas. In the BiP metaphor there's not really a clear difference between saying "I'm gonna examine things from a different perspective for a bit" and "Holy Crap, I'm An Entirely Different Person".
From where I'm standing, it sounds like you could just classify anything experiential as sensory input that gets hashed out, reacted to, and incorporates into our set of dynamic behaviors.
I suppose you could, but I don't think it would be an accurate representation of the way things work. However, I guess I'm in the minority on that bit.
To that I say, it works without the distinction. Why bother making up names for different kinds of the same thing?
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 03:44:12 AM
To that I say, it works without the distinction. Why bother making up names for different kinds of the same thing?
Well, as I stated a bit ago... I think that kind of thinking has the potential to mislead people about themselves. Changing oneself, in any system I've explored appears as an extreme act or series of actions, not simply taking in some new reading material or thinking about a new concept... those may be necessary precursors to figuring out what actions we may want to take... but action seems imperative to actual change.
The road we speak about, is not the road we walk upon... no matter how much data we take in about the road.
The Menu is not the meal, no matter how deeply we study it.
The Map is not the territory, even if we remove all of our blinders and blow it up to the size of a continent.
Data isn't experience
Words aren't action
Changing perception isn't changing how that data is processed. If we are infophilic, new data won't make us infophobic (though an extreme experience may). If we imprinted as Top Dog, perceiving new data won't make us a bottom dog but an extreme experience may.
Changing our perceptions is like changing the filter on a telescope. We may want to look at UV or Redshift or radio frequency... but our instruments still function the same way. Only through action, getting into the guts and modifying the processing system can we make actual changes to how the data is processed...
I'd agree that changing requires more than new information, but I'd also posit two more things:
People do not change in significant steps, they evolve over time into what they were going to be anyways.
Some information is passive and inert, like words, and some information is active and reactive, like our experiences.
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 02:43:10 AM
At some point, you guys are going to realize how masturbatory this all sounds.
:fap:
Quote from: keeper entropic on February 14, 2008, 04:01:21 AM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 02:43:10 AM
At some point, you guys are going to realize how masturbatory this all sounds.
:fap:
Yes, I think we've heard that one:
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2008, 03:39:00 AM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 02:43:10 AM
At some point, you guys are going to realize how masturbatory this all sounds.
That's why we have :fap:
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 04:00:56 AM
I'd agree that changing requires more than new information, but I'd also posit two more things:
People do not change in significant steps, they evolve over time into what they were going to be anyways.
First, I'm not sure this is always true, I think there are several examples that extreme changes can happen, but aren't common. The slow evolution, I would argue usually doesn't seem to me a change to the person (their first four circuits), its a modification to behavior, maybe... perhaps the influence of experience and wisdom gained over time... but the individual tends to remain in the quadrants that they imprinted in (again using Leary's metaphor, I don't really think there are circuits literally ;-) ).
Quote
Some information is passive and inert, like words, and some information is active and reactive, like our experiences.
YES! I agree with this very much. Changing our perceptions may include words/passive data and/or experiences/active data. The former may break some bars in our iron prison or modify our reality tunnel... but it doesn't change who we are. The latter may break bars in our iron prison, modify our reality tunnel and/or change who we are (fundamentally affect our first four circuits).
Reading Morozzo, Di Grassi, and Cappo Ferro would not have modified my bio-survival circuit. Using a sword in combat for 7+ years has, I think modified my bio-survival circuit.
One exposed me to new data, changed my perception of sword fighting... the other modified a piece of me.
I like this conversation because I think I've contradicted myself about myself more than once ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2008, 04:31:34 AM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 04:00:56 AM
I'd agree that changing requires more than new information, but I'd also posit two more things:
People do not change in significant steps, they evolve over time into what they were going to be anyways.
First, I'm not sure this is always true, I think there are several examples that extreme changes can happen, but aren't common. The slow evolution, I would argue usually doesn't seem to me a change to the person (their first four circuits), its a modification to behavior, maybe... perhaps the influence of experience and wisdom gained over time... but the individual tends to remain in the quadrants that they imprinted in (again using Leary's metaphor, I don't really think there are circuits literally ;-) ).
I'll submit to you that powerful experiences can snowball a lot more dramatically than slow changes, but the changes are impermanent if they aren't followed up by a series of subtler interactions, such as long thoughts on whatever it is, serious discussions or arguments about it, continued small decisions toward the new change, etc.
I still maintain that we only become more who we are over time, with minimal augmentations to suit the conditions of our experiences so it makes what we think of as "sense".
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 04:38:31 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 14, 2008, 04:31:34 AM
Quote from: Dr. Felix Mackay on February 14, 2008, 04:00:56 AM
I'd agree that changing requires more than new information, but I'd also posit two more things:
People do not change in significant steps, they evolve over time into what they were going to be anyways.
First, I'm not sure this is always true, I think there are several examples that extreme changes can happen, but aren't common. The slow evolution, I would argue usually doesn't seem to me a change to the person (their first four circuits), its a modification to behavior, maybe... perhaps the influence of experience and wisdom gained over time... but the individual tends to remain in the quadrants that they imprinted in (again using Leary's metaphor, I don't really think there are circuits literally ;-) ).
I'll submit to you that powerful experiences can snowball a lot more dramatically than slow changes, but the changes are impermanent if they aren't followed up by a series of subtler interactions, such as long thoughts on whatever it is, serious discussions or arguments about it, continued small decisions toward the new change, etc.
Oh yeah, I think it tends to be pretty true. Some instances I think may be large and permanent (usually near death experiences or something like that), but anything thats intentionally seems to take either a Large change and small supporting experiences, or a series of changes that culminates in a major and permanent change. I think we may safely be able to agree on this (OMGZ).
Quote
I still maintain that we only become more who we are over time, with minimal augmentations to suit the conditions of our experiences so it makes what we think of as "sense".
Yeah, I could agree with that. Though I think it is possible to make major permanent changes that are different that you were, I don't think many people do that, I don't think its something I've done myself at least not yet. However, I do think that by breaking bars in my BiP, I've exposed myself to new ideas and new information and even new experiences... all of which have helped me to learn more about the Me that I perceive (Do we Become more of whom we are? Do we Perceive more of whom we are? Are these simply two different ways of saying the same thing? And is this different than Changing whom we are?)
I love PD.com
Yes.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 13, 2008, 09:20:54 PM
I'll go back to Leary here. Let's say that we imprinted Low on the first circuit (fight/flee) as a child. No matter what perceptions we change... what new ideas we think about. We don't change that basic program. We might learn to compensate for it in some manner, but the basic YOU would still have the initial response to run when faced with danger.
Now, if you take up a martial art, or live through a horrific event, there may be a metaprogramming change to that circuit and fundamentally modify the homunculus inside you. However, thats not gonna happen by breaking a few bars... it takes a lot more than that, I think.
Rat, whats' to say that one of the bars in your BIP isn't Circuit 1?
If you define a "bar" as "a psycho/physiological filter for experiential reality", wouldn't that include both whether or not you're a republican
and if you're neophobic or not?
In my interpretation, the BIP is
everything that shapes your perceptions of the world and how you act in it. This would necessarily include the 8-circuit model, as it is another way of describing how you act in the world.
If you want to pad out the metaphor, you
could say that the bars are conditioning, and the floor is imprinting. But you can always get a sledgehammer and pound some mortar.
But either way, you're still in prison.
And when it comes to prison, it isn't absolutely necessary to look at the word prison in its literal, commonly negative connotation. Myself, I think of "prison" more as a visual of how the metaphor works. I mean, if you really wanted to, you could easily call it the Red Brick Bank. So you've replace bars with bricks. Each brick being an experience, biology, physiology, values, etc., that influence and inform how one navigates the universe. You are still encased in the metaphor but you don't have the negative "Prison" anymore.
You could then say, you never can escape the Bank, so you're always in the money. But the metaphor is still the same, it's just different scenery.
Red Brick Bank.
Heh. I like it.
Or, "The Castle," maybe?
probably better, less aliteration.
The problem with these metaphors is that it's too easy to think of them as external, too easy to say, "well, i lowered the drawbridge/went out the fire escape/blew up the vault/et al", and think of themselves as somehow being able to get outside it all.
"Your were born with a defect in your sight. You can wear glasses, but you will never truly see what is there."
So, I spent the night in meditation on this topic and I wandered around in my brain looking to see what I thought. I imagined a prison, first the outer walls, then the guard towers the Wardens offices, the yard, the mess hall and I imagined people and cells and solitary confinement doors with just a slit for food. I imagined guys in orange jump suits, young punks and biker thugs and there was an old guy in an orange jump suit that was mopping the hall between the cells, the word trustee came to mind and then the old guy said "It's bigger than you think it is, schmuck."
Maybe the prison is a good metaphor.
Our first interactions in the world, place the main prison walls, then the guard towers, and each experience, each new Truth we learn, each Law and Belief we pick up paints us further and further down that hall... until we eventually are behind the door with the slit, a tiny hole for information to enter through. Information that is expected and the base requirement for survival. Some people break out of that (or maybe never get painted that far in) and maybe get to live in a less restrictive cell.
But, eventually, if we figure out how, maybe we can become trustees and go out on excursions beyond the Prison walls... never forever, but lots more freedom than you hand in solitary...
And in the end, maybe we'll even get to be the warden, in control of every aspect of our prison, but still living in our BiP.....
That was some good pot.
Heavy. Birth as processing the inmate.
Out of the womb, and into the prison.
This could easily get depressing fast.
Quote from: LMNO on February 14, 2008, 07:40:01 PM
Heavy. Birth as processing the inmate.
Out of the womb, and into the prison.
This could easily get depressing fast.
Better e-mail Laz...
Quote from: LMNO on February 14, 2008, 07:40:01 PM
Heavy. Birth as processing the inmate.
Out of the womb, and into the prison.
This could easily get depressing fast.
So back to the original question "Does the BiP change who we are?"
I don't know, now I'm beginning to think that the BiP may be Who We Are, or maybe we're all of the prisoners, the guards, the cook and the Warden?
I suppose it would depend on whether you believe there is a kernel of immutable "soul" somewhere inside you that continues, unchanged, regardless of all the accreted rules and perceptions that form the crust of your personality.
Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2008, 02:10:49 PM
I suppose it would depend on whether you believe there is a kernel of immutable "soul" somewhere inside you that continues, unchanged, regardless of all the accreted rules and perceptions that form the crust of your personality.
Well, I guess I'm torn... It seems to me that there is a difference between changing ones perceptions, or focus and changing the basic 'circuits'. They seem related, surely, exposure to new information can evoke change, I think. However, it seems a lot easier to me, to accept some new data, or change the way you consider the value of data X, without changing the base person.
That is, if we tend towards Hostile Strength, Hostile Weakness, Friendly Strength or Friendly Weakness... changing data focus (moving bars around) doesn't necessarily effect this 'base position'. If Leary and Wilson were correct in their model, making changes at that level requires a lot of work and effort, metaprogramming etc.
So maybe, if we want to try to make it stretch to fit ;-) we could say:
The BiP is the Prison we built from Birth, but we live inside that Prison (in some sense as ALL of the people in that prison, from the person in lockdown to the guard to the Warden).
Changing our perceptions changes the bars in our cell, or perhaps the window location in our cell. It permits us to see data that we may have ignored before,
but we are still the person in the cell.
However, meta programming, re-imprinting through a shock to the neurological system etc... may change who we are in the prison. A horrific rape, may stick the individual in their own BiP Solitary Confinement Cell. Lots of work and practice may free them so that they can leave their cell as Trustees. Mastering their 'meta-programming circuit' could mean that they make it all the way up to Warden.
So small changes may affect what we see... Large changes may affact who we are...
Thoughts?
At first, I was deciding that you seem to have taken the BIP, and simply duct-taped it to the 8-circuit model, because you had discovered 8C first, and hold it in higher regard; while my point was that BIP
includes 8C, it doesn't go
on top of 8C.
But then, you said something interesting, that got me thinking.
QuoteThe BiP is the Prison we built from Birth, but we live inside that Prison
I can begin to see your point, that the metaphor of the BIP fits the idea of filters
that a self is looking through, rather than the BIP as "self".
In that instance, there does seem to be a crude division: The BIP indicates how experiences are re/percieved, and the "self" determines how to react to those experiences.
However, since it
is possible to change the 8C, but much harder, I kind of drift back to the "8C as the foundations and bedrock of the cell."
I'll think about this over the weekend.
Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2008, 03:50:20 PM
At first, I was deciding that you seem to have taken the BIP, and simply duct-taped it to the 8-circuit model, because you had discovered 8C first, and hold it in higher regard; while my point was that BIP includes 8C, it doesn't go on top of 8C.
I find that the 8 circuit model provides a strong map that we can use when discussing consciousness. When we start looking at a new map for consciousness, I usually try to see which parts of the map may be marking the same territory. While Leary eventually flipped out and, IMO, did more harm than good to the pro-LSD movement... his work as a psychologist seems extremely well done. Leary seems to have explored consciousness by working with hundreds of people and making observations. I might say, he explored the territory quite extensively and thus I find his map seems to be very useful.
Most of us seem unlikely to be able to explore the territory quite as deeply as he did. So I find it very useful to use him map as a touchstone. If the new map diverges from his map, I try to figure out why.
I think that's one of the reasons I've hit the BiP so hard... I couldn't square the two interpretations of the territory. Of course, on the down side, I was also being a schmuck. I should have simply started using the map, then later compared it to the other maps, once I better understood it. I think this discussion has helped a lot in that regard.
Quote
But then, you said something interesting, that got me thinking.
QuoteThe BiP is the Prison we built from Birth, but we live inside that Prison
I can begin to see your point, that the metaphor of the BIP fits the idea of filters that a self is looking through, rather than the BIP as "self".
In that instance, there does seem to be a crude division: The BIP indicates how experiences are re/percieved, and the "self" determines how to react to those experiences.
Just so. If we change bars (ie modify filters) there has to be someone peeking out through the bars as the observer. Otherwise changing the bars would just be cosmetic, wouldn't it?
Quote
However, since it is possible to change the 8C, but much harder, I kind of drift back to the "8C as the foundations and bedrock of the cell."
I'll think about this over the weekend.
Ah good, then I'm not entirely crazy... just mostly ;-)
In my meditation, I found that I created the outer walls first. The outer walls of our BiP would define how 'big' our world could be. It seems that people who imprinted weakly on their first four circuits would shrink those walls, while a person that imprinted strongly on the first four circuits, might have a much more expansive prison.
So as walls, floors or foundations, I think that may work. Maybe Walls a bit more, since the foundation doesn't really stop you from accessing information, while walls do?
just wanted to add that, on the one hand i'm totally convinced that there exists no such thing as an immutable core self, it's also pretty much intrinsically impossible to imagine any situation that goes beyond any not-very-mutable self.
Quote from: triple zero on February 15, 2008, 03:56:33 PM
just wanted to add that, on the one hand i'm totally convinced that there exists no such thing as an immutable core self, it's also pretty much intrinsically impossible to imagine any situation that goes beyond any not-very-mutable self.
I agree... to use a computer metaphor.
There's no such thing as an immutable Linux Kernel. However, a new version of Firefox, visiting a new website, installing GTK or KDE and OpenOffice doesn't change the kernel... it modifies how we interact with data, but it doesn't affect the core processing. However, we can recompile the kernel and make major changes to core processing. The former seems to me to fit with new ideas, new applications, new data... the latter seems to fit with the idea of changing oneself.
Does that make any sense?
But can you really draw a line between levels like that?
Let's say, for example, a kid who imprinted a "flight/submissive" response on C1/C2 decided to take a martial arts class. That in itself isn't going to change anything.
After a few months, he loses a little weight, gains som muscle, and people start treating him differently. Let's use Rat's version of the metaphor, and say that he's broken a few bars, re-arranged the furniture. His improved health gives him a more cheerful attitude, he sees things more positively.
Cut to several years later, he's still taking martial arts classes. He's now a confident, outgoing, dominant person. He's personable, has charisma, and is very hard to intimidate.
Somewhere in there, we went from changing the BIP to altering C1&2. I'd suggest that since it's very hard to discern when that happens, then it's all of a similar process.
I propose that BIP and C8 are metpahors for each other.
Quote from: LMNO on February 15, 2008, 04:32:56 PM
But can you really draw a line between levels like that?
Let's say, for example, a kid who imprinted a "flight/submissive" response on C1/C2 decided to take a martial arts class. That in itself isn't going to change anything.
After a few months, he loses a little weight, gains som muscle, and people start treating him differently. Let's use Rat's version of the metaphor, and say that he's broken a few bars, re-arranged the furniture. His improved health gives him a more cheerful attitude, he sees things more positively.
Cut to several years later, he's still taking martial arts classes. He's now a confident, outgoing, dominant person. He's personable, has charisma, and is very hard to intimidate.
Somewhere in there, we went from changing the BIP to altering C1&2. I'd suggest that since it's very hard to discern when that happens, then it's all of a similar process.
I propose that BIP and C8 are metpahors for each other.
But... that's precisely why I think there are some subtle differences.
The Eight Circuit Model is speaking not of perception, but of imprint. Whereas Reality Tunnels talk about perception more than imprint, changing ones reality tunnel doesn't necessarily change ones circuits.
I would posit that the BiP integrates both metaphors, and could do so very well... except something isn't quite clean enough to make the distinction.
I see. I think I've had some sort of internal dialogue that explains BIP in terms of structure and limitation that I'm not sure I've fully voiced.
Putting aside that the Leary "imprint" is still a metaphor, or at least an unproven hypothesis, I have taken the BIP to a point where your cell is Everything That Makes You Act And React As You Currently Do.
This would naturally include the Circuits, as they are usually the fundamental bases for behavior.
If I remember correctly, RAW proposed:
Learning
Conditioning
Imprinting
As the foundations of behavior, building on each other. But as my example above about the martial artist indicates, the effects trickle down.
First, the kid learns about karate [substitute whatever martial art you feel best represents what I'm going for here].
Then, the kid (through repetition) conditions his body in the behaviors and attitues of karate.
Finally, the imprints themselves change through the constant contitioning.
Parallel thoughts:
Imprinting would necessarily influence your reality grid. As shown above, the reverse can also be true, if you don't know how to change it. For example, someone who has imprinted neophilia can become neophobic if his filters suddenly and incessently pounded the idea home that anything new can kill you. He would resist at first, but if he couldn't change his grid, it would change his imprint.
Where was I going with this?
Ah, the metaphor. To use Cain's meme of "reconstruction", this could include things as simple as learning a new language, or getting into a new genre of music, which might change your perceptions, but not your imprints; or it could mean a massive undertaking to blast away your imprints and take on new ones.
In the end, your imprints are still limitations; you can't be dominant and submissive at the same time.* In the end, you cannot escape your imprints (even if you strip one circuit, it still re-imprints). In the end, your imprints still imprison you.
*You can be either dominant or submissing in different situations, but not simultaneously.
I think at a certain point, the BIP ceases to be a prison. When imprints are removed and we are stripped down to nothing but sensory reception, we are free to interpret what our senses perceive, but so long as they are one of or combinations of what the nervous system signals to the brain. When I see you guys talking about stripping away everything, I can only agree up to a certain point. In order to perceive anything at all, our senses need to make separations. Not exactly opposites, but different and limited angles of receiving information rather than perceiving everything free from the metaphorical bars. Acid in particular gives you a sense of what near total desensitization is like. In certain conditions, the world as you perceive it ceases to have distinctions and your senses meld together (usually recognized as synesthesia). At the very peak of this experience, distinction breaks into the two most basic functions of perception. There is a sense of vast (possibly endless) nothingness and a sense that all information is movement, something all human beings are capable of perceiving. So what do we have if we remove the distinction between stillness of energy (atomically or spiritually, whichever symbolism you prefer)?
There is no answer to that as of yet. To try and describe what being free from the BIP is like is quite literally impossible because describing it would make a distinction, another bar. Some of you have probably already explained this before, though. I think I'm just talking to myself here.
The point I'm trying to make, though, is that very basic distinctions shouldn't be seen as bars. They're what allows us to perceive things. Or maybe that's just another bar put in place by my five senses. There's obviously more than 5 separate ways to perceive reality.
I really envy schizophrenics.
:)
CLEARLY YUO ARE READING MY THOUGHTS AND POSTING THEM ON PD.COM VIA A THOUGHT-STEALING THINGAMAJIG THAT THE DOCTORS IMPLANTED IN MY BRAYNE WHEN I WAS HAVING MY "APPENDECTOMY"!
See? Being a wannabe schizo makes you look 'tarded.
Hey! I considered making a thought thieving crack.
Glomp, I generally agree but I think this is precisely what the BiP /is/, or at least its "ontological aspect". I mean, there is the "emotional/societal aspect" of the BiP which is "YUO ARE A MACHINE AND THE MACHINE (TM) CONTROLS YOU" (the pamphlet mainly focusses on this side of things), but then when you apply the BIP metaphor to the question "what is reality", well, the answer is something like "reality is just a collection of bars in your BIP". My impression is that we each have bars which serve to allow us to make a reality out of our sensual perception. I think these are the bars most difficult to remove, probably nigh on impossible - but they're bars nonetheless.
EDIT: And more to the point, these are the bars you probably don't really want to tear out, because being schizophrenic IS NOT TEH FUNz.
Y'know, I do have to agree that there are parts of BIP 1.0 that sound very political. I'm not sure how that happened.
I think the BiP is a metaphor, and like any metaphor exists in a limited fashion. I think it models some things really well and some things... not so well.
Don't eat the Black Iron Prison!
the Pamphlet is not the Interior Design.
Ah okay. Like applying Newtonian physics to zero gravity situations. Newton's laws are great to use, but they don't apply in certain situations. Not the greatest metaphor. I need to get over my pet idea of having a unified theory of everything. Better to be multilingual when using systems.
And though being a schizophrenic might not be fun all the time, what about something more like that autism inducing pill. Temporary schizophrenia can be fun as long as you can come back.
Quote from: GlompChomp on February 29, 2008, 10:03:19 PM
Ah okay. Like applying Newtonian physics to zero gravity situations. Newton's laws are great to use, but they don't apply in certain situations. Not the greatest metaphor. I need to get over my pet idea of having a unified theory of everything. Better to be multilingual when using systems.
And though being a schizophrenic might not be fun all the time, what about something more like that autism inducing pill. Temporary schizophrenia can be fun as long as you can come back.
"LSD"
Not to be anal, but LSD doesn't really replicate schizophrenia. When it was first being used in psychotherapy, therapists thought it could be used to empathize with schizophrenics and share their experience. That proved to be ineffective as LSD doesn't cause prominent symptoms of endogenous psychoses (generally, schizophrenias and related psychoses) such as catatonia. Acid is fun, though.
That and, AFAIK, LSD is only capable of sorta-mimicing the positive symptoms (hallucinations, delusions, etc.), whereas negative symptoms like loss of emotion aren't.
Mix acid and large doses of antidepressants maybe?
Though don't the drugs they use to treat Parkinson's cause inhibit one of the chemical receptors schizophrenics have a shortage of?
1) I need to spend more time hanging out on PD.com. This thread is proof of that.
2) I need to read a book about the 8 circuit model one of these days.
Quote from: B_M_W on March 01, 2008, 07:08:34 PM
1) I need to spend more time hanging out on PD.com. This thread is proof of that.
2) I need to read a book about the 8 circuit model one of these days.
IPrometheus Rising is the best book I've found on the subject.
I'd also recommend Prometheus Rising. Wilson sort of takes Leary's models and fleshes them out. Though the best point he makes in the book is that there are infinite possible circuits, but the first four are seemingly the most common. I don't think Leary ever said that.
Quote from: GlompChomp on March 02, 2008, 04:49:17 AM
I'd also recommend Prometheus Rising. Wilson sort of takes Leary's models and fleshes them out. Though the best point he makes in the book is that there are infinite possible circuits, but the first four are seemingly the most common. I don't think Leary ever said that.
Yeah, Bob kept with the "This is a model" view, even about models he really liked. ;-)
Quote from: B_M_W on March 01, 2008, 07:08:34 PM
1) I need to spend more time hanging out on PD.com. This thread is proof of that.
2) I need to read a book about the 8 circuit model one of these days.
Prometheus Rising is probably the best, I agree with Rata. It is best to approach it as more of a philisophical model than a scientific one, just as a warning. There is no 'evidence' for it, its just an interesting, and possibly useful way to think about things.
Quote from: GlompChomp on March 01, 2008, 05:19:02 AM
Not to be anal, but LSD doesn't really replicate schizophrenia. When it was first being used in psychotherapy, therapists thought it could be used to empathize with schizophrenics and share their experience. That proved to be ineffective as LSD doesn't cause prominent symptoms of endogenous psychoses (generally, schizophrenias and related psychoses) such as catatonia. Acid is fun, though.
'Twas a flippant joke. My friend is schizophrenic, I can't see any "fun" in being able to be temporarily schizophrenic.
Quote from: Nigel on March 02, 2008, 09:48:25 PM
Quote from: GlompChomp on March 01, 2008, 05:19:02 AM
Not to be anal, but LSD doesn't really replicate schizophrenia. When it was first being used in psychotherapy, therapists thought it could be used to empathize with schizophrenics and share their experience. That proved to be ineffective as LSD doesn't cause prominent symptoms of endogenous psychoses (generally, schizophrenias and related psychoses) such as catatonia. Acid is fun, though.
'Twas a flippant joke. My friend is schizophrenic, I can't see any "fun" in being able to be temporarily schizophrenic.
Nothing fun about hallucinations and delusions combined with paranoia.
Quote from: Nigel on March 02, 2008, 09:48:25 PM
'Twas a flippant joke. My friend is schizophrenic, I can't see any "fun" in being able to be temporarily schizophrenic.
I could be stubborn and say that it would be fun for me. But I won't. Schizophrenia isn't fun. Probably shouldn't have said that. Must think more before posting.
Quote from: B_M_W on March 02, 2008, 10:05:16 PM
Nothing fun about hallucinations and delusions combined with paranoia.
Considering there are people who enjoy huge amounts of benadryl (though there aren't many), I suppose to some people it's fun.
Quote from: The Littlest Ubermensch on March 03, 2008, 12:57:42 AM
Quote from: B_M_W on March 02, 2008, 10:05:16 PM
Nothing fun about hallucinations and delusions combined with paranoia.
Considering there are people who enjoy huge amounts of benadryl (though there aren't many), I suppose to some people it's fun.
I took large amounts of benadryl and all I got was a full body rash. Too busy itching my skin raw to be paranoid.
Quote from: LMNO on February 13, 2008, 08:08:50 PM
This is not a criticism, this is an observation:
You seem to have an idea that who you "are" is a fixed thing, and our behavior and thoughts and beliefs are somehow separate from this core thing.
Further, if one's perceptions changes one's thoughts, and one's thoughts change one's behavior, that is only an external process, and the core thing remains as it was.
I tend to think in more integrated terms, that the "is" tends to be more malleable, and while perceptions are filtered, if the thoughts and behaviors change because of that, the "is" changes as well.
^^ requote as a bump
i am in process
i am located in space and time (not just space)
it often makes more sense to ask where i am than who i am
i iz plural
i iz a liquid, external forces are the container, the shape of the container is the winnar of those 2 forces pressing upon eachother, enlightening stuff is like a tap which drips into me more and expands the container.... no im not stoned.. honest
edit: this metaphor isnt too hot is it! ah well :D
i iz also what you say i iz as well as what i say i iz, much to my distaste
Quote from: Cainad on February 29, 2008, 04:38:42 AM
Quote from: Coyote on February 29, 2008, 04:20:11 AM
Quote from: GlompChomp on February 29, 2008, 01:50:51 AM
I really envy schizophrenics.
0_o
No...no you don't.
:lol: I was going to say that.
as we are on the subject: http://www.geocities.com/theschizophreniamyth/ (http://www.geocities.com/theschizophreniamyth/)
Quote from: Politician168023 on April 22, 2008, 11:19:12 PM
as we are on the subject: http://www.geocities.com/theschizophreniamyth/ (http://www.geocities.com/theschizophreniamyth/)
I like this link.
It's a good take on the subject.
Quote from: B_M_W on March 02, 2008, 10:05:16 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 02, 2008, 09:48:25 PM
Quote from: GlompChomp on March 01, 2008, 05:19:02 AM
Not to be anal, but LSD doesn't really replicate schizophrenia. When it was first being used in psychotherapy, therapists thought it could be used to empathize with schizophrenics and share their experience. That proved to be ineffective as LSD doesn't cause prominent symptoms of endogenous psychoses (generally, schizophrenias and related psychoses) such as catatonia. Acid is fun, though.
'Twas a flippant joke. My friend is schizophrenic, I can't see any "fun" in being able to be temporarily schizophrenic.
Nothing fun about hallucinations and delusions combined with paranoia.
PCP is supposed to mimic schizo (it doesn't, but psychiatrists are slow). In fact, the whole "chemical imbalance" theory is based on the known mechanism of action of drugs in the brain (how they affect neurotransmitters) and then assuming deviations from an accepted "normal state" are caused by abnormal levels of brain chemicals (i.e. like being high on drugs all the time). There's no evidence for this, but it makes them feel like they're accomplishing something, and the drug co's get rich in the process, so I don't see who's really getting hurt (oh right... the people taking the medications.. lol).
I have schizo (whatever that means.. I hear voices and have delusions etc) and the only thing I can compare it to is dreaming. It's not like any drug I've tried. It's kinda like how when you're in the middle of a really weird and involving dream and everything makes perfect sense (even though upon awaking, you find it was all random BS) and you just *know* that this that and the other are real and don't feel compelled to investigate whether it's legitimate or not.
In short, schizo sucks, but it can be a lot of fun sometimes. Especially if the hospital food is good. ;)
Good hospital food? Where do you live, Hollywood?
I wouldn't be quick to jump on saying that no drug relates to schizo, because there is a wide variety of schizo symptoms and a wide variety of drug reaction. I'm sure sometimes they can be similar, especially in the disassociative family.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 23, 2008, 09:30:52 PM
Good hospital food? Where do you live, Hollywood?
I wouldn't be quick to jump on saying that no drug relates to schizo, because there is a wide variety of schizo symptoms and a wide variety of drug reaction. I'm sure sometimes they can be similar, especially in the disassociative family.
Uhh... nope. I've taken ketamine and DXM and DXM is probably the closest but still.. dreams are where it's at.
Hospital food is good if you're at an acute care clinic (not the state hosp. where it's basically the same as what prisoners get).
Uhhh....What I'm saying is you are one man.
You don't know how every schizo feels, or how every drug user feel.
I suppose that amphetamine psychosis is a lot like it (never had that myself). I was trying to say my own experiences are more like dreams than substances. I can't really think of any drug that comes close to how unraveled my reality gets (but that's just me).
Quote from: Politician168023 on April 22, 2008, 11:19:12 PM
as we are on the subject: http://www.geocities.com/theschizophreniamyth/ (http://www.geocities.com/theschizophreniamyth/)
Lots of good stuff on the net on sz.
Quote from: Politician168023 on April 22, 2008, 11:19:12 PM
Quote from: Cainad on February 29, 2008, 04:38:42 AM
Quote from: Coyote on February 29, 2008, 04:20:11 AM
Quote from: GlompChomp on February 29, 2008, 01:50:51 AM
I really envy schizophrenics.
0_o
No...no you don't.
:lol: I was going to say that.
as we are on the subject: http://www.geocities.com/theschizophreniamyth/ (http://www.geocities.com/theschizophreniamyth/)
I'm sorry, it may be an interesting take on the subject, but "some lady with a Geocities page and an apparent inability to cite her sources" is a little hard to swallow when she completely redefines schizophrenia according to her personal agenda, without even a nod to scholarly protocol (Like, well, citing her sources...) AND presents her perspective as fact rather than opinion.
QuoteMy credentials are my experiences, along with my unwavering belief in the value of faith, honesty and personal integrity.
Well, good for you, lady. And congratulations for picking up the "my disorder isn't a disorder" torch from the ADHD crew... way to spread the credibility.
Faith, honesty and personal integrity are all nice and good, but faith, honesty, personal integrity and a wealth of raw data trumps it every time.
I have done extensive research on the subject, the biggest being "having" schizophrenia.
I like her take on it, so take that for what it's worth.
hunter.. Have you seen the WHO data on schizo? Recovery rates for 3rd world countries that is (it's 60-70% over a lifetime in those places).
OK.
Go on, I'm not seeing why you asked me that.
I asked you that because I assumed you're interested in knowing less well-known facts about schizophrenia judging by your interest in the link.
Ah.
I am interested.
Psychology, mainly Abnormal, interests me greatly. It seems most people on this sight have little specialties (Cain knows politics, LMNO knows music), and I'd say psychology is mine.
Cool.
I dunno.. maybe you'd like R.D. Laing's work (I think a lot of it has been discredited but it's still interesting).
There's a site called the society for Laingian studies. They used to have a forum, too, but I'm not sure if they do anymore.
http://laingsociety.org/
Enjoy.
Actually, I would like some hard data about recovery rates for schizo and bi-polar. Especially claims of "natural" (non-medicated) recovery.
I have my reasons.
Recovery rates go by 1/3rds: 1/3 fully recover, 1/3 improve but don't fully recover, 1/3 show little to no improvement. In every single source I've ever seen, it's almost accepted as Gospel.
http://www.world-schizophrenia.org/disorders/schizophrenia.html (http://www.world-schizophrenia.org/disorders/schizophrenia.html)
I don't take meds, but I'm probably a rarity (14 month since last hospitalization,you can judge how good that is).
Yeah. I wish there was more hard evidence.
One of the reasons my brother believes the scientology mumbo-jumbo is because his disorder cleared up around the same time as he started the Co$ stuff.
Coincidental "cures" are coincidental... OR ARE THEY?
Quote from: LMNO on April 24, 2008, 03:13:40 PM
Yeah. I wish there was more hard evidence.
One of the reasons my brother believes the scientology mumbo-jumbo is because his disorder cleared up around the same time as he started the Co$ stuff.
Coincidental "cures" are coincidental... OR ARE THEY?
Forms of psychology are forms of psychology. While CoS has cultlike beliefs, practices and a decent body count... they also have a map of the territory that shows the territory in a way that seems to work for some people. Jehovah's Witnesses have the same 'feature'... sure their religion is baloney, but all religion is baloney. The reason CoS and JW"s have ANY following is because their map 'works' in some sense for some people. Unfortunately, their map was drawn using lead paint...
Actually, what I'ms saying is that my brother went off meds due to the Co$ belief system, and when he didn't suffer another psychotic break, this "proved" to him that scientology is right.
Quote from: LMNO on April 24, 2008, 03:13:40 PM
Yeah. I wish there was more hard evidence.
You're going to be disappointed, because if something works, it works. You can't really tell him "Hey, your symptoms didn't really go latent, it's just in your head."
You don't need data on schizophrenia, you need data from the guys that broke the church's hold over them. They are the best weapon in uncovering Xenu's bullshit.
Also, give it time: When I said latent I meant it. Not cured. The psychosomatic hold that their little brainwashing has probably won't last forever.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 24, 2008, 03:33:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 24, 2008, 03:13:40 PM
Yeah. I wish there was more hard evidence.
You're going to be disappointed, because if something works, it works. You can't really tell him "Hey, your symptoms didn't really go latent, it's just in your head."
You don't need data on schizophrenia, you need data from the guys that broke the church's hold over them. They are the best weapon in uncovering Xenu's bullshit.
Also, give it time: When I said latent I meant it. Not cured. The psychosomatic hold that their little brainwashing has probably won't last forever.
This also may be a correct motorcycle...
then again, if brain change and BiP's are anything other than fapping... it may be that some mental illnesses could be treated/covered/locked up. Certainly some psychologists have been able to treat several different illnesses without using drugs, so at least some brain change models seem to work. After all, changing the BiP could take you from a cell with a broken window to solitary confinement... the broken window wouldn't be a problem anymore.
Quote from: LMNO on April 24, 2008, 03:30:44 PM
Actually, what I'ms saying is that my brother went off meds due to the Co$ belief system, and when he didn't suffer another psychotic break, this "proved" to him that scientology is right.
Never underestimate the placebo effect when it comes to mental disorder.
Chemical imbalances aside, programming/imprinting is almost 100% Belief oriented.
If he put his faith in any reasonably coherent* map then his mental territory would stand a strong chance of falling into line.
*coherent to him
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 24, 2008, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 24, 2008, 03:30:44 PM
Actually, what I'ms saying is that my brother went off meds due to the Co$ belief system, and when he didn't suffer another psychotic break, this "proved" to him that scientology is right.
Never underestimate the placebo effect when it comes to mental disorder.
Chemical imbalances aside, programming/imprinting is almost 100% Belief oriented.
If he put his faith in any reasonably coherent* map then his mental territory would stand a strong chance of falling into line.
*coherent to him
Damn, that's a fine motorized Unicycle you got there Silly!!!
Learned the hard way :wink:
It almost makes me wish he found Jesus instead.
Quote from: LMNO on April 24, 2008, 04:09:10 PM
It almost makes me wish he found Jesus instead.
Nah... don't think that a popular cult is better than an unpopular one.
Look at it this way:
Christians hold that we are all FUCKED, ALL SINNERS from Birth and all deserving to DIE from the moment we first breathe. They posit that without the blood of a 2000 year-dead Jew (which you only get by following their rules), God will hold us personally responsible for our sins and "The wages sin pays, is death".
Scifags hold that we are all NEARLY FUCKED, because of alien souls and other assorted nonsense. They posit that without spending some $$ and improving yourself then you will not get 'better'.
If it weren't for the murder and pillaging, they'd have a pretty positive psychological model.
Fuck that shit! Religion is no place for positive messages :argh!:
Quote from: SillyCybin on April 24, 2008, 04:17:21 PM
Fuck that shit! Religion is no place for positive messages :argh!:
I agree...
But, really, the whole Dying God thing is just as bad a trip as Xenu, IMO anyway.
I'd agree, if it weren't for the money/danger issue.
Remember, there are many ways to be Christian, only one way to be a SciFag.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 24, 2008, 04:29:39 PM
I'd agree, if it weren't for the money/danger issue.
Remember, there are many ways to be Christian, only one way to be a SciFag.
Oh yes, as I said... if it were not for the murder and pillaging ;-)
Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 24, 2008, 02:13:22 AM
I have done extensive research on the subject, the biggest being "having" schizophrenia.
I like her take on it, so take that for what it's worth.
OK.
But I would still like some maths. Anecdotes are too easy to create, and so easy to dimiss.
Quote from: BootyBay on April 24, 2008, 02:53:23 AM
Cool.
I dunno.. maybe you'd like R.D. Laing's work (I think a lot of it has been discredited but it's still interesting).
There's a site called the society for Laingian studies. They used to have a forum, too, but I'm not sure if they do anymore.
http://laingsociety.org/
Enjoy.
Laing is pretty good. I don't always agree with him, but he makes a convincing case.
Hunter, would you like an upload of the Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences? Its a big ol' file (11.5 MB....about 1000 pages), but it may interest you.
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2008, 04:54:36 PM
Anecdotes are too easy to create, and so easy to dimiss.
I know Cain:
Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 24, 2008, 02:13:22 AM
I like her take on it, so take that for what it's worth.
I can't upload stuff, I don't own a computer.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 24, 2008, 04:59:31 PM
I can't upload stuff, I don't own a computer.
Ah OK.
And thats kind of my point. If it is true, and it can be proved to be true, then that is a lot more helpful than otherwise, where people can and will dismiss it.
In all fairness, you can't prove it's a disease. You can't even get consistent diagnosis.
There's no "hard" science either way, which is why I was saying I simply liked the viewpoint.
I think that's one of the things I find most funny about the popular views among many 20something USAians. That is, out of one side of their mouth they rant about evolution and Dawkins and FSM and teh evil ID'ers... and then anytime someone says "Maybe you don't actually need to be on Ritalin or Buspar..." they respond with "IT'S A CHEMICAL IMBALANCE!!" (which can't be tested, nor can we identify the chemicals... nor can we know how imbalanced, nor precisely how much is required to bring it into balance...)
I sometimes think we could replace "chemical imbalance" with "energy imbalance" and we'd have a bunch of Pagans. :roll:
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 24, 2008, 05:21:42 PM
I sometimes think we could replace "chemical imbalance" with "energy imbalance" and we'd have a bunch of Pagans. :roll:
:lulz: Pretty much.
The chemical imbalance myth is similar to the ancient 4 bodily fluids myth in early medicine. I think Breggin pointed that out.. not sure.
I'm always a little suspicious of people who, on one hand, would say cocaine and meth are terrible drugs and should be avoided at all costs (not saying they aren't), and, on the other, claim their kids need amphetamines (or meth, in the case of Desoxyn) to pay attention in school.
I guess Huxley would be earning a fortune in royalties if he were alive today.
The whole "chemical imbalance" thing is ridiculous. I mean, sometimes it's documentably true, because some gland is producing too much or too little of something and you can use a supplement (or suppression) of that chemical to correct the problem. Other times, though, it's like someone got hold of that phrase and decided to use it arbitrarily because "we don't know why he acts that way, but we noticed that this drug seems to alleviate the symptoms" doesn't sound very official.
For instance, I have ADHD and I'm pretty damn sure it's not because my brain isn't producing enough Methylphenidate, even though Methylphenidate seems to make me act more "normal" (feels abnormal to me, but it's all about other people's perceptions, right?)
Scientists, including doctors, really don't like to say "We have no fucking idea, in fact we don't even think everyone we're calling "Schizophrenic" is suffering from the same thing."
Even less do they like "Well, this drug seems to work, but we don't actually know how or why".
But a lot of the time, it's true.
I recommend watching parts 1 and 2 of "The Trap: What Happened to our Dream of Freedom" to get some insight into the current ideas regarding psychiatry. The percent of people that could be considered "mentally ill" has risen to 50%. Not to mention the probable connection between genetics and eugenics (why identify "the genes responsible for schizophrenia" if they don't want to wipe them out? but that's just me).
In short, society would be much better off if the trap of being "mentally ill" didn't cast such a wide net, thereby making people believe the very essence of "who they are" is diseased and inferior.
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2008, 01:43:14 AM
The whole "chemical imbalance" thing is ridiculous.
Quote from: Nigel on April 16, 2008, 05:39:24 PM
WZRFE, it sounds like you have a bit of a chemical imbalance...
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2008, 01:43:14 AM
The whole "chemical imbalance" thing is ridiculous. I mean, sometimes it's documentably true, because some gland is producing too much or too little of something and you can use a supplement (or suppression) of that chemical to correct the problem. Other times, though, it's like someone got hold of that phrase and decided to use it arbitrarily because "we don't know why he acts that way, but we noticed that this drug seems to alleviate the symptoms" doesn't sound very official.
For instance, I have ADHD and I'm pretty damn sure it's not because my brain isn't producing enough Methylphenidate, even though Methylphenidate seems to make me act more "normal" (feels abnormal to me, but it's all about other people's perceptions, right?)
Scientists, including doctors, really don't like to say "We have no fucking idea, in fact we don't even think everyone we're calling "Schizophrenic" is suffering from the same thing."
Even less do they like "Well, this drug seems to work, but we don't actually know how or why".
But a lot of the time, it's true.
My mom is a doctor, and I second this statement. Doctors tend to assume that people need the dumbed-down explanation of everything, which, frankly, a lot of people do.
If you really want to be sure that your doctor is giving you "the whole story" behind why he/she is giving you a certain prescription (or why they
aren't giving you a prescription you expected to get), educate yourself a little bit in whatever area of medicine you're having problems with. Then during the appointment, you can say, "Do you think it might be a problem with <insert body part or function here>," and even if you're completely wrong, they might feel obligated to explain why you're wrong.
Quote from: Cainad on April 25, 2008, 02:34:01 AM
If you really want to be sure that your doctor is giving you "the whole story" behind why he/she is giving you a certain prescription (or why they aren't giving you a prescription you expected to get), educate yourself a little bit in whatever area of medicine you're having problems with. Then during the appointment, you can say, "Do you think it might be a problem with <insert body part or function here>," and even if you're completely wrong, they might feel obligated to explain why you're wrong.
Think of the lawsuits from "psychotics" with TD they got from taking antipsychotics. Not once have I been alerted to that risk when prescribed an antipsychotic.
Yeah, edumacating yourself on common drugs (or whatever you're taking, even if it isn't common) is a good idea too.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on April 25, 2008, 02:32:32 AM
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2008, 01:43:14 AM
The whole "chemical imbalance" thing is ridiculous.
Quote from: Nigel on April 16, 2008, 05:39:24 PM
WZRFE, it sounds like you have a bit of a chemical imbalance...
The chemical is called "Seratonin", jackass.
WHY DON'T ANY OF THE SMILEYS WORK?
i liked watching the Trap, it was interesting, but don't tell me you took the stuff they said about psychiatry serious?
those "numbers" tests they speak about are DSM-IV and a bunch of others, ZOMG ONOZ ITS NUMBERS THAT MEANS WE'RE ALL ROBOTS NOW
i thought their conclusion was a bit over the top. i've done these tests, i score normal on all accounts except for some attention deficit disorder and very slight OCD (it was pretty obvious where that last one come from btw, there were a few questions about looking for patterns in things, and yeah i do that)
anyway, i probably don't really have "regular" ADD, seeing as the medicines don't work for me .. i do have something else, but nobody seems to be able to tell me what it is--but enough about me.
the point is, ADD and ADHD is on the physical level represented by a slight deformity in some neural receptor, causing the brain to react less to a certain neurotransmitter (i forgot which, i think it was norepinephrine or noradrenaline). so in other words, it *is* real.
now, and i'm not entirely sure if this is correct, but afaik, Dexamphetamine stimulates the production of this neurotransmitter, and Ritalin (methylfenidate) inhibits the reuptake of it (kind of like an SSRI does for serotonine).
add to that, i know several people with ADHD, and they really do get more "relaxed" or "calm" when taking dex or ritalin. however, when i take it myself or give it to a friend who does not have ADHD, they report a sort of "buzz" similar to caffeine or energy drinks. seeing these two definite different outcomes, i'm pretty convinced there's a real difference and it's not just imagined or invented.
(hence my disappointment, after taking ritalin for a couple of weeks, making me feel mostly stressed and anxious, i asked some ADHDers, "how long till you began to notice any positive effect from ritalin?" -- "oh, usually after about 30 minutes or so", yeah i quit that afternoon. )
the more important point to talk about, IMO, is this.
according to what i've heard, people with ADD and ADHD have existed throughout history, there are numerous stories about people displaying ADHD-like behaviour.
so it would seem that the real recent development is that living with ADHD seems to be more difficult in the current age. i'm thinking information overload, that kind of stuff. i think this is an interesting topic, what do you guys think about it?
Well, it's good to know y'all have something in common with Scientologists...
Quote from: LMNO on April 25, 2008, 01:56:53 PMWell, it's good to know y'all have something in common with Scientologists...
y'all?
you mean the hivemind that is this board?
I meant the people posting in this thread about braindrugs.
Remember, keep your brain-drugs locked up so the pill-junkies don't get their hands on them.
They are a popular drug of choice amongst high-school students.
Quote from: triple zero on April 25, 2008, 01:50:19 PM
i liked watching the Trap, it was interesting, but don't tell me you took the stuff they said about psychiatry serious?
those "numbers" tests they speak about are DSM-IV and a bunch of others, ZOMG ONOZ ITS NUMBERS THAT MEANS WE'RE ALL ROBOTS NOW
i thought their conclusion was a bit over the top. i've done these tests, i score normal on all accounts except for some attention deficit disorder and very slight OCD (it was pretty obvious where that last one come from btw, there were a few questions about looking for patterns in things, and yeah i do that)
anyway, i probably don't really have "regular" ADD, seeing as the medicines don't work for me .. i do have something else, but nobody seems to be able to tell me what it is--but enough about me.
the point is, ADD and ADHD is on the physical level represented by a slight deformity in some neural receptor, causing the brain to react less to a certain neurotransmitter (i forgot which, i think it was norepinephrine or noradrenaline). so in other words, it *is* real.
now, and i'm not entirely sure if this is correct, but afaik, Dexamphetamine stimulates the production of this neurotransmitter, and Ritalin (methylfenidate) inhibits the reuptake of it (kind of like an SSRI does for serotonine).
add to that, i know several people with ADHD, and they really do get more "relaxed" or "calm" when taking dex or ritalin. however, when i take it myself or give it to a friend who does not have ADHD, they report a sort of "buzz" similar to caffeine or energy drinks. seeing these two definite different outcomes, i'm pretty convinced there's a real difference and it's not just imagined or invented.
(hence my disappointment, after taking ritalin for a couple of weeks, making me feel mostly stressed and anxious, i asked some ADHDers, "how long till you began to notice any positive effect from ritalin?" -- "oh, usually after about 30 minutes or so", yeah i quit that afternoon. )
the more important point to talk about, IMO, is this.
according to what i've heard, people with ADD and ADHD have existed throughout history, there are numerous stories about people displaying ADHD-like behaviour.
so it would seem that the real recent development is that living with ADHD seems to be more difficult in the current age. i'm thinking information overload, that kind of stuff. i think this is an interesting topic, what do you guys think about it?
I wasn't aware researchers had made that much progress on pinpointing the cause of ADHD... cool to know. Your "survival" point seems valid, because I initially went on Ritalin because I was having a hard time not wandering into traffic... I literally couldn't pay enough attention to my surroundings to keep me out of trouble. Worked like a charm. Mostly since early adulthood I've structured my life so that I don't need Ritalin, but if I'm going to be in a situation where it will be helpful I'll take it.
I'm hardly an opponent of taking "normalizing" drugs but I do think that they're over prescribed, often with very little screening, and the "chemical imbalance" phrase is thrown out there to cover just about EVERYTHING that people don't actually understand the mechanism of.
BTW, what is "The Trap"?
Quote from: Nigel on April 25, 2008, 10:41:54 PMI wasn't aware researchers had made that much progress on pinpointing the cause of ADHD... cool to know.
disclaimer, this is a condensed version of what i got from ADHD from various sources, among which a psychiatrist, i'm not entirely certain about the accuracy of my reproduction and whether it might have been a "dumbed down" story, but it sounds plausible enough.
Quoteand the "chemical imbalance" phrase is thrown out there to cover just about EVERYTHING that people don't actually understand the mechanism of.
well, one thing i also heard, is that most of those medicines don't do
just exactly what they are said to do, but also a whole bunch of other things, in lesser amounts. so, an SSRI doesn't
just inhibit the reuptake of serotonine, but also has an lesser effect on other neurotransmitters, and a specific SSRI doesn't just affect a certain part of the brain, but also other parts in lesser amounts (... at least i think so) -- so in short, "they" (doctors etc) don't exactly know how it all works either, but they do try their best job at it (at least, the good ones).
Lol - the idea is still taking drugs to cope. Only it's socially acceptable (unlike alcoholism or, soon, cigarette smoking). Brain "diseases" like ADHD or even schizophrenia are not detected using a physical test (like an MRI) but an evaluation of a person's behavior (in fact, autopsies of schizophrenics for a hundred years or more revealed absolutely no abnormalities whatsoever, and only recently have such abnormalities been claimed to exist after *one* study of cadavers of people who took antipsychotic drugs their whole lives showed shrinking in the frontal lobes, which is a known side-effect of antipsychotics.. hmmm.. coincidence? I think not). Therefore, the diagnosis is on a social level. Your behavior is diseased because it's disruptive and you aren't productive enough in society at large (I'm not addressing anyone in particular, and I'm not saying the behaviors don't exist because they clearly do). It has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with control.
I can't say if the Trap was accurate with the whole "numbers diagnosing people" thing, but it is true that numerous "diagnose yourself" tests are floating around on the net, and it is true that drug companies are the ones pressing hardest for the "chemical imbalance" theory.
Schitzophrenia does show up on an MRI, at least in identical twin studies where one twin has it but not the other.
Source is National Geographic, sometime in the 90s.
Quote from: Requiem on April 27, 2008, 01:24:20 AM
Schitzophrenia does show up on an MRI, at least in identical twin studies where one twin has it but not the other.
Source is National Geographic, sometime in the 90s.
[citation needed] Better one anyway. Got a link?
I've not seen any such thing. As far as I know it, the biggest mystery is the fact that schizophrenics have no abnormalities in any tests, even with twins.
Actually, according to the British Journal of Psychiatry paper Brain morphology in antipsychotic-naïve schizophrenia: a study of multiple brain structures, schizophrenics with no history of taking antipsychotics have also shown differences in brain structure. The drugs of course will create additional changes, but there are pre-existing ones.
Additionally, according to the Journal of Clinical Psychology there are functional differences in how brain activity works in the frontal lobes, hippocampus and temporal lobes of those suffering from cognitive problems associated with schizophrenia, however the precise nature of the relationship is unknown (its causative and correlative relations to the diagnosis). Also, increased dopamine levels among neural pathway in the mid-brain are linked to schizophrenia. There are also abnormally low levels of glutamate receptors, according to a paper researched for Pharmacology and Therapeutics. This can also impact on dopamine production, and the introduction of glutamergic drugs to schizophrenic patients has shown some success in treating the delusions, hallucinaions and inchorency of thought, according to the Schizophrenia Research Journal.
Oh, and in case anyone wondered, I checked the journals themselves and they are all peer-reviewed.
(http://pics.livejournal.com/gmalivuk/pic/00030ty5/s640x480.jpg)
(btw, the image in that motivational poster is not an MRI scan of the head, but a projection of the cosmic background radiation in teh univarse)
Yeah, I didn't think it was.
I just added it for fun's sake.
.. and i just had to point out that i recognized those particular shapes of seemingly-random dots :kingmeh:
STFU cosmic background radiation boi
8)
From what I've read about ADHD, imaging scans actually do show a difference between ADHD brains and "normal" brains, so STFU upside-down pyramid.
i also kind of wonder if he knows what he's talking about, at all.
MRI is not used for diagnosis of psychiatric/mental disorders, but for distinguishing pathological tissue (such as tumors) from normal tissue.
maybe he was thinking about EEGs or possibly fMRI, but the thing with those is that you can even tell from those is someone is angry, stressed out, relaxed, focused, reading or listening to speech.
and yeah, according to the "neurofeedback" crowd, you can tell the difference between ADHD and NT (neuro-typical) brains: http://www.neurobics.nl/ahd.html
but i'm myself not yet entirely convinced of the effectiveness of neurofeedback itself. but maybe that because when i tried it for a few sessions, with my background i knew a whole lot more about the signal processing behind his equipment than the psychologist (or psychiatrist) that treated me then, and his answers to my questions about the signal-to-noise ratio of his EEG readings didn't quite satisfy me (and i got the distinct idea that i had a better idea what the graphs on his screen represented than he did).
on the other hand, that website of neurobics.nl i linked above is from an acquaintance of mine (can't really call him a friend, he has ADHD himself, and with some certain that just annoys the fuck out of me), and they claim to be a lot more accurate in their "readings" than the place i went to a couple of times.
but it's not really important.
the point is, ADHD (and certain other psychological disorders) is a malfunctioning in the receptors for certain neurotransmitters. i have NO idea how they figured this out, but that fact will not show up on any brainscan, neither MRI or EEG nor fMRI nor CT or what-have-you.
(btw did i mention the Machine Learning group at my university works closely with the Computer Vision and Imaging workgroup, hence my general knowledge about medical imagery. your average MRI scan results in several gigabytes of numbers, guess who writes the code to transform those numbers into the pretty pictures you generally see? ;-) )
I dunno, but I've had countless MRIs so thanx, whoever is responsible for making them legible.
Quote from: Nigel on April 28, 2008, 06:50:03 AM
I dunno, but I've had countless MRIs so thanx, whoever is responsible for making them legible.
Phillips, probably :-P