Entries Tagged 'mind' ↓

When we interact with people, our mind models them. Thus, as a consequence we also end up modelling other people’s beliefs, which in turn can potentially affect our beliefs. I don’t believe that the contextual belief systems of humans (self vs. other) is absolutely isolated – if you are surrounded by contrary beliefs long enough, they could slowly seep into your unconsciousness. Which leads me to wonder if this might have some relation to Stockholm Syndrome? With perhaps stress priming the mind to accept new beliefs more fluidly than usual, in order to allow humans to adapt and survive, even in unpleasant scenarios. Peer pressure and conformity bias might be otherways in which other people’s beliefs can unintentionally alter our own. Of particular interest are the experiments where all but one of the participants in a group are told to lie about observing a phenomenon and the the other, whom are making a decision purely on what they see, tend to agree with the rest of the group. Even when they are later asked about their decision, and told that the other participants were told to lie, generally the one will still swear they saw the phenomenon anyway (see the Solomon Asch study of social conformity).

There are lots of self-help articles and books that tell you to surround yourself with inspiring and positive people and avoid people who are stuck in a life of negative thought, or otherwise are poisonous to people’s happiness. And from the above, it makes sense that negativity is actually contagious. Let alone whether we have empathic tendencies, and mirror their feelings, just mirroring their viewpoint of the world would transfer those beliefs. I certainly don’t want to argue we should all become heartless isolationists, because compassion for other people is always important. But in the end, you are responsible for your own happiness over others (although not at the cost of others, through causing unnecessary harm) and to that end, I think it’s important to sometimes check whether the negativity of others is morphing your beliefs and outlook on the world.

This spread of belief occurs for small chunks of knowledge, and through modelling others at a personal level, but also occurs for larger concepts and ideas. Memes are particularly adapted to play to parts of the human condition so that they get actively spread by us. Things like quizzes that tell us how we fit in the world or appeal to our narcissism and ego, telling us we are unique in some way and that help to define our identity, are particularly virulent. Not that there’s anything wrong with them, as I’ve wasted plenty of time finding out I used to have a “pool boy” dating personality, that at some stage I was 45% pure, and that I am simultaneously a dozen historical figures. They also promote participation – which would arguably work better to promote the spread of the meme over a purely academic piece of knowledge or trivia. Tests that are also related in the attention sphere of Pop culture, the contents of which are themselves memes, piggy-back on the success of other ideas and memes.

When we interact with people, our mind models them. Thus, as a consequence we also end up modelling other people's beliefs, which in turn can potentially affect our beliefs. I don't believe that the contextual belief systems of humans (self vs. other) is absolutely isolated - if you are surrounded by contrary beliefs long enough, they could slowly seep into your unconsciousness. Which leads me to wonder if this might have some relation to Stockholm Syndrome? With perhaps stress priming the mind to accept new beliefs more fluidly than usual, in order to allow humans to adapt and survive, even in unpleasant scenarios. Peer pressure and conformity bias might be otherways in which other people's beliefs can unintentionally alter our own. Of particular interest are the experiments where all but one of the participants in a group are told to lie about observing a phenomenon and the the other, whom are making a decision purely on what they see, tend to agree with the rest of the group. Even when they are later asked about their decision, and told that the other participants were told to lie, generally the one will still swear they saw the phenomenon anyway (see the Solomon Asch study of social conformity). There are lots of self-help articles and books that tell you to surround yourself with inspiring and positive people and avoid people who are stuck in a life of negative thought, or otherwise are poisonous to people's happiness. And from the above, it makes sense that negativity is actually contagious. Let alone whether we have empathic tendencies, and mirror their feelings, just mirroring their viewpoint of the world would transfer those beliefs. I certainly don't want to argue we should all become heartless isolationists, because compassion for other people is always important. But in the end, you are responsible for your own happiness over others (although not at the cost of others, through causing unnecessary harm) and to that end, I think it's important to sometimes check whether the negativity of others is morphing your beliefs and outlook on the world. This spread of belief occurs for small chunks of knowledge, and through modelling others at a personal level, but also occurs for larger concepts and ideas. Memes are particularly adapted to play to parts of the human condition so that they get actively spread by us. Things like quizzes that tell us how we fit in the world or appeal to our narcissism and ego, telling us we are unique in some way and that help to define our identity, are particularly virulent. Not that there's anything wrong with them, as I've wasted plenty of time finding out I used to have a "pool boy" dating personality, that at some stage I was 45% pure, and that I am simultaneously a dozen historical figures. They also promote participation - which would arguably work better to promote the spread of the meme over a purely academic piece of knowledge or trivia. Tests that are also related in the attention sphere of Pop culture, the contents of which are themselves memes, piggy-back on the success of other ideas and memes.

Last year I read about the “formula for genius”, by Dr Piotr Wozniak. I found it very interesting and changed my view on the relation between memory and intelligence. In the past I’d written off the memorisation of facts as being relatively unintelligent (not least because it was boring), and with the internet and personal wikis there was no longer any need to remember trivial information. However, if your brain has access internally to a larger amount of knowledge, it’s able to draw more abstractions, generalise better and find new connections. Which makes sense in hind sight, if you don’t have that knowledge in your mind, how are you going to draw comparisons with new knowledge?

I was also intrigued by his learning software SuperMemo, but it looks like it’s become outdated, and more specifically it’s confined to windows and isn’t open source (meaning I can’t easily modify it if it doesn’t work the way that’s right for me). Thus, I went looking for some new learning software and came across JMemorize and Mnemosyne.

Both are based on the Leitner principle (proposed by the German psychologist Sebastian Leitner in the 1970s) which is described on jMemorize’s about page:

“The basic idea is to divide the cards into different decks depending on the difficulty they present to you. This is done by repetitive quizzes in which you try to answer the question out of your mind. Every time you know the correct answer to a card, it is put on the next higher card deck. If you fail at a card, it is put back to the starting deck.”

I ended up using Mnemosyne for the following reasons:

• it is written in gtk
• supports pictures, sounds, and 3 sided cards
• it also is a research project, allowing you to optionally submit your learning to their server (not the content of the cards, just your performance through time).

Plus it’s in ubuntu so you can just type the following to install it:

So far I’ve been using Mnemosyne for 8 or so months. I’ve learnt the periodic table as a test (Ialways found chemistry my downfall in school due to it mostly being memorisation). I’ve also learnt the French words for dates and body parts, and now I’m learning Spanish (in a more concrete way than just random words, including phrases and the various parts of speech). So far there are 2700 facts, which for the most part I can recall relatively easily.

Another method of memorisation specifically for numbers is the Major memory system. There is a perl script for helping using this system here.

Last year I read about the "formula for genius", by Dr Piotr Wozniak. I found it very interesting and changed my view on the relation between memory and intelligence. In the past I'd written off the memorisation of facts as being relatively unintelligent (not least because it was boring), and with the internet and personal wikis there was no longer any need to remember trivial information. However, if your brain has access internally to a larger amount of knowledge, it's able to draw more abstractions, generalise better and find new connections. Which makes sense in hind sight, if you don't have that knowledge in your mind, how are you going to draw comparisons with new knowledge? I was also intrigued by his learning software SuperMemo, but it looks like it's become outdated, and more specifically it's confined to windows and isn't open source (meaning I can't easily modify it if it doesn't work the way that's right for me). Thus, I went looking for some new learning software and came across JMemorize and Mnemosyne. Both are based on the Leitner principle (proposed by the German psychologist Sebastian Leitner in the 1970s) which is described on jMemorize's about page: "The basic idea is to divide the cards into different decks depending on the difficulty they present to you. This is done by repetitive quizzes in which you try to answer the question out of your mind. Every time you know the correct answer to a card, it is put on the next higher card deck. If you fail at a card, it is put back to the starting deck." I ended up using Mnemosyne for the following reasons: it is written in gtk supports pictures, sounds, and 3 sided cards it also is a research project, allowing you to optionally submit your learning to their server (not the content of the cards, just your performance through time). Plus it's in ubuntu so you can just type the following to install it: sudo apt-get install mnemosyne So far I've been using Mnemosyne for 8 or so months. I've learnt the periodic table as a test (Ialways found chemistry my downfall in school due to it mostly being memorisation). I've also learnt the French words for dates and body parts, and now I'm learning Spanish (in a more concrete way than just random words, including phrases and the various parts of speech). So far there are 2700 facts, which for the most part I can recall relatively easily. Another method of memorisation specifically for numbers is the Major memory system. There is a perl script for helping using this system here.

I’ve going back through some draft posts which I never published. Here’s one from way back last year some time. I should note that I don’t really believe I have Asperger’s or anything like that. I also now believe that “breadth of ideas” is a natural consequence of the parallel nature of the brain. But, being the hoarder and preservationist of digital information that I am, I couldn’t just delete this… so here it is.

…

In the past I’ve read about aspects of Asperger’s syndrome and in the past have wondered if I’ve got some small inclination towards it. I function reasonably well now though, but this is only through years of practice and working on the things the are traditionally deficient in someone with the syndrome. On deeper reading of the wikipedia article, it’s more likely that they are simply surface similarities. I certainly learnt a lot from being in intimate relationships and am constantly trying to improve (and maintain) my social abilities, but the fact is that I taught myself to look people in the eye while holding a conversation, to exhibit confidence instead of trepidation and to use my empathy to feel what others feel (instead of shutting it out of my head due to it being overwhelming).
Continue reading →

I've going back through some draft posts which I never published. Here's one from way back last year some time. I should note that I don't really believe I have Asperger's or anything like that. I also now believe that "breadth of ideas" is a natural consequence of the parallel nature of the brain. But, being the hoarder and preservationist of digital information that I am, I couldn't just delete this... so here it is. ... In the past I've read about aspects of Asperger's syndrome and in the past have wondered if I've got some small inclination towards it. I function reasonably well now though, but this is only through years of practice and working on the things the are traditionally deficient in someone with the syndrome. On deeper reading of the wikipedia article, it's more likely that they are simply surface similarities. I certainly learnt a lot from being in intimate relationships and am constantly trying to improve (and maintain) my social abilities, but the fact is that I taught myself to look people in the eye while holding a conversation, to exhibit confidence instead of trepidation and to use my empathy to feel what others feel (instead of shutting it out of my head due to it being overwhelming). Certain characteristics I've noticed... and that others have commented on in the past, that match what I've heard people talking about Autism being similar to, is a high sensitivity to stimulus and being unusually observant. People have discussed the idea that Autism isn't an inability to interact or perceive the world, but that it's the mind shutting down interaction channels due to an Autistic persons perception of the world being extremely intense. More than the mind can handle. I find that in social situations of more than a couple of people draining after a while. I have difficulty in public speaking, not because I'm particular fearful of public speaking, but because I'm trying to process the entire crowds reaction. I get caught up in every subtle nuance of peoples motion and expression, and when you're trying to track 200 people's expressions, it's hard to keep your mind focussed on what your talking about. This inability to focus, or the high sensitivity to distraction, becomes a burden when trying to work on projects. Instead of a depth first search and actually getting to the end of chain of reasoning or the total completion of a concept, my mind will do a breadth first search. Scanning multiple possibilities, inundating me with numerous possibilities, and sticking me in a frozen position where I find it difficult to move forward (although perhaps it's just that spreading attention over 100 different ideas makes it look like no progress is being made!). In some sense, this might be why I'm in research and seem to be doing pretty well at it, I can see the different possibilities (my thesis had to be chopped back a fair amount because there was a lot of POTENTIAL ideas in it, that although interesting, were distractions from the actual real experimental work I did). In the past I've found the use of of stimulants such as caffeine to be beneficial in making my focus narrower. Such that the thinking is better for getting work done once an idea exists, rather than for creating novel thought. Another substance which is mostly for promoting wakefulness and combating narcolepsy is Modafinil, which also has the ability to cause me to be more motivated to make progress but doesn't make that focus quite as narrow. Ironically, I'm working on attention allocation in the open-source artificial intelligence system OpenCog, so perhaps we should have a caffeine mode in the attention allocation system (this is doable, in a narrowing of focus sense, since the attentional focus boundary is an adjustable level that indicates the cutoff for when items are in the attentional focus of the digital mind).

As a kid, and even in the first few years of University, I used to have trouble understanding why things needed to be explained in detail. Essays were difficult because I’d take the point I was trying to make and think of it like a logic problem:

This interesting fact and this analysis, thus this is the point.

Except that made for very short essays that were no where near the word limit.

Continue reading →

As a kid, and even in the first few years of University, I used to have trouble understanding why things needed to be explained in detail. Essays were difficult because I'd take the point I was trying to make and think of it like a logic problem: This interesting fact and this analysis, thus this is the point. Except that made for very short essays that were no where near the word limit. Part of that was because I was used to maths, physics, and computer science problems. These fields don't tend to push students to writing supposition about theory, at least not at the University I went to, and it's usually pretty concrete for the level taught to undergraduates. Then midway through my study I switched tracks into Biology and flailed around for a while. They expected you to write more than a paragraph at a time, and form coherent arguments in exams without the benefit of cut-and-paste! The horror. After while I got over my initial shock, and actually got reasonably good at writing (my recent resurgence of posts on this blog is an attempt to practice those skills which are getting rusty from too much code and analysis of experimental results). Even though I managed to get pretty good, I still didn't quite understand. I thought it was a waste of time when I could construct the argument for my 2000 word essay in a paragraph. I got over that though. I saw that one has to also explain their reasoning, because any conclusions about the real world based on science usually contain assumptions. It's important to not only be explicit about these assumptions, but to also explain why these are the assumptions chosen. Even more recently, I've worked on economic attention allocation (ECAN) in OpenCog, which controls the flow of attention within an artificial mind. Why is this necessary? Because the mind's resources are finite - based on the computers available memory and processing ability, and we obviously also have a finite capacity for focussed thought too (well, yes, it's finite because we only have so many neurons, but I'm referring more to the limited number of concepts and relations we can consciously work with at any one time). Much of how the attention allocation works in OpenCog is based on importance diffusion between close concepts, but the concepts also need to be primed with importance in some way. If diffusion was the only process that moved attentional importance, you'd eventually end up with a homogeneous soup where everything was equally important! The way this happens is somewhat complicated in OpenCog, and not immediately relevant to the point, but one thing to note is that external stimulus excites contextually relevant information. What that means is, if OpenCog sees that a cat walked past... then knowledge about cats (they are furry 4 legged felines) and perhaps locomotion/kinematics is stimulated (if the cat keeps walking in that direction it will fall off that balcony and fall due to gravity... okay, so maybe that's more about prediction, but general knowledge about walking would be available in order to be used to make that prediction). By stimulating this knowledge, it's made more important in the systems mind. Beyond the cat example[1] the same goes for reading someone's ideas. If someone just tells you "the sky is green, purple and sparkly" and leaves it at that, you'd probably just think they were taking some particular effective hallucinogenics... especially if you were inside, at a conference about refrigerators (if it was a metereological conference, you might be willing to concede that they were right, because they are an expert in the field and have a reason for believing as such). But if the the refrigerator conference attendee first prefixed their statement with "Y'know, I was just holidaying in Alaska, and I saw the Northern lights, up there... ", then assuming you vaguely knew about auroras changing the colour of the sky, then you'd be able to believe the refrigeration expert. Or at least believe they weren't in the habit of attending refrigeration events under the influence of mind-altering substances. [1] It's okay, the cat didn't actually fall off the balcony.

Prompted by reading a chapter on Zen in “Gödel, Escher, Bach”:

Zen seems to be a sort of holism to the extreme… dissolving the self to become one with the universe and achieve enlightenment.

In some ways I see the use for this viewpoint while meditating and as a relaxation technique. In particular the concept that all the universe and time in static and immutable, and time and space is mere illusion, has a remarkably calming influence (at least for me). In some ways this reminds me of something I did that was somewhat odd as a kid. I think I first thought this around 5… I found time strange, and my memory of it also strange, thus I decided to imprint a distinct memory of that moment. I was sitting at the dinner table and I focussed on the fork I had. I can remember this moment, whereas many other parts of my early childhood are but a blur. There are other moments too, such as when I was riding a bike home in a ridiculously strong wind at age 11… again I committed this to memory because I reasoned “this is incredibly hard work, I feel exhausted! But in but 30 minutes I’ll be at home and this will purely be a memory. In fact, it may as well not be happening since this is a small fraction of my total experience at any time and will continue to get smaller as I continue in my life.”

Did other people do this too? Or was I just a somewhat strange kid?

Zen philosophy is somewhat relaxing and find kōans play novel games with the logic in our heads. As a life philosophy however, I think it’s flawed since the separation of us from the rest of the universe is what makes us human. In fact, it’s what life is all about. The localised increase in pattern and extropy within a system. Maybe Zen boils down to being an acceptance of possible the heat death of the universe when everything becomes a homogeneous soup? Which, if time is but an illusion has already happened and is the culmination of the universe’s evolution!

Before I sign off, time for a kōan:

A monk asked Zhaozhou, “What is the meaning of the ancestral teacher’s coming from the west?” Zhaozhou said, “The cypress tree in front of the hall”.
case #47 of the Book of Serenity

Zen also seems to have mastered the art of surrealistic humour.

Prompted by reading a chapter on Zen in "Gödel, Escher, Bach": Zen seems to be a sort of holism to the extreme... dissolving the self to become one with the universe and achieve enlightenment. In some ways I see the use for this viewpoint while meditating and as a relaxation technique. In particular the concept that all the universe and time in static and immutable, and time and space is mere illusion, has a remarkably calming influence (at least for me). In some ways this reminds me of something I did that was somewhat odd as a kid. I think I first thought this around 5... I found time strange, and my memory of it also strange, thus I decided to imprint a distinct memory of that moment. I was sitting at the dinner table and I focussed on the fork I had. I can remember this moment, whereas many other parts of my early childhood are but a blur. There are other moments too, such as when I was riding a bike home in a ridiculously strong wind at age 11... again I committed this to memory because I reasoned "this is incredibly hard work, I feel exhausted! But in but 30 minutes I'll be at home and this will purely be a memory. In fact, it may as well not be happening since this is a small fraction of my total experience at any time and will continue to get smaller as I continue in my life." Did other people do this too? Or was I just a somewhat strange kid? Zen philosophy is somewhat relaxing and find kōans play novel games with the logic in our heads. As a life philosophy however, I think it's flawed since the separation of us from the rest of the universe is what makes us human. In fact, it's what life is all about. The localised increase in pattern and extropy within a system. Maybe Zen boils down to being an acceptance of possible the heat death of the universe when everything becomes a homogeneous soup? Which, if time is but an illusion has already happened and is the culmination of the universe's evolution! Before I sign off, time for a kōan: A monk asked Zhaozhou, "What is the meaning of the ancestral teacher's coming from the west?" Zhaozhou said, "The cypress tree in front of the hall". case #47 of the Book of Serenity Zen also seems to have mastered the art of surrealistic humour.

Looks like I’m not the only one:

“Is someone you work with taking Provigil to give them an extra competitive edge? I’ve spoken with one executive who says he uses it regularly to work twenty hour days, and the buzz lately is that it’s the “entrepreneur’s drug of choice” around Silicon Valley. Over the last week two separate entrepreneurs have mentioned it casually in conversation, and one said he tried it once and loved it.”

An interesting conversation was had at a friend’s bday dinner about drug prohibition, and I meant to mention this kind of thing while dining. Another reason I think the whole recreational drug thing needs to change or be approached without a maxim of “drugs are bad” is because performance enhancement is going to become more common.

What’s so funny is that entrepreneurs apparently aren’t interested in typical drugs – instead they find the one that gives them a mental and stamina advantage.

“What’s so funny” about this statement is that I’m sure this is a completely false claim. It’s merely more socially accepted to take drugs to be a more productive member of society. Thus it’s easier to admit this to colleagues. Possibly it conveys “I’m a hard worker”, not that it really does (since you can still be unproductive even if you’re awake), but the dissonance between the reason behind taking drugs and the public’s perception of it is annoying.

I’ve personally talked to several entrepreneurs who’ve had the seeds of their business inspiration arrive while under the influence.

Note however I’m not saying innovation and new ideas can’t be arrived at without drugs, since that’s patently untrue.

Looks like I'm not the only one: "Is someone you work with taking Provigil to give them an extra competitive edge? I’ve spoken with one executive who says he uses it regularly to work twenty hour days, and the buzz lately is that it’s the “entrepreneur’s drug of choice” around Silicon Valley. Over the last week two separate entrepreneurs have mentioned it casually in conversation, and one said he tried it once and loved it." An interesting conversation was had at a friend's bday dinner about drug prohibition, and I meant to mention this kind of thing while dining. Another reason I think the whole recreational drug thing needs to change or be approached without a maxim of "drugs are bad" is because performance enhancement is going to become more common. What’s so funny is that entrepreneurs apparently aren’t interested in typical drugs - instead they find the one that gives them a mental and stamina advantage. "What's so funny" about this statement is that I'm sure this is a completely false claim. It's merely more socially accepted to take drugs to be a more productive member of society. Thus it's easier to admit this to colleagues. Possibly it conveys "I'm a hard worker", not that it really does (since you can still be unproductive even if you're awake), but the dissonance between the reason behind taking drugs and the public's perception of it is annoying. I've personally talked to several entrepreneurs who've had the seeds of their business inspiration arrive while under the influence. Note however I'm not saying innovation and new ideas can't be arrived at without drugs, since that's patently untrue.

What ever Tyler Durden from Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club may say, I am a beautiful and unique snowflake.

You see, your reality is your delusion. Whatever your outlook on life, yourself, or others, it’ll always be subjective. You may align your outlook with thousands or millions of other human beings, but their observation of the universe will also be subjective. In essence, you can believe what you want to believe. Obviously, if you stray to far from the collective reality then bad things will start happening, like bankruptcy if you believe you are materially wealthy beyond your means, or being committed to an institution if you start proclaiming yourself as Jesus. However, small deviations from what your mind (and especially your insecurities) might initially tell are actually incredibly powerful.

I’m a firm believer in the mind being part of the body. You can believe things about soul, or spirit, but your existence is intricately tied to how your body, and in particular your brain works. The brain is a neural network, neural networks work through updating the connections between neurons based on feedback of whether they were useful to activate at a certain time (in an extremely abstract and slightly incorrect summary). Another feature of the brain’s neural network, is that connections are established and only reinforce themselves if they are actually used. Thus if you repeat an affirmation, you are literally making yourself believe it. It doesn’t matter if you initially don’t believe it, the fact that the sentence… for example “I eat healthy foods”, might not apply immediately, doesn’t matter. Purely by parsing and processing THAT idea, it’s becoming part of your consciousness. If you repeat this 100 times a day “I eat healthy foods” becomes a stronger connection (indeed, VERY strong, since most ideas we have are not repeated so frequently unless we are studying or whatever) and more ingrained in your psyche. Later, even if you don’t consciously perceive that thought, it’s still being activated and used at an unconscious level.

Now, I’m not going to claim this will suddenly change you, but like anything worth doing, it takes time. In particular, intermittent learning is a lot more powerful than swatting for an exam and forgetting everything afterwards, and the same applies to affirmations. Doing affirmations for a couple of days won’t make much of a difference (although it’ll plant a seed).

Since most of this post has been me spouting knowledge which I’m too lazy (oops, this is a negative identification… I’m not actually lazy, I’ve just got more pressing matters to attend to then searching the net to support one of my mind dumps) to find references for, here is something related. The idea of affirmations could be made even more powerful by watching your brain in real-time as you make the statement, and compare it to the reaction of other statements you either believe to be stronger true or false as recently seen on TED.

Your mind can never change
Unless you ask it to
Lovingly re-arrange
The thoughts that make you blue
The things that bring you down
Only do harm to you
And so make your choice joy
The joy belongs to you

Massive Attack – What your soul sings

What ever Tyler Durden from Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club may say, I am a beautiful and unique snowflake. You see, your reality is your delusion. Whatever your outlook on life, yourself, or others, it'll always be subjective. You may align your outlook with thousands or millions of other human beings, but their observation of the universe will also be subjective. In essence, you can believe what you want to believe. Obviously, if you stray to far from the collective reality then bad things will start happening, like bankruptcy if you believe you are materially wealthy beyond your means, or being committed to an institution if you start proclaiming yourself as Jesus. However, small deviations from what your mind (and especially your insecurities) might initially tell are actually incredibly powerful. I'm a firm believer in the mind being part of the body. You can believe things about soul, or spirit, but your existence is intricately tied to how your body, and in particular your brain works. The brain is a neural network, neural networks work through updating the connections between neurons based on feedback of whether they were useful to activate at a certain time (in an extremely abstract and slightly incorrect summary). Another feature of the brain's neural network, is that connections are established and only reinforce themselves if they are actually used. Thus if you repeat an affirmation, you are literally making yourself believe it. It doesn't matter if you initially don't believe it, the fact that the sentence... for example "I eat healthy foods", might not apply immediately, doesn't matter. Purely by parsing and processing THAT idea, it's becoming part of your consciousness. If you repeat this 100 times a day "I eat healthy foods" becomes a stronger connection (indeed, VERY strong, since most ideas we have are not repeated so frequently unless we are studying or whatever) and more ingrained in your psyche. Later, even if you don't consciously perceive that thought, it's still being activated and used at an unconscious level. Now, I'm not going to claim this will suddenly change you, but like anything worth doing, it takes time. In particular, intermittent learning is a lot more powerful than swatting for an exam and forgetting everything afterwards, and the same applies to affirmations. Doing affirmations for a couple of days won't make much of a difference (although it'll plant a seed). Since most of this post has been me spouting knowledge which I'm too lazy (oops, this is a negative identification... I'm not actually lazy, I've just got more pressing matters to attend to then searching the net to support one of my mind dumps) to find references for, here is something related. The idea of affirmations could be made even more powerful by watching your brain in real-time as you make the statement, and compare it to the reaction of other statements you either believe to be stronger true or false as recently seen on TED. Your mind can never change Unless you ask it to Lovingly re-arrange The thoughts that make you blue The things that bring you down Only do harm to you And so make your choice joy The joy belongs to you Massive Attack - What your soul sings

This is the first of a number of essays I’ve drafted out, but have left stagnating in my “to write” pile. They are distinctly without references, because I didn’t have the time to trawl for them, but I welcome critique and/or addendum from my readers.

Government’s seem to have a fascination with criminalising substances that change mental awareness, however there are so many things that do this, it’s strange that they intervene in some cases but not in others. Consistency and reliability are key components of trust, how does one trust a government with an erratic value system for experiencing our consciousness?

It’s been exclaimed in poetry and songs, love is a drug, a quintessential part of human experience. The euphoric highs when you meet someone special, planning how you might met with them again for a coffee in order to get another dose of those powerful attractants. Let alone all the other emotions which they themselves are based on a concoction of organic compounds. Being human, love is a strong attractor for the complex system of the human mind. If you get torn asunder from this attractor, it can feel like physical pain: severe withdrawal symptoms that can lead to anger, regret, and depression. In extreme cases murder (if other people are involved), and/or suicide. And yet the government allows it. This seemingly random experience that we cannot control – unlike substances that change our awareness, which we are free to control through our own will and determination in the universe (if you believe in free will of course, I chose to, even if I don’t really, because it’s leads to a much more effective life).

Continue reading →

This is the first of a number of essays I've drafted out, but have left stagnating in my "to write" pile. They are distinctly without references, because I didn't have the time to trawl for them, but I welcome critique and/or addendum from my readers. Government's seem to have a fascination with criminalising substances that change mental awareness, however there are so many things that do this, it's strange that they intervene in some cases but not in others. Consistency and reliability are key components of trust, how does one trust a government with an erratic value system for experiencing our consciousness? It's been exclaimed in poetry and songs, love is a drug, a quintessential part of human experience. The euphoric highs when you meet someone special, planning how you might met with them again for a coffee in order to get another dose of those powerful attractants. Let alone all the other emotions which they themselves are based on a concoction of organic compounds. Being human, love is a strong attractor for the complex system of the human mind. If you get torn asunder from this attractor, it can feel like physical pain: severe withdrawal symptoms that can lead to anger, regret, and depression. In extreme cases murder (if other people are involved), and/or suicide. And yet the government allows it. This seemingly random experience that we cannot control - unlike substances that change our awareness, which we are free to control through our own will and determination in the universe (if you believe in free will of course, I chose to, even if I don't really, because it's leads to a much more effective life). I certainly don't mean to imply that love isn't worth it, or it isn't special or part of what makes being human worthwhile, but it, or sometimes the person you are in love with, can have all the psychological effects of a drug. You are the perfect drug, the perfect drug, the perfect drug... Nine Inch Nails - The Perfect Drug A different slant: certain foods have short term addictive properties. I'm sure you know the ones I mean. The junk food that you have a small handful of, but it tastes so good you need more. If you don't have the will power to resist, you end up eating a whole bag of crisps, a whole block of chocolate or whatever. You feel the worse for it afterwards, and the overload in high carbs and saturated fats is anything but good for you. Still, governments allow THAT too*. One more example: exercise and sports. These give you an endorphin kick and can be addictive, although possibly to different personality types from those that get addicted to junk food (I'm not so sure though, since I've experienced both... long hours at the gym followed by binging on junk food, and what was I trying to hide from? See the first example). Gym aficionados - those that love the feeling after a decent workout and have been doing it for some time - will tell you how the feeling can lessen as you continue. So you lift more weights, you run further, you push your body to it's limits again and again. Sure, this is how you can develop a stunning physique, but the fact is that you are constantly stressing your body. And the addictiveness can lead to you ignoring the feedback from your tired joints and muscles, overtraining and damaging them along with other connective tissue. Despite all this, we ban things like MDMA/Ecstasy and LSD/Acid. Both have the potential to result in great good if used in therapeutic settings. In fact, they can result in great good in non-therapeutic settings too. SWIM** once felt deadened to life, depressed about a failed relationship, and generally wasn't having that great a time, but a certain experience involving the previous substances led to SWIM developing a new outlook on life, become enthused about music and people, and excited about the future. Why do people turn to these substances for recreational purposes? My guess is that the human psyche hasn't evolved with the rapid expansion of culture and society. Our minds are still tribe based, some people more than others, and when we're out in club, on a dance floor, or outdoors sharing pulsating rhythms with a throng of thousands we need something to let our guard down. Alcohol does this, but can also sway nastily into aggression. MDMA, by it's very nature, causes connectedness and a loved up feeling - I've never heard of a fight instigated by someone on it (of course, feel free to point out if I'm wrong, but I suspect any counter-examples would be of less than pure substance which is a direct result of the lack of regulation that comes with criminalisation). Sure, you could say this loved-up togetherness is a negative thing and other people could take advantage of the implicit trust that someone rolling grants to others, but it depends on your outlook on the world. Do you choose to view the world as a positive or negative place? Different substances can draw you to these polar views, and one world view leads to a more easily controlled populace. Can you guess which it is? * Many campaigns are being launched of late however to educate the public about healthy vs. unhealthy food and stem the tide of obesity and diabetes. ** Someone who isn't me

This is my hypothesis. The mind is not a object but a process, it takes information from the outside world and transforms it into pattern. That pattern is not the mind, it’s just the way the mind sustains itself from moment to moment. That pattern still exists when you die, albeit temporarily until decay sets in, but we aren’t alive because the mind isn’t receiving any new input.

Now that doesn’t mean a consciousness can’t be revived, the pattern is still there, and if the process can be restarted then I suspect the consciousness would continue as if nothing happen. One moment about to die, the next revived. This is essentially what proponents of cryogenics expect to occur.

Did I just contradict myself, by saying that consciousness can be revived from the pattern, even though I claimed the pattern wasn’t the mind? I don’t believe so. The pattern is the painting, the mind is painter. In humans, the painter is the physiological processes that generate the electrical signals shooting through our body and that update the neuronal structure in our brain.

This is my hypothesis. The mind is not a object but a process, it takes information from the outside world and transforms it into pattern. That pattern is not the mind, it's just the way the mind sustains itself from moment to moment. That pattern still exists when you die, albeit temporarily until decay sets in, but we aren't alive because the mind isn't receiving any new input. Now that doesn't mean a consciousness can't be revived, the pattern is still there, and if the process can be restarted then I suspect the consciousness would continue as if nothing happen. One moment about to die, the next revived. This is essentially what proponents of cryogenics expect to occur. Did I just contradict myself, by saying that consciousness can be revived from the pattern, even though I claimed the pattern wasn't the mind? I don't believe so. The pattern is the painting, the mind is painter. In humans, the painter is the physiological processes that generate the electrical signals shooting through our body and that update the neuronal structure in our brain.