The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Thank God there are things that have workings that are not in our conscious mind!
Subjective reality without an objective reality would be like an ocean with no shores.
programmer_guy
True Ex-Scientologist
Thank God there are things that have workings that are not in our conscious mind!
Subjective reality without an objective reality would be like an ocean with no shores.
Nope. It has to do with internal organs and unconscious brain control over various systems in the human body.
I thought that I made that clear... I guess that I didn't. Mea Culpa.
lkwdblds
Crusader
Incredible data!
I was wandering about your statement I highlighted in blue. How do we keep breathing when we fall asleep? Do we consciously cause every blink of the eye? Do men will their penis to get hard when a pretty woman walks by? Do we send signals to our tear ducts when we are sad? How do we choose what dream to dream on a given night? How can we do all these thing and still do our jobs. In just one sentence you provide us the answer, i.e. "However, I do believe that the human brain has some workings that are not in our conscious (not conscience) mind." Brilliant, shear brilliance.
Lakey
I was wandering about your statement I highlighted in blue. How do we keep breathing when we fall asleep? Do we consciously cause every blink of the eye? Do men will their penis to get hard when a pretty woman walks by? Do we send signals to our tear ducts when we are sad? How do we choose what dream to dream on a given night? How can we do all these thing and still do our jobs. In just one sentence you provide us the answer, i.e. "However, I do believe that the human brain has some workings that are not in our conscious (not conscience) mind." Brilliant, shear brilliance.
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
I thought you are a programmer guy......
I thought you were the programmer guy. Where did you pick up your vast expertise about the brain? I wish you would have been a programs chief in the Flag Bureaux as I was, doing "evals" and writing programs for the Orgs to get their stats up.
With your background in programming and you expertise in knowledge about the brain, you would have been a natural for that post.
Lakey
I thought you were the programmer guy. Where did you pick up your vast expertise about the brain? I wish you would have been a programs chief in the Flag Bureaux as I was, doing "evals" and writing programs for the Orgs to get their stats up.
With your background in programming and you expertise in knowledge about the brain, you would have been a natural for that post.
Lakey
programmer_guy
True Ex-Scientologist
You could have done a search on the internet for that answer.
Modern scientific studies have provided some answers.
But it is on-going research.
Did you want me to provide some links for you?
(I usually try to be helpful when I can.)
Hatshepsut
Crusader
duplicate Pinky and the Brain
Hatshepsut
Crusader
GREAT. This tune will be with me all day!!
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
programmer_guy
True Ex-Scientologist
lkwdblds said:
Well I certainly never found out anything on this subject thru any involvement in Scientology.
How about you? What have you learned on this subject (outside of Scientology)?
I would find those links helpful
BTW: I've had a discussion with Gottabrain last year about stuff related to the brain. For those interested: It began here. http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392355&postcount=132
EDIT
Quoting programmer_guy from the other thread:
Well, my "Data Highway" theory from that discussion I mentioned above might be an explanation for why that is. Remember It's just my theory, not an expert opinion.
Last edited:
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
OMG! Zenu drives a Volkswagon!!! 
D) And somebody's BT's have their own car???
Thanks for all the sharing on the concept of GE and the brain stuff, everybody. Pepin, did you have anything that you wanted to add? I like learning and will watch all the vids when I have time. O.K. maybe not the Pinky one...
Did I say how grateful I am to my autonomic nervous system for managing things so nicely for me for all this time? I really mean it! I am very glad to be alive
Go lizard brain!!! (I started to write, go team.)
Carmelo, did you dust off your dog's butt or just let him go around all day being laughed at for having a pink butt? Poor baby!
D) And somebody's BT's have their own car??? Thanks for all the sharing on the concept of GE and the brain stuff, everybody. Pepin, did you have anything that you wanted to add? I like learning and will watch all the vids when I have time. O.K. maybe not the Pinky one...
Did I say how grateful I am to my autonomic nervous system for managing things so nicely for me for all this time? I really mean it! I am very glad to be alive
Go lizard brain!!! (I started to write, go team.)Carmelo, did you dust off your dog's butt or just let him go around all day being laughed at for having a pink butt? Poor baby!
Last edited:
programmer_guy
True Ex-Scientologist
I guess that it was my mistake to assume that you already knew that.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
There are two distinct types of activities.
Training and Processing AKA "auditing"
Training is education. It is done in large rooms with anywhere from 10 to maybe 100 people. All scientology education is checksheeted, so you can go at your own pace. You read a bulletin and maybe have someone question you about the contents and how you could apply the data.
Processing is individual counseling. It takes place mostly in little rooms about the size of a walk in closet. Usually one person sits face to face with the client, asking them questions and responding to their answers.
Auditing covers many areas of a person's life.
On a new person, the auditor would probably take an inventory of the client's life. This would include everything from education, physical fitness, their sex life, medical treatments, spouse, work, parents. Pretty much from birth to present.
After that the auditor would work on locating areas of the person's life where improvement is desired. Once those areas are found, a program is written up with specific processes to help the client own the conditions, and hopefully, mitigate them, bit by bit. Auditors use e meters which register a hair below the client's awareness.
A client can think a thought and the e meter will register that thought.
As an example there is something all auditors learn called "the dating drill." The coach has the auditor find a date that the coach has thought of and written down. The date has to have some significance for the coach. Last Wednesday is probably not going to work, but December 7, 1941 would. The auditor asks the coach, "Was it greater than a year ago? lesser than a year ago?" The coach does not answer verbally. The auditor must get the answers by reading the e meter needle swings. The needle will (in the hands of a competent practitioner) swing on the right answer, and not swing on the incorrect answer.
With an e meter a good auditor can find areas that the client is uncomfortable with. Once found, these areas can be looked at from a variety of perspectives, and talked about, until the client is free to view them, change them, and talk about them.
As an example taken from real life: John Brodie in 1970 was quarterback for the San Francisco Forty-Niners. He was thinking that he would have to retire. He had a shoulder that was painful, and it was impairing his game. He went to a friend of mine for Dianetic Counseling. By tracing the feelings and sensations and pains in his shoulder to earlier similar pains etc, John was able to find times when his shoulder was physically injured. Through reliving the incidents of actual injury and playing creative mind games with those incidents, his shoulder ceased to hurt for football games. Instead of retiring, he was voted Most Valuable Player that year. My friend ended up for the next several seasons auditing many , if not most, of the Niners.
That's it in a nutshell. Questions?
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
It was chalk from chalk drawings on the sea wall.
He goes swimming in the ocean. He usually gets a bath after that because salt water, when it dries, makes him itchy and scratchity. (deliberate misspelling)
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
I remember seeing Alice's Restaurant at a drive in with Laurie Noonan (Douglas) Engelhart. Just Noonan, back then. We were in my parents' 63 Chrysler with the push button shifting and the long couch style front seat. We heard all of the movie, but we didn't see it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pO6WCvi5nQ
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Last edited:
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Fascinating Stuff
I'll just combine two recent topics here to promote one of my favorite books: This Is Your Brain On Music.
The following review is from Amazon's pages:
This review is from: This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession (Hardcover)
There are questions that are too big for science; are there gods, for instance, or what is love? And maybe we will never fully find out scientifically why music does what it does and why we care about it so. But for many reasons, music ought to be a profitable subject for scientific enquiry. It is, as Pythagoras knew, an activity strongly rooted in mathematics, and the physics of music is fairly well understood. It is as universal as language; all human cultures have some sort of music, indicating it does something indispensable. And we are increasingly able to figure out, with our sophisticated brain imaging gadgets, what brains do when they hear or think about music. The neuroscience of music is the area of expertise of Daniel J. Levitin, and he writes of it in _This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession_ (Dutton), a fascinating account of current music psychology. Levitin has produced a book wonderfully accessible to lay readers, since although he is an academic (he runs the Laboratory for Musical Perception, Cognition, and Expertise at McGill University), before he became a scientist, he had been a performing musician, sound engineer, and record producer, working with names like Steely Dan and Blue Oyster Cult. He does pull examples from Bach and Beethoven, but he is obviously more comfortable citing universally-known tunes like "Happy Birthday to You", "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", or "Stairway to Heaven". (Readers whose tastes range in previous epochs will possibly be surprised at the sophistication modern popular musicians have displayed.) Levitin has a good sense of humor and is a genial explainer.
He starts out with a forty page first chapter "What is Music?", which is as good a short explanation of key concepts as tone, scale, fifths, and timbre as anyone could want, and is a fine foundation for all that comes after, a collection of scientific lore and tidbits from all over. For instance, even if you are not a musician, you have a huge store of tunes in your memory. You may not have perfect pitch, the ability to know that an A flat is an A flat as soon as you hear it, but Levitin's own research has provided surprising evidence that your sense of pitch, even if you are not a musician, is really quite good. Subjects who were asked to sing a song from memory got the absolute pitch just right, or very close; they did the same with the song's tempo. There are differences in the brains of musicians and nonmusicians. The corpus callosum, the mass of fibers that connects the right brain hemisphere to the left, is larger in musicians, and is especially larger in those that started music training early. The overall lesson here, though, is that we are all musical, even if we are not musicians, and so non-expert musical brains are really very similar to expert ones. There are descriptions here of surprising research that makes clear how truly ready our brains are to incorporate musical experience. Fetuses in the last three months of gestation, for instance, can hear music within the womb, along with other outside and inside noises. Experiments have shown that if you repeatedly play a song into the womb, and then make sure the child does not hear it again after birth until it is one year old, and then play the music again, the infant will prefer hearing the womb-music rather than completely novel music. This was true whether the experimental music was Vivaldi or the Backstreet Boys.
Levitin certainly has connections; he tells of discussions with Francis Crick about themes in this book, as well as with Joni Mitchell. The final chapter, "The Music Instinct", is a response to cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, who spoke at a 1997 convention of researchers in music perception and cognition. Pinker took the dismissive stance that music was "auditory cheesecake", tickling the parts of the brain that were really for the important functions of language and (unlike language) useless as a force in human evolution. It is not surprising that Levitin and his fellow researchers disagree. Darwin himself felt that musical tones were used in conveying emotion and that those who were able to expend energy in singing or playing were demonstrating biological and sexual fitness. Musical success does make for high numbers of opportunities for spreading one's genes (just ask Mick Jagger). Interest in music peaks in adolescence, indicating a role in sexual selection. Music has been around longer than agriculture, and there is no evidence that language actually preceded music in our species. It may have promoted the cognitive development that was harnessed for speech. Only in the past few hundred years did music become a spectator activity, but in the eons when it could have shaped our social evolution, it was a group activity that may have promoted group togetherness and synchrony. It is an engaging final argument that serves to emphasize the importance of all that the book has presented before, a demonstration that looking at an important human activity in a scientific way only increases our wonder and delight in the activity itself.
I'll just combine two recent topics here to promote one of my favorite books: This Is Your Brain On Music.
The following review is from Amazon's pages:
This review is from: This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession (Hardcover)
There are questions that are too big for science; are there gods, for instance, or what is love? And maybe we will never fully find out scientifically why music does what it does and why we care about it so. But for many reasons, music ought to be a profitable subject for scientific enquiry. It is, as Pythagoras knew, an activity strongly rooted in mathematics, and the physics of music is fairly well understood. It is as universal as language; all human cultures have some sort of music, indicating it does something indispensable. And we are increasingly able to figure out, with our sophisticated brain imaging gadgets, what brains do when they hear or think about music. The neuroscience of music is the area of expertise of Daniel J. Levitin, and he writes of it in _This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession_ (Dutton), a fascinating account of current music psychology. Levitin has produced a book wonderfully accessible to lay readers, since although he is an academic (he runs the Laboratory for Musical Perception, Cognition, and Expertise at McGill University), before he became a scientist, he had been a performing musician, sound engineer, and record producer, working with names like Steely Dan and Blue Oyster Cult. He does pull examples from Bach and Beethoven, but he is obviously more comfortable citing universally-known tunes like "Happy Birthday to You", "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", or "Stairway to Heaven". (Readers whose tastes range in previous epochs will possibly be surprised at the sophistication modern popular musicians have displayed.) Levitin has a good sense of humor and is a genial explainer.
He starts out with a forty page first chapter "What is Music?", which is as good a short explanation of key concepts as tone, scale, fifths, and timbre as anyone could want, and is a fine foundation for all that comes after, a collection of scientific lore and tidbits from all over. For instance, even if you are not a musician, you have a huge store of tunes in your memory. You may not have perfect pitch, the ability to know that an A flat is an A flat as soon as you hear it, but Levitin's own research has provided surprising evidence that your sense of pitch, even if you are not a musician, is really quite good. Subjects who were asked to sing a song from memory got the absolute pitch just right, or very close; they did the same with the song's tempo. There are differences in the brains of musicians and nonmusicians. The corpus callosum, the mass of fibers that connects the right brain hemisphere to the left, is larger in musicians, and is especially larger in those that started music training early. The overall lesson here, though, is that we are all musical, even if we are not musicians, and so non-expert musical brains are really very similar to expert ones. There are descriptions here of surprising research that makes clear how truly ready our brains are to incorporate musical experience. Fetuses in the last three months of gestation, for instance, can hear music within the womb, along with other outside and inside noises. Experiments have shown that if you repeatedly play a song into the womb, and then make sure the child does not hear it again after birth until it is one year old, and then play the music again, the infant will prefer hearing the womb-music rather than completely novel music. This was true whether the experimental music was Vivaldi or the Backstreet Boys.
Levitin certainly has connections; he tells of discussions with Francis Crick about themes in this book, as well as with Joni Mitchell. The final chapter, "The Music Instinct", is a response to cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, who spoke at a 1997 convention of researchers in music perception and cognition. Pinker took the dismissive stance that music was "auditory cheesecake", tickling the parts of the brain that were really for the important functions of language and (unlike language) useless as a force in human evolution. It is not surprising that Levitin and his fellow researchers disagree. Darwin himself felt that musical tones were used in conveying emotion and that those who were able to expend energy in singing or playing were demonstrating biological and sexual fitness. Musical success does make for high numbers of opportunities for spreading one's genes (just ask Mick Jagger). Interest in music peaks in adolescence, indicating a role in sexual selection. Music has been around longer than agriculture, and there is no evidence that language actually preceded music in our species. It may have promoted the cognitive development that was harnessed for speech. Only in the past few hundred years did music become a spectator activity, but in the eons when it could have shaped our social evolution, it was a group activity that may have promoted group togetherness and synchrony. It is an engaging final argument that serves to emphasize the importance of all that the book has presented before, a demonstration that looking at an important human activity in a scientific way only increases our wonder and delight in the activity itself.
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
The Dalai Lama Says...
Dalai Lama: "Sometimes, when we are discouraged by a difficult situation, anger does seem helpful, appearing to bring more energy, confidence and determination. And while it is true that anger brings extra energy, it eclipses the best part of our brain: its rationality. So the energy of anger is almost always unreliable. It can cause an immense amount of destructive, unfortunate behavior."
Dalai Lama: "Sometimes, when we are discouraged by a difficult situation, anger does seem helpful, appearing to bring more energy, confidence and determination. And while it is true that anger brings extra energy, it eclipses the best part of our brain: its rationality. So the energy of anger is almost always unreliable. It can cause an immense amount of destructive, unfortunate behavior."
Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Support Your Local Musicians
Joni Mitchell, not local to Central Florida. Subject of the song is relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmzN1p5q2sY
Local musician, Kaleigh Baker. She's hot, bluesy, soulful. Wide vocal range. She never hits a bad note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhM1uIRg_HM&feature=related
Joni Mitchell, not local to Central Florida. Subject of the song is relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmzN1p5q2sY
Local musician, Kaleigh Baker. She's hot, bluesy, soulful. Wide vocal range. She never hits a bad note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhM1uIRg_HM&feature=related
- Status