Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4944372" data-attributes="member: 54707">Merc, I've been out of town and on vacation. Sorry for the delay. I'll respond as I can, even though I'm kinda bushed. Didn't hit the sack til 0400 an then got back up at 0700. I need to sleep and not sure this will make a great deal of sense, but here goes anyhow.I spent my teenage years and early twenties studying and practicing Raja Yoga. Later I trained briefly with a Sufi mystic, then took up the Philokalia and the practice of the Desert Fathers. In my twenties and thirties I trained under various people and experimented myself with different techniques to enhance my intelligence, observational capacities, sensory abilities, problem solving capabilities, and analytical acumen. (That was while studying physics and training as a detective. My earlier training was more geared towards the priesthood.) So personally I'm more for that way, for the intentional trading of somatic, mental, psychological, and spiritual capabilities. Rather than seeking out chemical or other means of enhancement. (Though over time I did develop bio-chemical formulas designed to augment biochemical function in my brain and nervous system, and to help my body repair more quickly from injury - I suffered a lot of injuries when young from doing both dangerous and sometimes stupid and reckless things. So I'm not against augmentation, I just carefully target how it is employed and to what end.) Trained capabilities far more accurate and acute, sharp and focused (as long as you retain command over your own brain and mind), you retain far greater control of the extent of your own capabilities, and you can practice whatever you need to whenever you like, and do not have to rely upon any external stimuli to artificially stimulate or attempt to control your operational capabilities. It's not as messy, random, or unpredictable as drug use or the reliance upon any other form of basically uncontrollable external mechanisms. However, to be brutally honest training in the way I described (or intensive training of any kind) requires a lot of discipline and focus, is mentally exhausting, often psychologically draining (I'm sure I came close to a nervous breakdown on occasion), costly to your relationships, and is very time-consuming. So, to be fair, it also has its negative side(s). C'est la vie, I reckon. As they say, all work requires labor.I have my own theory about that. I call it <a href="http://themissal.blogspot.com/2006/11/introduction-to-god-technology-basic.html" target="_blank">God Technology</a>. If there is some kind of split, as you propose, I don't suppose it will be all that great a split in motive, as much as in manner. To me all technology is leading eventually towards God Technology. That includes electronic, spintronic, quantum, mechanical, computing and AI, etc, as well as genetic, bimolecular, and biological. They are different technological forms, to be sure, different types of vehicles you might say. But in the end they are all methods of transportation. So destinations will be very similar. Unconsciously, or sub-consciously, they may seem misaligned, even antagonistic in operation, but in actual fact I suspect they will be parallel efforts of progress and development.This also goes back to me about experimentation in imaginary enterprises. As it relates to perceptual and thinking modes. But rather than  go into a long explanation, which I'm not up for recreating, I'll just include part of an exchange with my buddies form one of my email networks. Talking about perceptual modes and attempts to gain control over them. First though I gotta find it in my files. By the way, just as a little side-line, I think gaming can also be employed as a tool for changing or altering perceptual mode(s).Now I'm gonna hit the hay cause I'm totally wiped out. I ain't as young as I used to be. Once again, enjoyed the thread. Night all.The Counter-Perceptual Mind:extract from email letter: When I first received this (the turning woman) I was working on a coding project called, logically enough, the Code, which many of you will receive from me a little later on. Interestingly enough I could only see the figure moving clockwise at that time (when I first viewed it). This seems to be my default way of viewing the figure, but that may be because my mind is currently absorbed with this particular project (the Code), which I have been thinking on awhile. This rather fascinated me because I would have thought that working on a coding project would be a so-called "Left Brain" function (not that I really believe in this left-brain/right-brain junk, I don't for the most part, and never have). Instead according to this I was occupying my mind in a "right-brain manner."But then I decided to try an experiment by shifting the way my mind functions based upon task-orientation. I pulled out a poem I was working on last night and worked on it for about 15 minutes and when I came back she was still moving clockwise but after starting at the figure for only a few moments I saw her shift, starting at the legs, and move in the opposite direction. I looked away several times and back again but could not get the figure to move clockwise again. Not until I walked away completely and started reading. Then when I returned I perceived that she was moving clockwise again.Anywho it was a very simple little experiment but I plan to greatly expand it. I want to see how what I am studying, occupying myself with, or am working on will affect how I first perceive the figure and thereafter how long it takes my mind to be able to refocus so as to see the figure moving in the opposite direction.Some of the subjects I'll be studying, or work I'll be doing in relation to these experiments will include:Reading prose (fiction)Writing proseReading poetryWriting poetryInventingFixing or repairing something, or disassembling/reassembling something/working with modern technologyWorking with toolsDrawing or Sketching, and/or paintingWorking on an experiment (I'm gonna try chemistry, physics, psychology, and biological/biochemistry experiments and my suspicion is that different scientific pursuits will evoke different perceptual modes)Listening to musicWriting/composing musicPlaying the pianoWorking on a computer programPhysical Training/Athletic ActivityYard WorkDesign (architectural)My CAP/cyberwarfare studiesReading a biographyReading non-fictionStudying language, philology, and codesUsing money, making purchases, studying economicsWatching a filmWatching a documentaryDeveloping plans, goals, and objectivesReading, studying, and analyzing scriptureSeeing a filmTaking photographsAfter eating (it will be interesting to see how diet might possibly affect results)After sunbathingAfter sensory deprivationAfter prayingAfter meditatingAfter recreating or playing a game, or playing with the kids and dogsAfter a hike in natureAfter being involved in charity or philanthropic workAfter complex problem solvingRight before going to bedImmediately after arising from sleepMy initial supposition is that most people are not really "fixed right-brain/left-brain" individuals but rather that how most people perceive any event or process or problem depends primarily upon what type of activity or mode of operation in which they happen to be engaged. (I've also noticed that according to this chart my thought processes seem to be reversed as compared to how things should be operating.) Another supposition I have is that in order to study ideas regarding "right-brain/left-brain" most researchers have probably conducted experiments under controlled laboratory conditions. Which I suspect triggers a "work-like mental environment" in the individual. That to be honest the very act of conducting many laboratory experiments puts the test subject into a "work-mode" or "occupational frame of mind" and brain reaction. Since most modern occupations are based upon technical skills of one kind or another I suspect this natural perceptual and "frame of mind" aspect of laboratory settings would lead most modern researchers to conclude that most individuals (in developed countries anyways) are naturally left-brainers when in fact their real mode of perceptual analysis depends upon where they are and what they happen to be concentrating upon or engaged in at the moment. That is to say it is not the "natural frame of mind that necessarily determines how a thing is perceived, but the necessities of the environment, action, and psychological state that determine what perceptual mode is likely to be employed at any given activity. The activity demands shape the perceptual mode likely to be employed. Of course if an individual spends most of his or her time engaged in a particular perceptual mode or way of thinking then it might be more difficult, because of lack of practice, to employ a different mode, or one might even try to employ a non-efficient mode simply out of lack of practice with other modes. However practice with a wider range of modal capabilities would likely easily fix this problem in most individuals. Nothing then is or would be fixed in most normal individuals other than habit. And habit can be changed by application of other, and in many cases, better methodologies. For instance, as an example of what I mean about both habit and practiced environment, if left-brain/right-brain experiments were conducted not in a laboratory but at a park or in a playground or at an opera-theatre or movie theatre then I think most subjects would produce very different results. And if the experiment were constructed to appear as a game or entertainment then different results would develop than if the experiment were presented as a laboratory investigation. However most experiments naturally evoke an underlying response in the test subject to want to "figure-out" the nature of the test, problem, and experiment, and therefore the nature and structure of the experiment itself clouds or occludes or alters the perceptual mode of the test subject. The experiment itself then likely obscures the true psychological outlook and perceptual nature of the test subject by the presumptions of the way the experiment is structured (this is always true of experimentation to at least some degree, but it is an obvious and shallow defect if you analyze the problem involving modes of thought and perception regarding assumed and experimental left-brain/right-brain matters for just a few moments.)The study will probably take a couple of weeks or more (maybe a few months depending on how and how often I repeat the or modify the parameters of each sub-category) but I suspect it will yield some very interesting results and may even give me a clue for developing techniques of how I may intentionally shift my modes of thought and perception at will. Of course I'll have to develop exercises or specific techniques based upon my findings and experimentation but that shouldn't be very hard to master once I understand the basic correspondences. I'm also though not entirely sure that the same methods would work for everyone, but that some people think in modes of perceptual analysis that are obverse or in reverse to others. (That is apparently the case with me since my initial experiments seem to be in perceptual "reverse-mode" to the stated chart - of course I have no idea if the chart information is correct because I've never thought the theory true and so never gave it serious credit and don't know whether most researchers consider this or that side of the brain to be right or left. I studied it briefly years ago but even then it immediately and intuitively struck me to be about as scientifically sound as Darwin's initial theory of evolution. So I never again returned to the theory seriously for obvious reasons. It was so full of obvious holes, contradictions, and misapplications that I abandoned it as being worthy of much study.)If my counter-theory proves true then it might even lead to a couple of new inventions, including new sensory equipment which can enhance perception by simultaneously not only augmenting sensory capabilities, but by actually altering or entraining the sensory capabilities of the user specifically to the current and required task in which they are involved. In other words if my theory proves out then I should be able to sue it to help design sensory equipment which not only enhances the ability to perceive the target, but actually entrains the mind (by matching perceptual mode to task) to not just perceive the target better, but to understand how the target is functioning over and against and within it's environment and maybe even to help anticipate target activities.Of course you'd also want to develop mental and psychological techniques by which people can rapidly shift their perceptual modes to accommodate the complexities of a given problem or whenever the parameters or elements of a given problem shift according to circumstances. In that way the trained ability to shift modes of perception and analysis would aid in problem solving. I also intend to incorporate the results of these experiments into the basic framework of my personal Renaissance Project and the <a href="http://themissal.blogspot.com/2009/07/renaissance-gild-introduction.html" target="_blank">Renaissance Gild</a>.end extract.</blockquote>

Verification