Mystery?

[sakoz]

A few hours

[SWM]

your post was deleted for repeating what you have said in other topics. there is no benefit to the forum to allow you to start new topics saying the same thing.

[sakoz]

I appeal to the 20 or more people who read it if they found it useful, if none found it useful, then your judgement is valid.
( I thought it was one of my better posts)(lol)

[SWM]

there is no need to start new topics when the content is the same as you have posted in other topics. a new topic brings robots and spiders from twitter, google, bing, baidu and yahoo. most of those 20 visitors would have been search engines or robots.

i dont want multiple topics saying the same thing. you have other topics open on this subject use the other topics, it is all about the same subject.  this is psychology-forum.com not believing-images-are-real-forum.com it is not a free for all post what ever you like forum.  we do need some sort of order and organisation.

[S. Earl Martin]

I agree. Sakoz you are harshing my buzz. Seriously. You have threads already. You are just starting new ones to try and get attention. I don't even feel like trying to post a lot of times because when I try to have a meaningful conversation? You come along and highjack the topic. With the same old crap. I have made it clear what you need to do to move your ideas along. I have even detailed out the process and given you examples as to how it is done. I still believe you don't want to move along? Because you want the attention and if it ends so does your relivance. You want this sight to be the F..in Sakoz show and you are really screwing it up for everyone else.   

[SWM]

@sakoz what about if you try to formulate your theory into a single points. like the 19 propositions of carl rogers which i have posted here http://psychology-forum.com/counselling-and-psychotherapy-forum/carl-rogers-theory-19-propositions/

this lays out the basics of the theories in a logical structure, then maybe it could be discussed and compared with other psychological theories and models. perhaps even developed into something that can be applied to problems that people present.

[Enigma]

How bout you just revoke Sakoz's ability to create new threads?

[SWM]

SWM; thanks; see my reply next to pljames, i will reply to him next.

what you mean?

SWM, Is it ok if i put that post you deleted into another thread i already started? I think it's a relevent one.

yes

SWM, I'm not sure logic applies to wisdom/insight/realization/understanding

how unsure are you? if you had a better understanding of logic and could apply it to your ideas do you think you might be more sure if it applies?

[sakoz]

SWM, I don't know much logic, not formally, nor studied; only what's 'built into language.
I just replied to pljames in his thread; "Are our thoughts  sentient?"

[SWM]

How bout you just revoke Sakoz's ability to create new threads?

i hope sakoz will post new topics on different subjects.

[SWM]

SWM, I don't know much logic, not formally, nor studied; only what's 'built into language. "

i have appealed for you to look into this. logic is a valuable thinking tool. do you have itunes installed on your pc. i could direct you to a course on philosphy which explains formal and classical logic and deductive and inductive reasoning.

the post relating to 19 propostions uses a logical structure to present the theory. in that each proposition builds on the others. having understood the first you can better comprehend the second if you try to understand the second without understanding the first it doesnt make as much sense.

[sakoz]

SWM; You make a good point; even though I'm referring to the "state" beyond thought, we need the language to talk about "how to shift", but I'm  not sure any language can "give directions" for shifting. It will be interesting to read what pljames will reply to my question , 'how he saw 'ego' as illusion'.
This may appear I'm 'stubborn' for not heeding your advice, but if I have 'input' from wisdom (which is effortless) why would i,want to expend effort to learn and 'add' to my thought system?
The view outside, is 'out'from the view from 'inside' conditioned thought-system. The astronauts were able to photograph the earth from space so we could see what they saw, but there's no phographs possible to bring back from meta-perspective ; it can  only be experience directly by each person. I try to 'point' there , to no avail.

[SWM]

 

This may appear I'm 'stubborn' for not heeding your advice, but if I have 'input' from wisdom (which is effortless) why would i,want to expend effort to learn and 'add' to my thought system?

if you have so much input from wisdom how come the results you get are so far reoved from your intention. doesnt seem very wise to have the intention of helping people and get the result of alienating yourself.

The view outside, is 'out'from the view from 'inside' conditioned thought-system. The astronauts were able to photograph the earth from space so we could see what they saw, but there's no phographs possible to bring back from meta-perspective ; it can  only be experience directly by each person. I try to 'point' there , to no avail.

were are you pointing from? inside you or inside the person you are pointing at?

did you read the topic i posted recently? http://psychology-forum.com/general-psychology-forum/abcs-of-cognition-emotion-and-action-and-controversy-in-cognitive-neuroscience/


and do you like my picture i think it is pretty?

[SWM]

How could i copy just the sentence you wrote, instead of how i do it?

i dont understand.

"If you have so much input from wisdom how come the results you get are so far removed from your intention?" Are you serious? I know my reply will result in 'more of the same results'.
But this example 'springs to mind'. What was Jesus intention? and what results did he get? Crucifixion. The reactions of othere are exactly that, 'their reactions'.

did jesus have an intention. jesus did nothing of his own will buteverything was the will of his father. and self sacrifice, crucifixion was ultimate the intention.

I don't get "so much input from wisdom", but more that the average person, I wish for more, larger 'open channel.

but you did say

This may appear I'm 'stubborn' for not heeding your advice, but if I have 'input' from wisdom (which is effortless) why would i,want to expend effort to learn and 'add' to my thought system?

[SWM]

i did add the word so. you know what that is. 

quote the post then press preview and view in full editing mode. or press reply and then from full edit mode add quotes from below.

you can edit anything between the [ quote] tags and add extra [quote ] tags

[sakoz]

SWM:

quote the post then press preview and view in full editing mode. or press reply and then from full edit mode add quotes from below. [ quote] tags and add extra [quote ] tags

testing  thanks i got the result, but no quite how you said , but it works, thanks

It says 11:45 pm but here is only 3:45 pm.  8 hours time difference from UK to USA?

[SWM]

if you use the full edit mode you can use preview to mess around with the quote tags and view how the post looks before you post it.

[sakoz]

if you use the full edit mode you can use preview to mess around with the quote tags and view how the post looks before you post it.

Excellent, It never occurred to me to press that "Preview'button

[S. Earl Martin]

Sakoz If by your statement you think I am trying to post here to get attention? You obviously haven't read anything I have posted. I try to help people and encourage them to participate. I do not try to twist every topic to be directed toward myself. When I post I address my responses to answer their questions or concerns. You pretend to do that, but in reality it is still all about you.

Now I have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to help you even after you were rude and insulting. I have tried to defend you when other people made fun of you and you are just what I thought an ungrateful, self centered, fake. There is no merit or substance to your continued delusional rambling. It is just a way to get attention.   

[S. Earl Martin]

The same advice I have already given you. To find a way to make your information relevant. When you just go and on repeating the same basic thing it is irrelevant. Find a practical application and a proof so that it doesn't look like you are just tooting your own horn.

You wouldn't want to know my involuntary reactions. I am trying very hard to be patient.

[S. Earl Martin]

I think we have a different definition of involuntary reactions. My involuntary react would be like if someone is doing something I find annoying I just reach out and slap the crap out of them. Without really thinking about it. Or say something to them that is mean or disrespectful. I used to be like that and still part of me wants to repeat that behavior. I strive to keep it in check.

I for the most part do not have any images I am aware of, that are not real. Because I am a very factual and realistic person. Now that doesn't mean I do not make mistakes or get decieved. I am just very careful to not assume anything. If I think something? I am careful to position it in my mind as something I think. If I know something the same holds true. This is one of the reasons I am confidant and in control. I am not trying to brag I am just being honest. When I enter most situations people automatically defer to me. They follow me and do what I say most of the time. Some people challenge me and I deal with that. Usually they will back off pretty quickly.

The thing is you are still making a number of assumptions about assuming. This is why you need to develop a system to prove your statements. Some of them appear to be contradictory at least to me. I have been thinking about how you could effect proof and like psychology in general each person and situation is unique so to develop a standard model would be difficult.

[S. Earl Martin]

Again it depends on your definition of images. If you mean delusions. No I am very careful not to allow delusions in my life.
Now if you mean can I envision a pink elephant walking accross my yard that is different? That would be an image that is not real. But I am aware that it is not real.

See this is why what you are saying would be so difficult to devolop a set of standards. Each person has their idea of what it means and interpets it accordingly. 

[SWM]

First of all, we must emphasize the point that all human beings experience intense fear in a similar, predictable way. When confronted with a threatening stimulus, each one of us will tend to react in a seemingly scripted manner: First, we may encounter a stereotypical startle response in which we can become immobilized, our heart may slow down (with a felt sense that one’s heart "stops"), and we may have piloerection in which our hair stands up. Then, almost immediately, the heart starts to race, blood pressure increases, we encounter cold sweats, our skin becomes pale, our pupils dilate, stress homones are released, etc., all to prepare us for the fight-or-flight response. Obviously, these reactions are instinctual and involuntary at the outset, originating in the physiological control center that is the brain.

However, as depicted in Figure 1, even though different neurologic pathways may be responsible for the various types of reactions that this response generates, each can be traced back to a single originating source in the central nucleus of the amygdala (CNA) (Kapp et al., 1984, 1990; LeDoux, 1990; Davis, 1992a, 1992b; LeDoux, Farb, Ruggiero, 1990) In other words, as with any unconditioned response, all of the elements of the typical fear response are "hardwired" and networked to a central processor in the CNA which, when activated, initiates the series of commands that lead to the predictable fear reaction (LeDoux, 1995). This, then, begs the question of how and where the CNA gets its input and "knows" to trigger the fear response. Figure 2 (NoT PrOvIdEd HeRe) provides a schemata for how this information is conveyed. In this diagram, the role of the neocortex and the associative processes occurring therein has to be emphasized. In order to mediate simple fear conditioning, either cortical projections  or thalamic-amygdala (1 on Fig. 2) projections would alone be sufficient (Romanski and Ledoux, 1992), but both cortical functions and projections are necessary to elicit a response when the conditioning involves discrimination (e.g., when two conditioned stimuli are similar but not identical - Jarrel et al., 1987) .

FiGuRe 1!


In addition, the extinction of learned fear responses requires a well functioning cortex and seems to be mediated by cortical projections to the amygdala (2 and 3 on Fig. 2) (LeDoux, Romanski, Xagoraris, 1989). That means that our responses to a stimulus (A) will be affected by whatever meaning the neocortex assigns it (B). If it ascribes a negative-for-survival meaning (e.g. "Burglar"), then this information is relayed to lateral nucleus of the amygdala (LNA), gains access to CNA triggering the physiological cascade and fight-or-flight response (C). Conversely, any person may be startled by the noise in the hallway, but if it is processed by the neocortex and ascribed a positive-for-survival meaning (e.g. "Friend"), then another set of pathways are activated, the fear disappears and we experience what might be described as a stereotypic joy reaction (C).

So, what conclusions might we draw from this information? The first important lesson is that our emotional responses seem to be built, or hardwired, into the brain. Depending on what meaning the neocortex ascribes to a stimulus, a particular neural pathway will be activated that will consistently lead to a particular emotional or physiological response (LeDoux, 1995). Second, emotional learning appears to be stimulus learning as opposed to response learning (LeDoux, 1995), meaning that we learn the meaning of the stimulus, not the particular emotional response. We learn what to think, or what attitude to have towards certain stimuli, and these cognitive processes, these thoughts and attitudes, control which areas of the brain will be activated or inhibited. In other words, we learn which stimuli we should fear, when we should be angry, what we should like or love, etc., our brain responds accordingly, and we respond in a seemingly natural, effortless manner.

Yet perhaps the most important and radical line of reasoning that emerges from recent neurocognitive research findings is the idea that thinking in particular ways can actually affect our health, either positively or negatively, through those other neurophysiological networks, including the immune system, in which the amygdala plays a significant role. It has been well established (LeDoux, Farb, Ruggiero, 1990) that projections from the amygdala to the limbic system and hypothalamus have a strong influence on the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and the hormonal system via the pituitary gland (Fig. 1). Felten (Ader et al., 1990) has shown that the ANS has endings in the bone marrow, thymus, spleen, and peripheral lymph nodes, and that it affects the production, maturation, and action of immune cells. Similarly, as illustrated in Figure 3, there are numerous mechanisms by which the limbic-hypothalamic system may influence the healing process in our bodies (Wirga, 1991). The fact that the amygdala directly influences the hormonal system is extremely important because science has firmly established how strongly hormones can influence the immune system and other healing systems in the body (Ader et al., 1990). It is no coincidence that the limbic-hypothalamic system secretes neuropeptites and other substances that have their receptor sites on immune cells and directly affect the functional processes of those cells, and, conversely, it has been established, at least in mice, that substances secreted by immune cells have their receptor sites in the limbic-hypothalamic system and influence the functioning of that system (Pert, 1985; and personal communication 1992).

The deeply interrelated functioning of neurophysiological structures such as the amygdala, hypothalamus, limbic system, ANS, hormones, neuropeptites, and immune cells seems to suggest that there are numerous processes by which healing can be promoted in the human body. Moreover, as we have discussed, emotion and behavior appear directly related to those cognitions generated in the neocortex and mediated by the amygdala. Thus, as the functional role of the amygdala is similarly critical in physiological, emotional, and immune responses, we are forced to consider that inasmuch as thinking can change feelings and behavior, so can it alter the state and rate of healing in the body. Research has already shown that the immune response can be behaviorally conditioned and that the state of the immune system can directly affect behavior (Ader et al., 1990), and it is likely that the systems and mechanisms we have discussed are playing a significant role in this healing process.

Outside of the theoretical realm or mouse laboratory, in actual clincial practice this line of thinking already appears to be making a difference. In patients with advanced cancer, Simonton (Simonton et al., 1978) has shown that cognitive-behavioral interventions qualitatively improve quality of life, actually double survival time and increase the number of long-term survivors, and, for those patients who do eventually die, significantly improve their last days and quality of death. These findings have been confirmed by prospective, controlled trials by Spiegel (metastatic breast cancer; Spiegel, 1989) and Fawzy Fawzy (malignant melanoma; Fawzy, 1993), and the latter author concluded that anything that reduces emotional stress in cancer patients (such as cognitive-behavioral interventions) unquestionably affects their health in a positive way and improves the rate and quality of survival. So, in both neurocognitive and human terms, it appears that changing one’s thinking can actually change one’s life.

the original article has the other diagrams if your interested. http://www.arcobem.com/publications/abc.html

[S. Earl Martin]

Sakoz when you make statements like "It may be so subtle, you may not  immediately "get what I mean"; but when you do, you will "impressed",  It reinforces my belief that you are just doing this so people will notice you.

 

[S. Earl Martin]

I do not believe I am causeing myself needless suffering and you have no proof that I am. I am in control of my reality and as aware as humanly possible. I personally do not care if people notice me. I am trying to show you how you look to other people when you make statements about how impressed people should be with you. It deligitimizes your argument. And strengtens mine.

Did you even read what SWM posted? He is someone qualified to help you and you keep ignoring him.

[S. Earl Martin]

I still think you are delusional. Just because I strive to be patient with someone who I believe is babbling on about nothing doesn't indicate I am having false thoughts. The fact that you are ignoring the advice people give you that would help you to accomplish your goals demonstrates a clear pattern that you do not want to further this. You just want to babble on about false images and you use the pretext of unnecessary pain as a ploy to legitimize your nonsense. If you really wanted to help people you would be interested in a method that would allow this information to be assimilated into society and to be used to achieve your stated goal. Because you are not doing that? You gave yourself away. It is all about you and you getting attention. If not then prove it. It is time to put up or shut up.

[S. Earl Martin]

Sakoz: How many people have you actually helped with this information you have been posting all this time. I am not aware of any. I believe the opposite is true. Many times I have read posts where people are directing the thread to a subject that is not releated to your information at all, but you jump in a go on and on about your ideas, They make it clear that what you are saying is not related to what they are saying, but you just keep going on and on repeating things you have already said. So they leave without their needs being meet. So you not only didn't help them. You prevented others from helping them. This is the main problem and why I believe weather you realize it or not you are just doing this so people will notice you and you can look like you are important. I believe because you are getting older. You want to feel you accomplished something before you die. This is a common goal with a lot of people. If that is really the case then I and others have given you the information and method to ligitimize your information. It is up to you to do it. I can't do it and others can't do it. You are the one who knows what the goal and vision is. We can help with that goal to an extent. We can't do it for you.