Is is safe to say that what you believe is true can be true?

If you think about it everything that happens in your life you have accually thought about at one point or another. So if i believe that i am going to be very rich in the future, would our minds (as they progress) make me rich?

does this make any since at all? or am i just loony. 😑

You're just loony. However, the reverse is effectively true. If you end up rich then usually at some point you had to think about it, but not everyone who wants to be rich ends up rich.

Originally posted by mikeydude
So if i believe that i am going to be very rich in the future, would our minds (as they progress) make me rich?

You been watching/reading The Secret haven't you?

Originally posted by kgkg
You been watching/reading The Secret haven't you?

Originally posted by kgkg
You been watching/reading The Secret haven't you?

this is my point.
if you have a thought that means that you want it to happen. like. say you live with your family and they are all sick andn you dont want to get sick. if you keep telling yourself you wont get sick. Do you believe that your brain will react in the same way in not letting you get sick. because your brain is capable of doing things beyond your thinking. an avagrage human uses about 7% of they're brain. so if our brains could use the rest of that 93% dont you think we would practally be able to do the things that no other could do and see the things that others cannot see. i believe if we could use this factor then nobody in this world would get sick. another thing is you could bend objects with your mind and move things morph things with your mind. do super-human/un-human activites.

now is this more clearifaction for what i ment?

Originally posted by mikeydude
an avagrage human uses about 7% of they're brain. so if our brains could use the rest of that 93% dont you think we would practally be able to do the things that no other could do and see the things that others cannot see.

There's a name for using 100% at once, it's called a Grand Mal seizure, it can kill you (which, admittedly, might let you see something cool).

Not to mention that the 10% myth was debunked decades ago; in fact knowledge that we use every part of our brain predates this moronic notion that we only use a tiny portion of it's "potential". There's a simple test for it, grab a hammer and bash it through your skull a few times. Now if you only use 10% of your brain things should be totally fine after you get back from surgery.

bluntly put...

the hammer thing was a nice touch 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
bluntly put...

the hammer thing was a nice touch 🙂

Sadly, it's not an original. I had a psych teach who used something similar as an example.

I had heard it as having it surgically removed, but the violence involved upped the ante just enough, I'm thinking

Though, the myth can be reworked to talk about potential processing power, and not brain mass, which is way more difficult.

Originally posted by inimalist
Though, the myth can be reworked to talk about potential processing power, and not brain mass...

I'm not an expert on it, but I'd caution any sort of "in the zone" theory, given humans have a tendency to see patterns in random chance (ie. there is a chance you will sink 4 baskets in a row, because you did doesn't mean you are in the zone).

the brain has a natural tendency to reduce activity to familiar stimuli, meaning that it is being more efficiently processed.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not an expert on it, but I'd caution any sort of "in the zone" theory, given humans have a tendency to see patterns in random chance (ie. there is a chance you will sink 4 baskets in a row, because you did doesn't mean you are in the zone).

the brain has a natural tendency to reduce activity to familiar stimuli, meaning that it is being more efficiently processed.

I also used to experience this state sometimes when I was studying for exams. My memory was virtually eidetic.

It's a more efficient state because the mind and body are operating in unison, as opposed to our usual egoic, sleep-walking state of awareness. This is why I think of it as a higher signal-to-noise ratio: there's less internal chatter; the mind aligns with the body (or with itself) much more fluidly.

Originally posted by mikeydude
If you think about it everything that happens in your life you have accually thought about at one point or another. So if i believe that i am going to be very rich in the future, would our minds (as they progress) make me rich?

does this make any since at all? or am i just loony. 😑

I just said it a few times. I think it is probably pretty safe to say.

It's not true though, I think.

Originally posted by Mindship
Good point. When people are "in the zone" they can process information much more quickly or effectively. I would think there's a higher signal-to-noise ratio of cerebral activity, so to speak.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not an expert on it, but I'd caution any sort of "in the zone" theory, given humans have a tendency to see patterns in random chance (ie. there is a chance you will sink 4 baskets in a row, because you did doesn't mean you are in the zone).

the brain has a natural tendency to reduce activity to familiar stimuli, meaning that it is being more efficiently processed.

Originally posted by Mindship
By "in the zone" I'm referring to a state we've all experienced at one time or another ("in the zone" is just the athlete's term). This state is characterized (depending on the activity) by heightened mental / intuitive alertness, sensory awareness and motor response. When I would spar, I was amazed at the heightened efficiency in my ability to block, to see windows for striking. And just to make sure I wasn't imagining this, I'd ask for feedback from my sparring partners. My best friend at the time used to call it "flashes."

I also used to experience this state sometimes when I was studying for exams. My memory was virtually eidetic.

It's a more efficient state because the mind and body are operating in unison, as opposed to our usual egoic, sleep-walking state of awareness. This is why I think of it as a higher signal-to-noise ratio: there's less internal chatter; the mind aligns with the body (or with itself) much more fluidly.

It's called flow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Learned about it in Ethics, funnily enough, have no opinion on it though, you may proceed

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's called flow...Learned about it in Ethics, funnily enough, have no opinion on it though, you may proceed

Da, Flow is another term (thanks; I was having a decidedly non-flowish failure of memory). It encompasses what Maslow meant by 'peak experience'. It is most commonly characteristic of a state of development or consciousness sometimes called (eg) the 'centaur' by Wilber (my favorite term--a wonderful metaphor), 'integration' (Sullivan), 'actualization' (Maslow), and from the schools of Eastern psychology / mysticism, there's eg, jhana (from Theravada Buddhism -- though, technically, there is nothing 'supernatural' about this state: it's physiological correlates are quite measurable, its high efficiency demonstrable).

Again, most, if not all, of us have experienced this state now and then throughout our lives.

flow is NOT using the "unused" potential of neuronal processing.

from what the wiki talks about, it would likely be more of using less of the commonly used neuronal processing pathways. If we use the 10% analogy, flow would reduce that number, not increase it.

A nine factor model of which all components are not required to experience the phenomena in question, designed in 1975 by someone known for their work in anthropology and "positive psychology"... My skepticism knows no bounds... It really just sounds like something that has been hung onto by pop-culture from a time when psychology was simpler and less scientific. Same with "ego" and that.

Originally posted by Mindship
By "in the zone" I'm referring to a state we've all experienced at one time or another ("in the zone" is just the athlete's term). This state is characterized (depending on the activity) by heightened mental / intuitive alertness, sensory awareness and motor response. When I would spar, I was amazed at the heightened efficiency in my ability to block, to see windows for striking. And just to make sure I wasn't imagining this, I'd ask for feedback from my sparring partners. My best friend at the time used to call it "flashes."

I also used to experience this state sometimes when I was studying for exams. My memory was virtually eidetic.

It's a more efficient state because the mind and body are operating in unison, as opposed to our usual egoic, sleep-walking state of awareness. This is why I think of it as a higher signal-to-noise ratio: there's less internal chatter; the mind aligns with the body (or with itself) much more fluidly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efference_copy

same reason why expert martial artists can dodge blows they technically shouldn't be able to process fast enough

Originally posted by Mindship
And so I shall...

Da, Flow is another term (thanks; I was having a decidedly non-flowish failure of memory). It encompasses what Maslow meant by 'peak experience'. It is most commonly characteristic of a state of development or consciousness sometimes called (eg) the 'centaur' by Wilber (my favorite term--a wonderful metaphor), 'integration' (Sullivan), 'actualization' (Maslow), and from the schools of Eastern psychology / mysticism, there's eg, jhana (from Theravada Buddhism -- though, technically, there is nothing 'supernatural' about this state: it's physiological correlates are quite measurable, its high efficiency demonstrable).

fair enough, but the question is in regards to activation and utilization of potential processing power within the biology of the human brain.

I'd disagree. What are the physiological correlates of "flow"? Maslow certainly would never come up in the discussion of neurons.

Originally posted by Mindship
Again, most, if not all, of us have experienced this state now and then throughout our lives.

subjectively experiencing something makes it real? not as in, "real-to-me", but as in, empirical?

posted by inimalist

What are the physiological correlates of "flow"? Maslow certainly would never come up in the discussion of neurons.

subjectively experiencing something makes it real? not as in, "real-to-me", but as in, empirical?

ya, like, I'm not trying to say there isn't a "flow", just that it isn't an analog to "using more than 10% of the brains processing power"

any way you cut it, 10% is a myth.

Originally posted by inimalist
ya, like, I'm not trying to say there isn't a "flow", just that it isn't an analog to "using more than 10% of the brains processing power"

any way you cut it, 10% is a myth.

If you compare an ordinary person's performance (eg, in gymnastics, playing the piano, chess), to that of an expert in the field, the latter demonstrates a higher, more efficient level of that skill (this, of course, includes what the brain is doing). Is the efficiency level now at 80%? 95? I've often wondered. Don't know how you'd quantify that, though.