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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I don't know nuttin' 'bout no 'Secret'. Focus and hard work is just common sense, which only seems special in a fantasy-driven, instant-gratification society.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
well. yes. i have. but no. thats not where it comes from.
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.
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
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.
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.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
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.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Oct 11th, 2009 at 07:52 PM
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.
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.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Oct 11th, 2009 at 11:34 PM
KMC Community Forums
Oct 2nd, 2009 04:52 PM
