Practical and advantageous applications of intentionally inducing psychotic episodes

A chemical imbalance in the temporal lobe, (or the over-production of dopamine and; subsequently, epinephrine) allows you to use your muscles' full motor-performance.

Increased dopamine production in a certain area of the brain can improve skill-related cognitive speed (synaptogenesis) and capacity (neurogenesis) in that region of the brain - but at the risk of causing psychosis and other neurological abnormalities (because of the dope).

Neurosis/narcissism/megalomania; the condition of being greedy, selfish, and possessing a sort of perpetual discontent with your current circumstance and a tendency to automatically develop resentment towards other people's opinions or beliefs (because they're not your own), makes you more competitive and less lazy. Constantly trying to one-up everybody; you've a far greater chance of achieving your fullest possible level of productivity. Although this productivity is the result being paranoid that someone is going to get ahead of you.

In a catatonic state, you're disassociated from reality; in such a state you could be burning to death and you wouldn't even realize it. It's a good way to survive torture if you can induce it intentionally.

Multi-personality disorder can allow you to create a persona and withhold information from his memories. Useful if you don't want to divulge information while under the gun.

If you meditate 2 hours per day, for 90 days, you will be able to hallucinate during meditation (due to the increased levels of dopamine available on call). If you're already suffering from MPD - you may be able to select a certain experience, perhaps an altered memory; and go into a personality that has no knowledge of you creating that experience nor any recollection of its content. You won't realize that you were just now meditating, so you won't be able to tell that it's just a dream. This allows you to warp your own subjective reality, achieving nirvana. You may as well be living a lie, but a good lie, one in which you look better and have more money, for example. It's using hypnotism (something marijuana automatically does to you) to cause amnesia while engaging in a lucid dream, unfolding by the design of your conscious as opposed to your unconscious. You're distorting what's actually going on around you. This is a good way to spend your free-time. It's the best form of leisure, when you go back into your base-personality you'll automatically recall that the experience wasn't real so, no harm done.

No

Hi, Oneness. So, how's that "define yourself in one (non-run-on) sentence" challenge going, the one I mentioned to you some months back?

Oneness' favorite word must be "dopamine", he uses it often.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No

"No" addresses nothing pertaining what was said in the topic. I was not asking a question. Ergo, your response is invalid.

Originally posted by Mindship
Hi, Oneness. So, how's that "define yourself in one (non-run-on) sentence" challenge going, the one I mentioned to you some months back?

The only reason to limit the length of a sentence is a lack of vision on the writer's part. Although, perhaps a condition in which the writer's coherency somehow declines relative to the length of his sentences would constitute the necessity for shorter sentences as well. Either way, I have no lack of vision and no difficulty in articulating a sentence of any length, none at all. Ipso facto, I do not feel the need to describe myself with a sentence made according to your criteria.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oneness' favorite word must be "dopamine", he uses it often.

No, but dopamine might just be my favorite thing in the universe.

I should have worded my thesis more delicately;

A desperate enough man (to the point of schizophrenia) will take extreme precautions, going to distant lengths in order to utilize the time in his day far more efficiently than would be possible for someone who's not so desperate according to Maslow's hierarchy. This is due not to motivation, but to a rewiring of the brain, behavioral software so to speak - causing compulsory obsessions to manifest - made increasingly habitual overtime. Imagine studying like this.

Epinephrine constricts blood-flow so that it is concentrated into the muscle fibers, providing more oxygen and acetylcholine to them. Acetylcholine improves the electro-chemical response in the nerves controlling the activation of those muscle fibers. This combination allows one to exert their bodies beyond what would be possible in a non-psychotic state.

There's a positive-correlation between arousal and the recollection of information, the acuity of attention to stimuli, and the rate at which your senses can process information - there're also trade-offs made by isolating the electro-chemical activity in particular brain-regions (Rain Man). Arousal is the result of dopamine receptors being activated by pleasure centers in the brain.

You cannot consciously internalize any pain undergone while in a catatonic stupor.

When culminated with a mastered level of self-hypnosis in the achieve of schizophrenic, hynogogic, or hallucinatory episodes, disassociative split-personality disorder can be sufficient enough to throw off your stream of continuity allowing you to believe any false-sensations and experiences perceived therein.

In summary, we don't take our minds far enough at this point in our evolution.

Originally posted by Oneness
The only reason to limit the length of a sentence is a lack of vision on the writer's part. Although, perhaps a condition in which the writer's coherency somehow declines relative to the length of his sentences would constitute the necessity for shorter sentences as well. Either way, I have no lack of vision and no difficulty in articulating a sentence of any length, none at all. Ipso facto, I do not feel the need to describe myself with a sentence made according to your criteria.

Originally posted by Mindship
It was meant as a focusing exercise. Y'know, journey > destination. Could help elucidate your writing.

Such is the revelation that I'd hoped to evoke in Digi.

Originally posted by Oneness
You lack the analytics to realize that the structure of my sentences are not only chrystalline; but written, with considerable focus I might add, specifically to counter-act textual benality via grammatical extravagence.

Such is the revelation that I'd hoped to evoke in Digi.

Analytics is used incorrectly. Chrystalline is technically a word, but incorrectly spelled in the manner you're using it. Counteract is one word, not hyphenated. Banality and extravagance are misspelled. Your use of the semicolon is dubious as well. The entirety of the sentence is only marginally coherent.

Is there a new form of revelation available to us through grammatically induced headaches? That's the only way I can see this working.

Again, mistakes are acceptable, especially on the internet. Your arrogance concerning it, less so. You'd engender a lot more sympathetic responses if you were nicer.

Originally posted by Oneness
You lack the analytics to realize that the structure of my sentences are not only chrystalline; but written, with considerable focus I might add, specifically to counter-act textual benality via grammatical extravagence.

Such is the revelation that I'd hoped to evoke in Digi.

Here, I'll rewrite what you just said to make it flow better (and make more sense):

"You lack analytical abilities or else you would have realized that the structure of my sentences are crystalline. They are also written with considerable focus to specifically counteract textual banality via linguistic extravagance."

I'll rewrite it again but I will correct your comment in 3 ways:

1. I will use words correctly.
2. I will use proper spelling.
3. I will use proper grammar.
4. I will substantially reduce the number of words in your sentences.

"You're bereft of deduction. My sentences are written with punctilio. I accomplish this by using syntactic flourish; this evokes ardor in the reader."

You can use "big words" without being wordy. In fact, big words should be used to reduce or eliminate the number of words: not to make your sentences wordier. However, I think using big words is empty pontification if you're doing so just for the sake of using big words.

If you cannot convey your meanings, properly, to most educated people, then the problem is not with those people, the problem is with you. Using strange or outlandish wording does not make you appear smarter: it just makes you look weird or ignorant. Using words incorrectly actually makes you look dumber. Misspelling "big words" makes you look like an ignorant try-hard. It is better to precisely and concisely state your point than to drone on for many sentences and barely make sense.

Originally posted by Digi
Analytics is used incorrectly. Chrystalline is technically a word, but incorrectly spelled in the manner you're using it. Counteract is one word, not hyphenated. Banality and extravagance are misspelled. Your use of the semicolon is dubious as well. The entirety of the sentence is only marginally coherent.

Is there a new form of revelation available to us through grammatically induced headaches? That's the only way I can see this working.

Again, mistakes are acceptable, especially on the internet. Your arrogance concerning it, less so. You'd engender a lot more sympathetic responses if you were nicer.

Dammit. You must have just posted when I hit the quote button...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dammit. You must have just posted when I hit the quote button...

lol

fdog

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you cannot convey your meanings, properly, to most educated people, then the problem is not with those people, the problem is with you.

👆

Lovely summation. You took more time in your response; more than I'm willing to invest in him at this point.

Originally posted by Digi
Analytics is used incorrectly. Chrystalline is technically a word, but incorrectly spelled in the manner you're using it. Counteract is one word, not hyphenated. Banality and extravagance are misspelled.

grammatically induced headaches?

Apparently, that's the result of my own admittedly insufferable lack of vocabulary. Extravagance comes from the vocabulary.

Vis-à-vis, I'll redirect Dadudemon at you here because it will help to further emphasize that plight after I've furthered the feedback in response:

You can use "big words" without being wordy. In fact, big words should be used to reduce or eliminate the number of words: not to make your sentences wordier. However, I think using big words is empty pontification if you're doing so just for the sake of using big words.

Not empty, Dadudemon - filled with novelty.

"You're bereft of deduction. My sentences are written with punctilio. I accomplish this by using syntactic flourish; this evokes ardor in the reader."

grammatically induced headaches?

You can use "big words" without being wordy. In fact, big words should be used to reduce or eliminate the number of words: not to make your sentences wordier. However, I think using big words is empty pontification if you're doing so just for the sake of using big words.

Vis-à-vis: Obviously I wouldn't intend to create extravagant readings by making them unsightly or imperious. My intent is on making each of my sentences aesthetic novelties. Newness promotes arousal, which helps the reader read through text.

@Digi, hypercritically vindictive analyses are what I thrive upon. There's no need to pull your punches, if it's there make it sting or I'll probably never internalize it quite as fixedly. That's more important now given the accelerated expedience in which I hope to develop from here on out. Not just omni-linguistically, either. I'm a renaissance man.

*manner of expediency

"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
-- Albert Einstein

"You can have brilliant ideas, but if you can't get them across, your ideas won't get you anywhere."
-- Lee Iacocca

I feel like all posts in this thread can be condensed into my first post.

Originally posted by Mindship
"You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
-- Albert Einstein

"You can have brilliant ideas, but if you can't get them across, your ideas won't get you anywhere."
-- Lee Iacocca

In fact, language is a very small part of teaching physics. If Hawking can find a way to speak without the use of his voice than someone grammatically illiterate software engineer can make millions off of his work.

To Lee Iacocca, I'd say "Not necessarily. You can communicate with a mathematical formula without even being able to spell."

If I were to explain myself in the simplest way possible, this is what I'd say:

"I'm an endomorph somatotype."

This explains my appearance as well as my genetic-predispositions, which are even responsible for some of my behaviors.

I think it would be a worthwhile task for you to try to write in such a way that your posts would be appropriate for the Simple English Wikipedia. For you in particular it would be great practice, and I believe it would improve your writing and your thinking considerably.

Originally posted by Oneness
@Digi, hypercritically vindictive analyses are what I thrive upon.

It's not vindictive. I have nothing against you. You're just a terrible writer.

srug