Hagakure

sensationalism means being striking or shocking to make an impression. sensationalism doesnt equal making up stuff by all means, people like moore should be sensational to get messages across to the mainstream viewer. they just shouldnt lie.

i disagree. people can make interesting docos that dont contain blatant lies. they do it all the time. has anyone seen that new doco "crude"? i havent seen it yet but have heard good things about it.

lets say 10 lophs are grafted onto the same sized stock at the same time. some years down the track some analysis is performed to determine the mescaline content of each. the ones with the highest content are bred together. would relative mescaline content on grafts correlate with mescaline levels in lophs grown on their own roots? if it did, a smart breeding program could produce lophs with advanced genetics much quicker using grafts. i guess correlation has to happen to some extent. it will depend on making the grafts as equal as possible. thoughts? anyone tried or trying any thing similar?

well im thinking it would be choice to get hive breeding going if a good home tek was developed and the basics of plant breeding were learnt by a whole lot of people collectively there would be as many plants as an advanced breeding program. trade seed and pollen of potent varieties. could be fun. and grafting would speed everything up so quickly. the tek could involve growing a bunch of grafts in the same conditions on the same stock, performing a test for mesc, and then crossing the most potent relative varieties. that way you dont need to keep your conditions the same as everyone elses, just your own plants. then divide seed, trade, do it all again. i like your idea with the taste test auxin. hadnt thought of that. humans have a very developed sense of taste that can detect tiny differences. but yeah, it would be selecting for the most bitter cacti, not necessarily the most mesc heavy. could be a good start though.

yeah its certainly not the best example of science. i think i read some wiki article about the founders saying how they didnt bother with hard science and instead wanted to just go out and find things that work. in the same way we may breed cacti that produce better mesc levels without knowing the genes that are responsible etc. the proof of the pudding is in the eating. that said things to do with the brain are not as easy to prove as anything you can physically measure. concluding remarks, NLP isnt rigourous science and it has a lot of nutjobs as practioners but, in my opinion, it does have some very interesting and effective practices that do work.

if moore twists the truth he is no better than the fox network when they do it. doesnt matter what side you are on, lies are lies.

hmm yeah the hardest part seems to be getting accurate level measurements. any ideas on how this could be done in home lab? will any chemicals react with mescaline to produce a colourfull reaction? then you could do an extract into solvent, serial dilutions, and hopefully get some idea from the different level of reaction visible. mesc probably doesnt have that kind of relationship to other chemicals though im guessing. there must be a way...

its especially stupid because picking mushrooms is one of the most wholesome activities. walking through nature, learning about proper identification, gaining respect for nature, obtaining mind opening chemicals for free taht have been shown to do little to no physcal damage to the brain. great stuff. how much do you hear the older generation whinging about how the younger generation dont get outside enough etc. meanwhile its socially acceptable for youth to partake in mass ethanol consupmtion, get agressive, treat women badly and cause much damage to their brains such that they wake up the next day feeling very sick. so much so that alcohol is becoming ever more available and binge drinking is ever on the rise. stupid stupid society.

okay, another quick post (not a fan of huge posts at the moment) how do neurons work and could they be replicated on computers? this is a nerve cell basically nerve cells are connected to each other. firstly. how does it send a message. well, an electrical discharge is sent down the axon to another cell. that signal is digital. it is either on or it is off. 1 or 0. most nerve cells communicate this message to other nerve cells. so how does each cell recieve information then? if you look at the same picture you will see dendrites. these dendrites are like ears. they listen for messages from other nerve cells. these dendrites can be receiving messages from 100s of other cells. but it has to be within a threshold to trigger the firing of the neuron. here is the analog part. the nerve cell wont fire if the total amount of mesages received are below a certain value. so those are essentially the basics. are they programable of course they are the code required for each neuron requires code like the following (i willl put this into normal english) "if the total input is greater than the threshold value send message. if the total input is below the threshold value do not send message" that the basis of a lot of programmed neural networks. there is more to our brain chemistry as some connections change, some thresholds are changed and various other details but these too can be programmed fairly easily. the trick is developing these neural networks. IMHO we need to look at the development of human brains in the womb. neural networks arent just created. they grow. in the case of humans we have DNA coding for a specific development and this development results in a concious mind. we need to create neral networks by pushing them in certain directions but essentially growing them up. the deal with AIs, of course, is that they can keep on growing and developing while human brains hit a limit.

you are making that claim under the assumption that there is one chef and one meal. some buddhists claim that karma is some law of the universe that means if something bad happens to you, it is because you did something bad to someone else previously or in a previous life. that is a product of religious authority trying to dictate actions of followers and is not what other more sensible versions of buddhism believe. jus because there is a nugget floating in a bowl served by one group of buddhists, it doesnt mean that its floating in the bowl of another group of buddhists. in the same way some NLP practitioners are quite grounded, scientific and would never mention the word "quantum" while talking about it. you are going to get a different dinner served by different people. while the movement had distinct founders it has fragmented into many schools of thought that blanket statements dont really work on.

quick post there is a company called "the teaching company" that puts out university audio courses by leading lecturers. ttc - john searle - philosophy of mind & ttc - biology and human behaviour - the neurological origins of individuality are really bloody good and are very in depth. check em out on torrent sites. i will add important details to this discussion later but esentailly, once you break down the brain there is nothing about it that couldnt theoretically be done with computer software. check em out i will type some highlights up later. will get back to the conversation currently happening later. gotta have some stuff done by end of tonight.

drug use exists outside of shamanism spinning in cirlces exists outside of the sufi religion lighting incense exists outside of religious taoism but each action is an integral part of each system and is approached in a specific manner within that system. as for the extension and development..... picasso's paintings were just an extension and development of the whole "put pigments on a surface" idea. pretty much every paper in science is the extension and development of an idea. extending and developing is how humans progress. NLP has taken a variety of concepts from different fields, developed them and put them together into a formalised system (though there is no official system which means it is impossible to make blanket statements about the field) here is what happened you went to a workshop run by a bunch of wankers trying to take your money. you were angry and attatcked the system they were selling to you. you have formed a strong association in your mind between that system and negativity to the extent that you are psychologically blocking any possibility that there may be some parts of that system that arent bullshit. this blocking has been enhanced as you have made your thoughts public which means you feel more compelled to defend your idea regardless of evidence. hey, it happens to all of us. not a big deal.

dammit, you are making me break my no more forum for tonight rule ballzac ah well, short posts only how is anchoring pseudoscience? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(NLP) it is really the extension and development of the work of pavlov and his dogs. it is also a key technique in NLP System A uses technique Z if technique Z works, some of system A works If some of system A works, it is not completely bullshit

touche shroomy. i concede a point. context is indeed important. just because i use shipbuilding techniques to build a house, doesnt mean i am ship building. but what if it is a conventional looking house that floats on water? or what if it is a house on solid ground that looks like a ship? people will draw the line between the house and the ship built with the same techniques in very different ways. is NLP only NLP when it is a personal development system? what is it then if the same techniques are used to make more problems for the patient and impede development? what if the techniques are used to steal a persons wallet? i guess i call that video nlp because when i found out about derren brown i mostly learnt from nlp sources about how he was doing various things. someone learning from people calling themselves hypnotists would naturally call the same techniques hypnotism. regardless let me make the following case to ballzac 1) nlp uses certain techniques i can point you to many sites and resources for nlp that talk about these techniques in detail and probably put you in contact with nlp practitioners that use them 2) these specific techniques have been shown to be effective shown you a couple of quick videos and can provide anecdotal evidence of experiences of friends. if you accept 1) and 2) you have to accept 3) not all of nlp is bullshit time for me to stop writing forum posts for tonight i think. try not to spend too long each night. will come back to this thread later.

happy birthday dude, hope it was a good one

i would disagree shroomy and state that some of the techniques he used are common in NLP. rapport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapport_(NLP) anchoring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(NLP) some nlp people talking about pattern breaking http://www.sueknight.co.uk/AskSK/sa2/sa237.htm more info on swish patterns http://www.renewal.ca/nlp29.htm

here is another derren brown video i have posted before on this forum the whole rapport, dazzle, trance, suggest system is key to the milton or meta model in NLP. the technique with the girl and the colours is another key technique and a friend of mine has had it performed on her to help with a phobia with, so far, greater success than all other therapies. so yeah, derren brown does use NLP techniques. at the end of the day, im not defending any of the pseudoscience bullshit artists you are attacking. all im saying is that NLP is used as a vehicle to push a lot of peoples bullshit but that doesnt mean there arent people out there actually using it successfully.

if we could factor every proton, electron etc into the model IMHO we would have a model that could predict the future with 100% accuracy. of course a model like this is impossible as it would be a universe in itself. could the universe contain itself? but as a thought experiemtn i think if you modelled it down to that level of resolution you could predict the future with 100% accuracy as you would have control over any parameter in your moel like time. at this juncture i should say that while i beleive in a mechanistic model over any model relying on outside forces to exaplin things (models involving souls and all that business), i dont like the image the mechanistic model portrays and am a big fan of the philosophy often explained by alan watts. i would recommend checking out some alan watts mp3s because he is one of the most interesting speakers you will ever listen to. i will try to link to some of his material later that while not dismissing the mechanistic model, looks at it from a much better angle.

i'll try to make it to one soon. im annoyed i have missed both of them so far. doing the whole 9-5 deal at the moment and was exhausted last friday night.

i too hate pseudoscience. people who promote pseudoscience (perhaps they believe it, perhaps they are after cash) often justify their ideas by throwing in popular buzzwords that sound scientific. NLP, quantum, genetic and DNA are some that pop up. there is a face cream on the market called DNA something. nonsense buzzword usage. if any ladies want to rub some DNA into their faces i can help them out with my own patented DNA mix. i should say, considering the forum i am typing this in, that while mckenna wasnt too bad, a lot of his followers are serial buzzword droppers without understanding the concepts behind them. so yeah, while a lot of nlp promoters are absolutely full of shit, nlp itself can be very powerfull

cool insight into tuvan shamanism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCQNo0QxrfI...ted&search=

mint tins are also really handy. can use em for storing stuff or boxes for electrical projects. here is an article specifically dedicated to using altoid tins in pod related ways http://www.diylive.net/index.php/2005/12/0...n-with-an-ipod/

li will give you a quick run down on the path i think is important for good investing. 1. sign up to an online trading platform. the key difference between them is how much they charge per trade. to buy or sell a share with directshares.com.au is 27 bucks. comsec is around 20. i am with directshares because my bank is associated with them but i may make the switch to comsec in the future. 2. read some good books on the subject. i recommend "trading secrets" by Louise Bedford. good covering of the basics. i have read a few other books on specifics and am currently going through "adaptive analysis" by nick radge which focuses on technical analysis (using the charts to predict future share price) 3. start reading what others have to say about various companies on internet forums. www.hotcopper.com.au is where i go most of the time. just start reading about various companies and see what people have to say. what you need to realise is there are people who own shares in companies, and want other people to buy in to push the share price up. so they ramp the stock by speaking only positive things about it. you also get people who want to buy the share for cheaper, so they will try to scare people into selling to push the price downwards. there is an art to cutting through the bullshit in shares forums that cant really be taught. you learn what to look for in posts after a while and after getting burnt a few times. my advice is find posters who make predictions and then get them right and start following them around the forum to see learn all you can from them. 4. use all of your new found knowledge together. what you want to do is find good companies. either through forums or just going through lists of forums. you then want to analyse the chart or the company or both. there are 2 main schools of analysis with successfull traders from both camps. fundamental analysts look at the fundamentals of the company. what position is the company in? how is it looking in the future? is the director any good? etc etc technical analysts look at the chart and look for patterns in the data that predict future directions. then work out a stratergy. i buy mostly speculative stocks. a stock worth a few cents can double much quicker than a stock worth 20 bucks. i buy an amount that i am willing to risk. if the share then goes below a certain limit, i sell out. if it goes above a certain limit, i buy more, if it goes higher still, i buy more etc thats called pyramiding. when you finally find a share that starts rocketing up its easy to sit back and say "i wish i put more in at the start" forget that. if it looks like the share will keep going up buy more. you might only make 15% on the second lot purchased compared to 50% on your initial investment but thats still a good yield. hopefully i have helped with some of the basics. my own situation is i got given shares by parents when younger and developed an interest. saved up about 3 grand from nightfill job and put it into the market. kept saving up and putting 1000 amounts in when i could. my early days of trading involved few wins here, a few losses there. recently i have had a series of wins. shares like ibg, mox and sla have been very good to me. i have a blog on investment and various other things if people are interested. send me a pm and i will send you the link. edit: sorry bout all the bad english in this post. got some serious sleep deprivation going at the moment.

offsetting is good practice with seedlings from my experiences so far. i have done many grafts where the seedling was the exact size as the pereskiopsis with a nce smooth seal and most of them have failed. having a pereskiopsis stem slightly larger than the seedling and offsetting the seedling slightly seems to have increased my success rate but i havent tested this enough yet.

take a break from the thread if you want komodo but the unanswered questions in my posts will remain here awaiting an answer. to your post now... okay i could say hypothetical anything but my poiunt is an emotion is a strong feeling. what aspect of a feeling makes it only possible on neurons yet not digital hardware? i can think of no solid logical argument that prevents an AI from having a complicated response to a set problem. the data processing robot. find good data - positive emotive response - hapiness. failure of research it suggested - negative emotive response - unhapiness conflicting data - confused negative response - confusion lets get down to word definitions an emotion is a strong feeling. a feeling is merely a state. are different states for different situations really impossible to code into programs? okay a biological robot. an oxymoron in one respect. but what i want to communicate is that lower lifeforms dont think. they have inbuilt biological rules and they follow them blindly. are you really going to leave this conversation without adressing the problem of when conciousness develops and breaks free from previously mechanistic behaviour. what element is required? i think you misunderstand evolution i guess if you feel can explain the drive of life toward greater complexity, and the presence of strange attractors in fitness landscapes, purely in terms of base drives to reproduce and feed (the 'set tasks' i mentioned, of unknown origin), my point isnt substantial. sure greater complexity is fuelled by the simple rules of variation and selection. when you select the individuals in a population with the greeatest fitness, they wont necessarily be more complex than others. they are just the ones that produce the most offspring the reach an age where they can reproduce. but as a whole greater complexity provides natural benefits. why has the eye evolved independently in many different animals. because seeing your prey and predators increases your fitness. there are cases like lizards losing, legs to become snakes or bacteria losing proteins to develop resistance but on the whole complexity is encouraged by the system. i guess my question is. why, with a selection for animals that produce the most fertile offspring, would increased complexity not be selected for? its not a competion for the slickest smoothest simplest design. its a competition for survival and complexity is developed through this natural arms race