View Full Version : Mind and adaptation
The SAID principle (Specific Adaptation(s) to Imposed Demand(s)) states that, in general terms, the body adapts to an imposed stress, or better, change in order to respond (better) to such stimuli.
The SAID principle seems to be purely externally-driven, there is a stress and your CNS (we are not talking about mind) gives a signal (how, when and in what forms I do not know) to stimulate the synthesis of certain proteins which will provide the adaptation necessary.
The body adapts if the stimulus is strong enough (but not too strong).
I hope with this question to stimulate:
Can the adaptation process being internally-driven (read hypnosis)?
For example (I use almost every time kinda sport examples) muscle hypertrophy happens (it seems, there is not consensus) in response to mechanical stress of muscular fibres. Is it possible to obtain muscular hypertrophy (I mean, equal to the same obtained with external stress, that is loading) without mechanical stress (hypnosis)?
And the same for other physiological processes.
Vin
Vin,
It IS internally driven.
If it wasnt all of us would react the same way to the same stimulus.
No one would ever interpret pain as pleasure ... unless, of course, we all did.
So yes you can take any stimulus and generate whatever honest unconscious response you choose.
It is all movable furnuiture.
No walls, partitians or doors. We dont even know where the boundaries are.
cheers,
skip
Skip,
maybe we physically don't react in the exact way to the same stimuli, but our bodies are trying to maintain homeostasis, am I right?
I put the question because I think that adaptations can be (how much?) internally driven.
The other question is: how much?
And I have another tricky one (I' m not asking for the procedure, of course...). A client of yours (let's say me) asks for a little experiment (and pays the fee). I want to grow a thigh (muscle) 8% (or another reasonable or unreasonable number, what is reasonable, by the way?) bigger in circumference with respect to the other one. Well, I can do that by using external stimuli (no big deal), but can you do that by generating an unconscious response without the external stimuli?
Vin
Skip,
to clarify, as the discussion looks very interesting:
It IS internally driven.
My example is an internal response (let's say adaptive protein synthesis) to an internal signal (hormonal) provoked by a mechanical stress (let's say protein degradation) imposed externally (the load). A by-pass would be totally external adaptation.
If it wasnt all of us would react the same way to the same stimulus.
We (humans, I would say species in general) have a range of responses, it does not mean the range of responses is unbounded. Pathological reactions are typically on the extremes of the distribution. Otherwise they won't be pathological.
No one would ever interpret pain as pleasure ... unless, of course, we all did.
Yes, but I don't know how (and if) it fits.
So yes you can take any stimulus and generate whatever honest unconscious response you choose.
Any? And what does honest mean here? As I said in the previous post, there is the possibility, but here is too vague.
It is all movable furnuiture.
No walls, partitians or doors. We dont even know where the boundaries are.
Yes, I agree. In particular on we don't know, yet.
cheers,
skip
Vin
Merlin
12-22-2009, 02:04 PM
Skip,
maybe we physically don't react in the exact way to the same stimuli, but our bodies are trying to maintain homeostasis, am I right?body
or mind
I put the question because I think that adaptations can be (how much?) internally driven.
The other question is: how much?
And I have another tricky one (I' m not asking for the procedure, of course...). A client of yours (let's say me) asks for a little experiment (and pays the fee). I want to grow a thigh (muscle) 8% (or another reasonable or unreasonable number, what is reasonable, by the way?) bigger in circumference with respect to the other one. Well, I can do that by using external stimuli (no big deal), but can you do that by generating an unconscious response without the external stimuli?
Vin
yep, easy
Vin,
"Well, I can do that by using external stimuli (no big deal), but can you do that by generating an unconscious response without the external stimuli?"
Yes easily.
Lets cut to the chase here, OK?
I administer morphene, and the body has a response, that the mind interprets, as pain diminishing.
What caused the mind to 'understand' that the pain diminished?
The morphene, (external) or the bodys response (internal)?
Does the body 'need' the morphene, in order to have the response, that the mind then interprets ...?
No it doesnt.
The body can 'imagine' the morphene again, if it has ever had it before, and the mind will interpret; diminished pain.
OR
You can simply recall, other times, when pain spontaneously diminished, and imagine this is one of those times now, and the mind will ...
If you dont believe me, try this little experiment.
Have you ever been sexually excited?
Do you remember when?
Can you recall the details, in your mind, vividly?
Can doing something like that cause you to become sexually excited again?
I susopect it can, if you are healthy, n'cest pas?
Where is the external stimuli?
You are making it too easy Vin.
And it is beginning to make me wonder if you really think about things at all.
Or do you just imagine you do?
Because if you really thought about your question, I suspect you would realize the answer is obvious.
You do seem smart enough.
And this isnt a put down, or an attemt to belittle you in any way.
The questions are good in so far as they go.
BUT
If you really gave some thought to how your body/mind is working now, and has all your life, would you be asking as you have?
I think not.
But it isnt lack of intellect or effort on your part.
I suspect it is because you are so accustomed to it working so nicely naturally, that you simply dont notice.
And in that you certainly arent alone.
So does the question now become, "How does one notice?"
cheers,
skip
Merlin, body or mind, yes. I know that also your definition of mind is very different from the definition of brain.
I know for you is easy, but how much? In that particular case or in general, what's the limit of the physiological response we can obtain ? Is there a limit?
Vin
Vin,
"Well, I can do that by using external stimuli (no big deal), but can you do that by generating an unconscious response without the external stimuli?"
Yes easily.
Easily depends on how much? If I said, in the particular example, 70% bigger (or whatever big number you want, not trying to quantify:)) would you honestly say, yes easily?
Lets cut to the chase here, OK?
I administer morphene, and the body has a response, that the mind interprets, as pain diminishing.
Pain is a tricky one, it will open a can of worms.
What caused the mind to 'understand' that the pain diminished?
As above.
The morphene, (external) or the bodys response (internal)?
It is quite different from the examples I proposed, while very interesting and it is the basis of hypnosis for pain (and hypnosis in general).
Does the body 'need' the morphene, in order to have the response, that the mind then interprets ...?
No it doesnt.
The body can 'imagine' the morphene again, if it has ever had it before, and the mind will interpret; diminished pain.
OR
You can simply recall, other times, when pain spontaneously diminished, and imagine this is one of those times now, and the mind will ...
Yes. Or you can imagine, other times, when you were a baby maybe, and your body was growing and, just like before, now you have the same opportunies for growing...
And after a few sessions, the poor little man came back just an inch shorter than Yao Ming.:D
Or maybe, by going back in time, just imaging, you can find the fountain of youth and escape the aging we all observe all around us.
Understand what you are saying, no doubt, but for one example, I can find many others.
If you dont believe me, try this little experiment.
Have you ever been sexually excited?
Yes, a few thousand times (not all consumed:))
Do you remember when?
Not all, too many, but yes, sure.
Can you recall the details, in your mind, vividly?
Yes, I can.
Can doing something like that cause you to become sexually excited again?
Not all the time, thought many times about that. Am I able to have an erection anytime I want in every setting (talking about casual setting)? No, probably because I lack some self-regulation, but I know it is feasible. It is an example, don't really interested in that. But I remember many times I didn't want and I had (casual setting, unfortunately).
I susopect it can, if you are healthy, n'cest pas?
Healthy, yes.
Where is the external stimuli?
You are making it too easy Vin.
Absolutely not. See the example with growing in height. Can you make me 230 cm? If you say yes you will be the Nobel Prize easily, maybe you are not interested. But if you say no, it means I am not making it too easy Skip, am I right? Because if you says the range of opportunities is unbounded, well Nobel Prize and more. And a big thank you from all humanity.:D+
I now that my example is biased, sure, and you are too smart for not seeing that, but you were growing when you were a child, weren't you?
And it is beginning to make me wonder if you really think about things at all.
Oh yes.
Or do you just imagine you do?
Because if you really thought about your question, I suspect you would realize the answer is obvious.
Not so much Skip, you are smarter than that.
You do seem smart enough.
And this isnt a put down, or an attemt to belittle you in any way.
No problem, enjoying the discussion. I am here to learn.
The questions are good in so far as they go.
BUT
If you really gave some thought to how your body/mind is working now, and has all your life, would you be asking as you have?
Yes, my questions are precise and if you read carefully, but it is not needed, I say yes, changes are internal, but the following question is how much? When? Maybe how? Which kind of responses? Same obtainable with external simuli? Or simply bounded don't know where? Without testosterone injections (and more) can you make me as muscular as a winner of Mr Olympia?
I think not.
As I said, you are smarter than that.
But it isnt lack of intellect or effort on your part.
I suspect it is because you are so accustomed to it working so nicely naturally, that you simply dont notice.
Yes, sure, but you miss the point, it is possible (of course) but how much, when etc.? Maybe Kipling's famous questions.
And in that you certainly arent alone.
So does the question now become, "How does one notice?"
Very Ericksonian, I like (in part) that. It was my first love, but time passes, love changes.
cheers,
skip
Vin, enjoying
Note to followers of this thread: I cannot count the number of times I have been down this road with someone whose reality is about to change in such a fundamantal way. If it can still be found in the 'Old Forum' archives, a poster named 'Cassandra' (Greek was not lost on this poster) struggled mightly to hold on to 'reality' (Cassandra's belief in science) and finally failed much to his delight.
Vin writes, or so I hallucinate,
".... Or you can imagine, other times, when you were a baby maybe, and your body was growing and, just like before, now you have the same opportunies for growing...
And after a few sessions, the poor little man came back just an inch shorter than Yao Ming...Or maybe, by going back in time, just imaging, you can find the fountain of youth and escape the aging we all observe all around us...Understand what you are saying, no doubt, but for one example, I can find many others...Absolutely not. See the example with growing in height. Can you make me 230 cm? If you say yes you will be the Nobel Prize easily, maybe you are not interested. But if you say no, it means I am not making it too easy Skip, am I right? Because if you says the range of opportunities is unbounded, well Nobel Prize and more. And a big thank you from all humanity.+
I now that my example is biased, sure, and you are too smart for not seeing that, but you were growing when you were a child, weren't you?"
And since physiological changes have been done, such as height, breast enlargement/reduction, age reduction, and others ...
And since you, in your unconscious wisdom, have elucidated one of the key elements to how those changes are accomplished...
Who deserves the Nobel prize?
I'll give you a hint.
Nor Gore or Obama.
Vin, it is ALL internal. ALL You experience the world (reality) as it is filtered by your five +/- senses and your mind interprets the data of those senses, not reality itsself, and makes a representation, of what it thinks is out there, and responds according to that representation.
If you want a metaphor that explains it, "We confuse the menu for the meal."
Or as Korzybski put it, "The map isnt the territory."
But you (we) confuse it as such, mostly because it is all we have to go on.
We know better, intellectually.
But reality is, "We dont know reality at all." At best, we are twice removed.
Now I'll grant you it works well enough for us to get around, and eat, sleep, procreate, drive cars, etc. We can even communicate with each other, after a fashion.
BUT we cannot even be sure there are others out there!
We might be fooling ourselves on that one. I might not be here, it could be all you Vin, fooling yourself. And of course if that is the case, what is impossible for you then, eh?
Aristotle put it succinctly.
"Cognito ergo potato. I think therefore I yam." I'll not bore you with the logic chain.
And the dirty little secret is that all the above is irrelevent.
Or rather, since you cant actually know what truth (reality) is, truth itsself becomes irrelevent.
And since you operate on a representation of truth, and respond as if that representation is truth (whether actually true or not), any 'truth' you will do ... as long as you believe it is true.
And there you have the human condition.
You create your reality, and you alter it at will, and you live and operate in that creation and abide by its rules until you accidentally or deliberately alter your beliefs (understanding) of it. When you do that your reality changes.
Which brings me back to something I said earlier. "It is all movable furniture."
For all we really know, Yao Ming may be only 2'3", and all of us have entered into the trance that he is 7'+.
That ought to be enough for one day.
cheers,
skip --- off to jump off of the roof to see if I have that flying belief down pat yet.
Skip,
your reasoning is very interesting, and yes, I read it before, even that lady Cassandra, I remember well.
And I think you deserve an answer, even if your part in blue seemed a little bit paternalistic (attention to other posters please...). Well, I'd like to be a MD and answering to question raised by relatives "Is she dead?". Well, I could answer, it depends on your reality. She did not breath in 24 hours, heart stopped 5 days ago, she's frozen like a fish, but we don't have to bury her, as it all depends on your map (or your menu, if you follow me with fish).
Because, I don't know how many times I had this kind of exchange, a shot in the head with a a gun seems to be likely to interrupt life, according to general consensus on what is life. General consensus is key, also for our communication, and this is one the reasons why if I ask "Pass me the bread, please" and they pass me the wine, I'd ask myself: same language? And not "her reality is different than mine". But maybe I'm wrong.
Or when I make stop smoking sessions (and I have been quite successful), you know how I test my work? By looking if they are smoking or not!
As the vast majority of people seem to know what a meter is, I ask you, not in polemic way, but for the sake of discussion, can you make me grow in height 230 cm (random number)? Measurement according to general consensus (or the trance almost anyone seem to have). And I say height to pick something measureable (I'm more than happy with my height), as an example for my question about range of physiological responses (strategy and intensity). Or winning Mr Olympia, according to the opinion of judges? Probably I have to change examples, always morphology:D.
In this context, science is not involved (as a method of discovery, while the experiment I proposed if repeatable, not biased and so on would be very scientific).
Keep in mind that in general terms I agree with Korbz.
Probably I missed the point, but you know better than me that the meaning of communication is...
Or probably I'm not smart enough to understand, but according to what reality?
Always respecting your opinion and eager to learn.
Vin
"As the vast majority of people seem to know what a meter is..."
So your theory would be: "If enough people buy into a particular trance, it makes that trance reality?"
Or in the interest of accuracy, consensus= reality.
And I am not ignoring the rest of the question, "... can you make me grow in height 230 cm (random number)? " It has already been asked and answered. YES. Been done. More than once. By more than one person.
Next question please.
Now Vin, I likely sound paternalistic, because I am beginning to become a bit frustrated.
I tell you you cant know reality.
And you tell me that you can measure it.
You didnt address what I said.
One of us either isnt getting it.
Or doesnt want to.
We both know science has never been wrong. People declared dead have never been revived, and those shot in the head invarably die. Well at least eventually. ;
And what is dead anyway? How do you know people dont simply go elsewhere, and like it so much, no one 'comes back'? That is what one fellow who did 'die' and came back (he didnt want to) told me. I asked him about Hell, he said "They didnt mention it, and I was not about to bring it up."
If science is the standard you want ...If science is the God of your idolitry, that is fine by me. By all means create unbiased, duplicatable experiments, and abide by the results, rejecting everything else.
Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
Or you can allow that there might be more. In fact far more unknown than is known and what is 'known' is really only conjecture.
And start from there.
cheers,
skip
Poodle
12-23-2009, 01:19 PM
Vin is relatively "new" to this world of nonreality of ours so let's cut him some slack. If he hangs around here long enough he will become a believer in things he never considered even believing.
Many of us have been using "mind" meds for some time now. We used to be able to work with drug addicts and receive insurance reimbursement. That all changed when Bandler moved to England. We are on our own now. It took time -- once a day for 30 days.
The mind remembers and remembers everything very well. This should tell you that it can remember a certain drug/alcohol/tobacco if it has ever experienced it before. It just needs to know how to recall it. We can make it so that it recalls it (whatever it may be) in a safe and secure manner with no ill side effects.
Some years ago we had a member that wanted to be a drug councelor. He found out what we do and he was outta here to learn it so he could really help people.
Now I need to send you a little PM for Christmas.
Merry Christmas~Pood :)
Skip,
I'm sorry you interpret things the way you want, because my communication was quite clear and you can read that.
"As the vast majority of people seem to know what a meter is..."
So your theory would be: "If enough people buy into a particular trance, it makes that trance reality?"
No, I said that if enough (we have to quantify enough, and it depends on what we are referring to) people are buying into a particular trance there is general consensus. Can you say that the vast majority of people (let's restrict the question to people living in Europe, not US a you are still emotional attached to inch, foot and so on) does not know what a meter is, let's say plus or minus 20 cm (you know, different people different accuracy)?
Because if there is no vast majority, I hope communication with planes will be done according to another general consensus. Otherwise, well I am little scared of planes.:D
Or in the interest of accuracy, consensus= reality.
No. I talked about consensus and it was clear enough.
And I am not ignoring the rest of the question, "... can you make me grow in height 230 cm (random number)? " It has already been asked and answered. YES. Been done. More than once. By more than one person.
Skip, Skip. I used the height as a example, the question, repeated many times, was: are the possibilities for changing physiology unbounded? You ignored the question and it is fine, but the question was asked many times. And I never implied that the correct was answer was no. Never. I never said it cannot be done. Skeptic? Yes. Can I grow a wing? Can I change my body and fly? According to general consensus if a get smashed on the ground I cannot. So, are the possibilities for changing physiology unbounded? Can you make me win Mr Olympia (or better going to the finals, as judges have an agenda) without external stressors or without steroid injections? Well, this has never been done (all people were working out, so there were at least stressors).
Next question please.
You have many above, if you want.
Now Vin, I likely sound paternalistic, because I am beginning to become a bit frustrated.
Sure, I can understand, I'm feeling the same way when questions are escaped (and I did not deserve any answer, this is clear, in my opinion it is only a genuine discussion). And in all honesty, my questions were clear.
I tell you you cant know reality.
And you tell me that you can measure it.
Never said. I said that communication is based on general consensus. I repeat, I never said that.
You didnt address what I said.
I think I had, maybe according to your reality I did not.
One of us either isnt getting it.
Maybe both?
Or doesnt want to.
Same.
We both know science has never been wrong. People declared dead have never been revived, and those shot in the head invarably die. Well at least eventually. ;
And what is dead anyway? How do you know people dont simply go elsewhere, and like it so much, no one 'comes back'? That is what one fellow who did 'die' and came back (he didnt want to) told me. I asked him about Hell, he said "They didnt mention it, and I was not about to bring it up."
Skip, I said that according to general consensus about life (you know, things like breathing, heartbeat, maybe brain activity) a shot in the head is likely to cause death (according to general consensus, so it is addressed also the "people may go elsewhere"). And I could shuffle from frequency to probability, as the number of cases is high enough, since the discovery of black powder. This was very clear, but you prefer changing to "what is dead anyway?" and you ignore my fundamental sentence "according to general consensus". I think you are not presenting a coherent picture. I don't know how many times in this forum, questions have been addressed with "you have to go to a MD to find out if there are any organic causes". How does it fit in all your framework about reality? You know, MD generally practice science (medicine is a science). Maybe you can answer that MDs can go so far. But where are the boundaries of involvment of science, in your reality? I liked the part about hell.
If science is the standard you want ...If science is the God of your idolitry, that is fine by me. By all means create unbiased, duplicatable experiments, and abide by the results, rejecting everything else.
Never said that. Don't have any god. Science provide a framework which proved to be pretty useful. You know, things like Internet I'm using right now, or many other million things I know you know. Is there an intrinsic limit in scientific discovery? Yes sure, never said there is not. But maybe you prefer thinking my god is science, it's easier.
Otherwise you are a hypocrite.
Well, I said I never said that, therefore I consider myself not a hypocrite.
Or you can allow that there might be more. In fact far more unknown than is known and what is 'known' is really only conjecture.
Skip, I agree.
And start from there.
cheers,
skip
Merlin
12-24-2009, 09:39 AM
vin,
When an experienced hypnotist says that something is possible, she is almost always right. When she states that something is impossible, she is almost always wrong.
we don't know the limits
Merlin,
I like that, we don't know the limits. I like that (not that I did not like other answers).
So, I would like very much to know (maybe by doing my own experiments) my limits (as a subject and as a hypnotist). Maybe with the help of you guys.
Vin
Merlin
12-24-2009, 12:04 PM
Merlin,
I like that, we don't know the limits. I like that (not that I did not like other answers).
So, I would like very much to know (maybe by doing my own experiments) my limits (as a subject and as a hypnotist). Maybe with the help of you guys.
Vin
to me, extremes/limits are unethical.
Merlin,
is changing the self image one of the ways to go?
Vin
I was looking in the archive and I found this post by Merlin (it was in a thread about eye colour):
Two points:
1- my big toenail on my left foot has exactly the same genetic code as my iris.
Something other than genes differentiates the two or i'd have eyeballs growing on my toes.
2- the mind is capable of altering the genetic codes.
For some reason, these two points were not further investigated in the previous thread and I believe they fit very well here when talking about mind and adaptations.
And I was also thinking about adaptations within present genetic opportunities (i) and adaptations outside the present genetic opportunities (ii) (point 2 above).
As for points i) and ii), means and ends?
Merlin
12-28-2009, 11:13 AM
the mind controls the expression of genes.
there is possibly 10s of thousands of variations of each gene.
study epigenetics to know more [start with links in my FAQ]