Denial,delusion and deleted gorillas T

[Feralchild]

There is a classic experiment in sociology,that I believe someone in NLP/hypnotherapy replicated in a training ;that involved having a couple of people in gorilla suits walk around the traing room then asking the trainees to comment on the gorillas:most people denied their existence.
Unfortunately,many people exist in a profoundly delusional state because they have an irrational fear of learning and will endlessly try to defend an untenable position rather than simply admitting they were wrong and adopting a more realistic perspective.

[Corrie van Wijk]

I remember this was about attention. Could you give a reference?

And when ["Unfortunately, many people exist in a profoundly delusional state"],what would you like to have happen?

How do you know ["they have an irrational fear of learning"] and ["will endlessly try to defend an untenable position"]?

And when ["rather than simply admitting they were wrong"]?, what happens to you?

How do you know which perspective is ["more realistic"]?

And then what happens?

[Feralchild]

I would not regard attention as being the central theme.
What I would like to happen is for the people concerned to refrain from defensive abreactions and get in touch with reality.
The fear is irrational because it puts them in conflict with observable(though deniable)reality,this type of (ab)reaction tends to be a global response to things which challenge their conceptual structure.
What happens to me?,I may become annoyed.
How do I know which perspective is more is more realistic? I am a functional person,rather than dysfunctional.
And then what happens?Feralchild finds the question too nebulous to provide a useful response.

[Steve Saunders]

an interesting reflection ...
if the fear is dissociated one might not even be aware of it, like the cultural fields and projected energies placed at those around one.
How does one explain the difference between knowing and believing, between gnosis and 'intellectual knowing'?
One evidence is the shared realising of those who 'fully embody' (my term for the consciousness), the real knowing of "YAHWEH".

[Feralchild]

WARNING:MAY CONTAIN GORILLAS.
We often seek to try and understand the world by building rule-based conceptual structures,the problem is that most peoples structures are not sufficiently robust,or inclusive;and often the structure is maintained at the cost of denying,distorting and deleting incoming information from the outside world:note the effectiveness of the word "because" in changework.
Emergent processes tend to turn perception into more of a process where perception operates without the model-based constraints,and more information from the world can be usefully accessed.

[Feralchild]

"Shared realising" makes a worthwhile point.A great deal of human neurology,and the on/off triggers for genes support a group social structure and "herd instinct".
It's worth considering that the NLP metaprogram of internal/external reference structure is inherently biased towards the external,and that those who challenge accepted thinking tend to be ostracised.

[Feralchild]

Corrie-though I take your point about attention,and agree that information must ultimately be funneled through the sort of bottlenecks that attention theory illustrates,I regard it as more useful to examine the nature of the bottlenecks.

[Feralchild]

Hasn't it gone quiet on this thread? Q.E.D. methinks :)

[Steve Saunders]

Or we have just been away over the holiday weekend, off-grid, surfing and enjoying time with our children ...

I have not really analysed the emergent processes for myself regarding unstructured mind, but as you bring it up ... instead of the drip-drip-drip---emergence needed by socially conditioned minds, the unstructured mind has complete instant revelation, perhaps high-speed replay or rewind or knowing, and there are different question forms for such minds, including the nominally autistic and nonlexic minds.

Of course the bottlenecks are what requires examining, but also I suggest the biological view is fundamentally flawed - it is not biology-first, but rather the esoteric "all is mind" that is revealed to be the deeper truth IMO - and all the language about amygdala's etc is missing the point.

Am looking forward to finding out who feralchild really is at the Sunrise Celebration - sure we will enjoy a long chat - perhaps we can call this emergent gathering no.5.

Steven

[Corrie van Wijk]

We're up to number 4 Steve, and their can be no emergence gathering without me!;)

[Corrie van Wijk]

For the gorilla experiment, go to: http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/grafs/demos/15.html

Jeff Sickles (http://www.sicklesinsight.com/author/admin/): "Perceptual blindness — including related phenomena is known as inattentional blindness and change blindness. When people are engaged in an engrossing task, such as monitoring swimmers in a pool, they often fail to notice otherwise obvious events because they happen outside the immediate focus of attention.
[...] Scientists have been researching this “inattentional blindness”, and other similar phenomenon - and the theory seems to be that there is no perception without attention."

[Corrie van Wijk]

F: "What I would like to happen is for the people concerned to refrain from defensive abreactions and get in touch with reality. The fear is irrational because it puts them in conflict with observable (though deniable) reality, this type of (ab)reaction tends to be a global response to things which challenge their conceptual structure."

And when [you become annoyed], what happens to your client?


And when "Emergent processes tend to turn perception into more of a process where perception operates without the model-based constraints [...] ." what happens to 'to try and understand the world'?


And when "I regard it as more useful to examine the nature of the bottlenecks.": what happens to 'The fear is irrational'?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Steve: "I suggest the biological view is fundamentally flawed - it is not biology-first, but rather the esoteric "all is mind" that is revealed to be the deeper truth IMO - and all the language about amygdala's etc is missing the point."

Science has long distanced itself from a dualistic view of the working of the human brain; and all esoteric language is religious in nature and missing the point.

[Feralchild]

Annoyance? Depending on what I'm doing,I may be careful about eliciting this type of response,and would regard it as counterproductive to be visibly annoyed with a client,though I'm still just starting to explore clean concepts as of yet,and haven't tried them out in practise.
"Trying to understand the world" may be replaced by perceiving fully,then seeking an explanation,if one is required;rather than rejecting aspects of reality that do not match the persons expectations.
It might be more proper to say that I am examining the bottlenecks because I don't have this fear;hopefully a proper examination by others would enable them to lose any they had.
Essentially,I regard gorilla deletion as an active process,rather than a consequence of reductionism.
As to the exclusion of nonattended items,I would regard this as operating only on a conscious level.

[Corrie van Wijk]

"perceiving fully" would perhaps be the result of the clean question "Is there anything else about that?"

What needs to happen for "a proper examination by others would enable them to lose any ['I don't have this fear'] they had."

"Essentially, I regard gorilla deletion as an active process, rather than a consequence of reductionism."
and
"As to the exclusion of nonattended items, I would regard this as operating only on a conscious level."
The results of the experiments prove the opposite.

[Steve Saunders]

Er not all esoteric language is religious, although there may be something to the 'god spot' that when activated seems to give longer life and belief in things beyond just the physical. This might be called 'gnosis', but science is as much a religion as any formal religion. The very claims of scientific method leave much in the assumptions and things like blind trials are misdesigned when one knows the observer DOES affect the experiment.
Science is dissociated from the imaginary, to its cost, and scientists are just as likely to burn people at the stake, or at least the modern equivalent - destroying careers of the heretics.

Then Corrie you had better buy a sunrise ticket and come camping from Thursday in sunny somerset (www.sunrisecelebration.com).

Steven

[Feralchild]

With much of research,contradictory results for most things seem to be pretty much the norm,selective perception anyone? :)

[Corrie van Wijk]

What needs to happen for "a proper examination by others would enable them to lose any ['I don't have this fear'] they had."

You choose not to answer this question; yet it is essential. Would you give it a try?

P.S. Steve: you should know better than 'better buy a sunrise ticket'.

[Corrie van Wijk]

And when "Feralchild finds the question too nebulous to provide a useful response", how old could it be?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Statement F (A): "Unfortunately, many people exist in a profoundly delusional state because they have an irrational fear of learning and will endlessly try to defend an untenable position rather than simply admitting they were wrong and adopting a more realistic perspective." (B)

C: "I remember this was about attention. Could you give a reference?"

F: "I would not regard attention as being the central theme."

F: "though I take your point about attention, and agree that information must ultimately be funneled through the sort of bottlenecks that attention theory illustrates,

I regard it as more useful to examine the nature of the bottlenecks." (B1)

Jeff Sickles (http://www.sicklesinsight.com/author/admin/): "Perceptual blindness — including related phenomena is known as inattentional blindness and change blindness."

F: "Essentially, I regard gorilla deletion as an active process, rather than a consequence of reductionism.
As to the exclusion of nonattended items, I would regard this as operating only on a conscious level."

C: "The results of the experiments prove the opposite."

And when ["With much of research, contradictory results for most things seem to be pretty much the norm, selective perception anyone?"], how does this relate to ["Unfortunately, many people exist in a profoundly delusional state because they have an irrational fear of learning and will endlessly try to defend an untenable position rather than simply admitting they were wrong and adopting a more realistic perspective."]:D

And when you ["regard it as more useful to examine the nature of the bottlenecks."](B1), how do you know if, and so, what kind of ['bottleneck'] the client is experiencing?

[Feralchild]

A proper examination by others?Though I'm not entirely sure of your criteria,I'd assume that this would come under the heading of scaling,as would the matter of the bottleneck.
How old could it be-what is the "it" being referred to?
I.M.O. an overly selective perception and a profoundly delusional state are close relatives,distanced more by my rather unclean descriptions.

[Corrie van Wijk]

F: "A proper examination by others?"

I was referring to your statement: "I am examining the bottlenecks because I don't have this fear; hopefully a proper examination by others would enable them to lose any they had."

F: "Though I'm not entirely sure of your criteria, I'd assume that this would come under the heading of scaling, as would the matter of the bottleneck."

I never said it should be examined by others, that was your idea.

Scaling would be a way of making the client aware of the context; developing a metaphor like ['bottleneck'] could be a way of finding a solution (it has an exit strategy). but only when using the description the client comes up with themselves.

Since you are the one using the metaphor ['bottleneck'], my question is to you, about how you are dealing with something you experience as some kind of problem: ["I regard it as more useful to examine the nature of the bottlenecks."] (B1)

F: "How old could it be? -what is the 'it' being referred to?"

The 'it' refers to Feralchild in your answer: ["Feralchild finds the question too nebulous to provide a useful response."]

David: "In the course of the session, the client may be answering questions from the third person viewpoint. When moved to adjacent spaces they may change this view and become the person in the picture. When they do this, they will use the ‘I’ pronoun. For example they might previously have been talking about ‘the girl’ and then they refer to her as ‘I’." (2005)

And when ["an overly selective perception"] and ["a profoundly delusional state"] are ["close relatives"], ["distanced more by my rather unclean descriptions"], what happens to your client?

[Corrie van Wijk]

Hi Steve,

Sorry: I did notice you jumping around in your gorilla suit, but I decided to concentrate my attention on my discussion with F.

There is no such thing as a 'god spot', except perhaps in some people's mind. If they believe that, it may very well be that this 'belief in things beyond just the physical' gives them 'longer life' becasue it saves stress. Whatever anyone calls it, 'gnosis' or whatever, 'science is' not 'as much a religion as any formal religion'. The difference between 'claims of scientific method' and a religion is that the former can be doubted of, the latter tends to 'destroy [...] the heretics'.

[Steve Saunders]

Ah Corrie, but I've seen a Horizon TV programme where they showed imaged brains and activity in an area, which was 'on' for people who believed in a God, and off for athiests. Maybe its not true, as the statistical sample of such a show has no meaning, and personally I do not believe in such a thing, but all the same, there are stats on longer living for people with certain kinds of beliefs ... the mind does affect the body, surely that is indisputable?

PS and be nice to feralchild, we have met, and they are a lovely person.

[Corrie van Wijk]

Brains have specialized neurons for concepts: they are the result of experience, not the cause!

[Steve Saunders]

aha, finally - indeed, experience first, chemistry later ...

[Corrie van Wijk]

Processing of perception shapes neuronal pathways.

[Steve Saunders]

so finally is this agreeing that the mind shapes the physicality ... teehee, as it is ...

[Corrie van Wijk]

No, perception is not your idea of 'mind'.

[Feralchild]

Hi Corrie, "bottleneck" is simply my description of something I am describing more as an abstract principle,rather than a personal or interpersonal metaphor,the client should be exploring their own perspectives for themselves.
I'd suspect that my response to "how old is it" was influenced by the degree of abstraction suggested by the question,otherwise I am still in the midst of a nebulous cloud. :)
Hi Steven,me and my invisible friend thank you for your kind words :)

[Corrie van Wijk]

F: "How do I know which perspective is more is more realistic? I am a functional person, rather than dysfunctional."

C: "And then what happens?"

F: "Feralchild finds the question too nebulous to provide a useful response."

F: "I am still in the midst of a nebulous cloud. :)"

And when you are ["a functional person"] and ["still in the midst of a nebulous cloud. :)"], does it have a shape or a size?

[Steve Saunders]

To start waking up from the matrix: notice an emotion, go inside it, then inside the answer 5 more times; you will find a younger self who has the emotions coming from someone else ... go inside their emotions etc, and you will free this emotion ... do it for all your responses to the world and thoughts, and soon enough you will start to awaken as to what is really going on ... come on ... wakey-wakey

[Feralchild]

The cloud does not seem to be well defined,hence the nebulousity.

[MatthewH]

Yawn... Morning!

[Corrie van Wijk]

And when "The cloud does not seem to be well defined, hence the nebulousity.", how far does it go?

Hi Matthew,

Sunny non-nebulous morning? Grant us some sunshine too?

Corrie

[MatthewH]

Today my delusion will mainly be :

The only thing in this universe that is constant and doesn't change is my consciousness.

[Feralchild]

Well Corrie,I could always simply avoid metaphor and point out that the "how old is it" question seemed innapropriate,the nebulous cloud was partly a play on the words "nebula cloud".

[Corrie van Wijk]

And when you ['could always simply avoid metaphor'], what is outside of that metaphor?

And when you ['point out that the "how old is it" question seemed innapropriate'], how far does the pointing go out?

[Feralchild]

i am,but the question is;how far does the pointing go in,now that it has reached you? :)

[Corrie van Wijk]

And when [you are outside of that metaphor]], whereabout's [the midst of a nebulous cloud]?

And when ['the question is; how far does the pointing go in, now that it has reached you? :)'], how far does the pointing go in, from the time it has reached me?

[Corrie van Wijk]

And whenever [you could always simply avoid the midst of a nebulous cloud and point out], what happens to [point in]?