![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by AmyH on December 6, 2003, at 12:23:13
In reply to Re: Weather Control, posted by Neil Slade on December 6, 2003, at 10:53:34
> Even if it were just a million people listening and focusing on "rain rain today" that would still be a pretty impressive number, and I doubt that any government project ever had anywhere near that number of people agreeing on anything whatsoever.That's impressive. Premiere Radio Networks also syndicates the Rush Limbaugh show, which only attracts 20 million listeners all week. Premiere's Web site does not seem to include audience information except that they say Coast to Coast is a night program with daytime ratings. It seems if the show had more than five times the audience (20 million individual listeners five nights a week) as Premiere's most popular daytime show, they would say that instead.
It seems unlikely that on any given night, one in 11 US adults would listen to the same radio show. It seems unlikely that many more than one in 11 US adults would be up all night at all, much less listening to the radio. Arbitron might be a better source for audience estimates, though, since in the radio industry audience ratings are related to revenue. Premiere has a vested interest in representing a strong audience because it would increase revenue. Most people I know have heard of Rush Limbaugh, but few have heard of Art Bell, or have listened to Coast to Coast AM.
I hope this isn't too tedious, but I took some statistics courses in college, and these things fascinate me.
Even if a program claimed an average 15 minute audience of 1 million people, standard rating methods identify listeners within earshot of the spoken word of that radio station. How do you know everyone who could hear the radio was interested, or agreed to participate in what you were doing? It seems if you claim to have enlisted 20 million people in an experiment and after a quick check the number turns out to be less than a million, we need to consider that when we assess the provenance of your claims. If a researcher claims estimated radio listeners as active participants, that also seems relevant to the provenance of experimental findings. You probably agree that truly intellectual scientific thinkers make efforts to consider the provenance of information.
The same Clear Channel radio stations were somewhat successful earlier this year in enlisting reasonably large numbers of people to support pro-war rallies in several cities. In that case, we know how many people participated because they showed up at rallies. Estimates nationwide counted about 20,000 people at the Clear Channel funded war rallies. New York Times reported that Clear Channel was the only active organizer of pro-war demonstrations nationwide. I guess that could be considered a military effort since the military (or more precisely an intelligence agency) hired a public relations firm to work with Clear Channel to organize the demonstrations. During your experiments, did anyone consider using group mind control to get Saddam Hussein? Do you still accept invitations to appear on Clear Channel programs?
Posted by Neil Slade on December 6, 2003, at 12:50:26
In reply to Re: Weather Control, posted by AmyH on December 6, 2003, at 12:23:13
I've gotten lots of requests to do brain focus experiments
on all kinds of things, personal, politcal and war included.
I would suggest people first focus on voting out
republicans from the US Government.As for regularly leading massive mind control experiments-
I leave that up to television programmers and Madison Avenue
advertising executives.As to numbers of people listening to Coast to Coast, unlike
my references to the medical literature and experts in brain
research of which I regularly cite sources, its an informal
estimate straight from the mouths of the broadcast
company itself, and nothing more. You probably have a point.
Why don't you write to the company and ask them the source
of their numbers.
Posted by Neil Slade on December 6, 2003, at 13:01:36
In reply to Re: Weather Control, posted by Neil Slade on December 6, 2003, at 12:50:26
BTW,
I accept most large audience invitations to speak on my
subject matter, including Clear Channel. The hosts of
Coast to Coast, Art Bell and George Noory, are both
rather anti-establishment, quite the opposite of Rush L.
And even if Rush invitied me to talk, I would be
happy to let him know how much of his brain I believed
might be dormant.But, I think this is a medical bulletin board, not
a political one, eh.... so, I think I've said enough
about that.
Posted by maxx44 on December 7, 2003, at 0:11:15
In reply to Re: Weather Control, posted by AmyH on December 6, 2003, at 1:23:44
may surprise you both. want rain? ask Zeus--before you call me nuts, consider---the 'multi-verse' has heft. some noteable quantum and life-science guys are saying ancient or future events reflect not only the 'quantum participator' hypothesis of dr. john wheeler, et.al., sort of you 'interpret' the 'meaningless sea of quanta' as 'it rains'---while others would say, as the greeks used zuse for rain for thousands of years, that creates a 'chreode of possibility'---like a valley you drop a marble into---it will follow the smoothest path, the one more established in time. how? seems there are no laws of nature, rather habits. so some 'multi-verse' advocates point-out---the universe of the classic greeks may bear inluence on the present. some say it still exists, another part of the multi-verse, now in our past. time separates us. like we're hopping from universe to universe every 'whatever' unit of time. that would explain 'positive thinking', etc. interesting?
Posted by Neil Slade on December 7, 2003, at 2:47:15
In reply to Re: Weather Control, posted by maxx44 on December 7, 2003, at 0:11:15
Yeah, well I think I get what Maxx is saying, and I dig it.
We are like projectors-- you see what you expect to see, and in this way travel from universe to universe.
It's the Baxter Effect I mentioned previously.I haven't done a web search for The Baxter Effect, might be worth while....
thanks Maxx
Posted by maxx44 on December 7, 2003, at 15:58:21
In reply to Re: Weather Control, posted by Neil Slade on December 7, 2003, at 2:47:15
and thank you, sir. i truly suspect invoking Zeus, 'Cloud-Gatherer, Lightning Hurler' to be the ancient 'trick' of known 'rainmakers'. i am not a delusional bipolar---the get rich, go broke, rich, broke, etc. type. some have dxd me a 'cyclothyme' with its unfortunate periods of refractory depression. this goes to the times, as a joke, sort of, i would make an apparent fool of myself during florida's last great drought. i just went outside and invoked Zeus---and boy did it rain, flood even---to spite 'weather-man' predictions. of course tampa bay is the lightning capital of the usa---still, that drought was hurting fla., big-time. many years ago, san diego hired a 'rainmaker'---when san diego became flooded they refused to pay the man. funny old world, isn't it? is 'time' simply 'multi-verse' travel? i don't know, but i do know when i submitted much poetry in a russian/american competition, my poem concerning Zeus won---surprised me. but it made the front page of 'the russian journal of culture'. in large headlines.
their interpreter made the title, 'there still be power in starry gods yet'---perhaps the judges chose this one as russia seems 'starved' for religion, etc. best wishes---open-mind
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2003, at 0:39:20
In reply to Re: Weather Control, posted by maxx44 on December 7, 2003, at 15:58:21
> and thank you, sir. i truly suspect invoking Zeus, 'Cloud-Gatherer, Lightning Hurler' to be the ancient 'trick' of known 'rainmakers'.
I'd like to redirect follow-ups not about medication to Psycho-Social-Babble. Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20031207/msgs/287901.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Neil Slade on August 21, 2007, at 23:51:21
In reply to Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Susan on April 1, 2000, at 23:34:45
I love these critical kinds of posts that say absolutely NOTHING.
And almost always, by people who have both no clue about brain physiology, anatomy, behavior- much less the function of the amygdala, frontal lobes, or other important brain structure
nor, have even bothered to THINK and read with comprehension the materials I've posted as articles, stories, and scientific references.
The world is full of skeptics without a shred of original or analytical capacity.
So be it.
Have a nice day.
Posted by FredPotter on August 23, 2007, at 23:22:01
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Neil Slade on August 21, 2007, at 23:51:21
Off the amygdala clicking site
>Carl Sagan has pointed out that in every brain, >your fantastic one included, there are more >combinations of connections than there are >protons and neutrons in the universe.
Imagine each neuron connection. It will contain at least 1 proton and 1 neutron. So much for the Carl Sagan pronouncement - did he really say that? It's absolute nonsense as we can now see.
Where did the idea come from that we only use 10% of our brains? That's nonsense too since evolution would ensure such a human died fairly rapidly and was removed from the gene pool
Posted by Neil Slade on August 23, 2007, at 23:55:43
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!? » Neil Slade, posted by FredPotter on August 23, 2007, at 23:22:01
Okay, the observation about the so-called Sagan quote really intrigued me, because I actually didn't remember reading it myself- so here's where I believe the origin of the material came from, eventually landing on my site
http://www.viewzone.com/amygdala/index2.html
Viewzone wrote the above article about my work years ago, and the Sagan quote is actually something that the VIEWZONE author wrote, not myself. I reproduced HIS article on my site-- and I did not change his writing, which would be quite unethical-- and yes, of course, the so-called Sagan quote doesn't make much sense.
Good frontal lobes observation.
What is generally accepted by most, is that the number of neural connections in every brain is a staggering number. Typically, people create metaphors to express this number, and I actually remember someone, and it might have been Sagain, but I can't say for sure, but the observation is that this number is equivalent to the number of visible stars in the universe, or grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth.
Ask somebody like LeDoux, or MacLean, or Eccles, and I think they would concure without any hesitation. Its a big *ss number.
Posted by Neil Slade on August 23, 2007, at 23:56:20
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!? » Neil Slade, posted by FredPotter on August 23, 2007, at 23:22:01
OtherwiseIt terms of the 10% brain idea- not mine, and I think I do a nice job of clarifying exactly what that really means-- and I do it using a lecture by Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles, whom I think had a pretty good idea of brain potential-
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/how.html
The idea that we use 10% of our brain is a common folksy observation-- see the page above.
Per your logic, however, we don't use ourour appendix either, and it- as well as the container is still around. As far dormant brain humans-- well, all you have to do is travel to Washington DC and that takes care of your argument. :-)
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 24, 2007, at 8:56:01
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!? » Neil Slade, posted by FredPotter on August 23, 2007, at 23:22:01
> >Carl Sagan has pointed out that in every brain, >your fantastic one included, there are more >combinations of connections than there are >protons and neutrons in the universe.
>
> Imagine each neuron connection. It will contain at least 1 proton and 1 neutron. So much for the Carl Sagan pronouncement - did he really say that? It's absolute nonsense as we can now see.Sagan's comment is absolutely correct. Note he said combinations. Just consider how many combinations of three can be made from a set of ten. Then add in combinations of two and four and....do the same for the networks in our brain, with thousands of connections, and billions on billions of cells.
Lar
Posted by elanor roosevelt on August 24, 2007, at 10:19:16
In reply to Weather Control, posted by Neil Slade on December 6, 2003, at 0:04:42
what about having a "babe" selling your highly scientific method?
hello out there
can't we have a "someone selling stuff" alert?
Posted by Neil Slade on August 24, 2007, at 12:19:54
In reply to Re: Weather Control, posted by elanor roosevelt on August 24, 2007, at 10:19:16
?
You mean my picture of Briana on my web page?
She was my piano student for 11 years, and I found that it helped people see the link to the part of my site where I sell my books.
I don't pretend to be a dry textbook site, any more than Carl Sagan turned down his pretend spaceship in his Cosmos series.
For years I consistently got emails- "How can I buy your text books?" I finally cured it with Briana's photo-- and I never again got one of those emails.
Posted by FredPotter on August 26, 2007, at 16:02:01
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!? » FredPotter, posted by Larry Hoover on August 24, 2007, at 8:56:01
Well read Larry. I missed the would combinations. You are of course quite right. Grains of sand on beaches is a bit irrelevant given we've just established that the number is greater than all hadrons Fred
Posted by Neil Slade on March 8, 2008, at 9:47:16
In reply to Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Susan on April 1, 2000, at 23:34:45
I recently posted an update to my "How Much Brain Do You Actually Use" page as a current response to a new book by Sam Wang "Welcome To Your Brain".
It's a somewhat conventional, albeit useful look at the brain in 2008, and I appreciate anything that helps people examine their mind motor-- however, I do differ from Dr. Wang in regards to his "myth busting" claim that we use "all of our brain all of the time", which is really not supported by either data, research, or plain old common sense (admittedly in short supply).
See
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/welcometoyourbrain2.htmlThanks,
Neil
Posted by Newbee on March 13, 2008, at 20:09:40
In reply to Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Susan on April 1, 2000, at 23:34:45
I have to disagree. My Amygdala is working overtime due to insufficient sleep. There was an article last October showing this. Google Sleep deprivation and Amygdala.
Posted by Yoder on February 6, 2010, at 16:25:01
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Neil Slade on March 8, 2008, at 9:47:16
This is all so much mumbo-jumbo. None of this has been substantiated, and all of the so called "Research Reports" were fabricated...how do I know? I was there.
The various Research Reports were fabricated by TD Lingo in an attempt to sell the science community on what he was doing...running an outdoor camp that promised "natural consciousness expansion." All of the "case studies" are also fabrications. I was associated with Lingo in some capacity or another for over 20 years. I met him in 1972. Some of the techniques he used, ie, self-therapy, were interesting and had their merits, but they died when Lingo died.
"Amygdala clicking" and "multiple orgasms" were gimmicks that Lingo would use to interest people in his work, and when they bit he would work tirelessly to close the deal...the deal being attending his summer camp. I know this because he appointed me the "head of marketing" for awhile...I was an abysmal failure by my own admission.
As stated, Art Bell is not science. Bell is to science, what Glen Beck is to politics. Slade also is not a scientist, but a music teacher by training. I have read some of his "science" writings and they lack the discipline required in scientific research, there are never any control groups, and they are replete with cliches and non-sequiturs. Many of the papers he throws out are merely rewrites of Lingo's work. You must realize that it was all done for marketing a wilderness program, that was trying to capitalize upon the consciousness expansion interests of the 60/70's. I will say that Lingo did have some validity with his self-therapy techniques, but for some reason Slade ignores this in his body of work.
Slade calls Lingo a "behaviorist." Lingo was a chemist by training, and formed his own and often refuted behavioral theories by reading "Psychology Today." He never did any research in the field of psychology.
Slade makes reference to Eccles above. This lecture was attended by TD Lingo, and Lingo is the one who took the notes. There is no evidence that Eccles said what Lingo/Slade say he said. I know that Lingo would often ask loaded questions, and then twist the response to match his needs. It would be more appropriate to say that Lingo wrote what he thought he heard or wanted to hear, and Slade merely passes it along. Lingo based the majority of his claims on a book by Woolridge, "The Machinery of the Brain" and "Psychology Today." I actually turned Lingo on to a lot of neurology since that is what I studied as an undergrad in the 70's. Lingo accepted what fit his theory, and rejected what did not. More importantly, the scientific community rejected ever paper that he ever submitted.
Cloud dissolving ...where is the science? As mentioned above, much of what he describes can be described with simple science and meteorological mechanisms. (I am a mathematician/scientist by training...BS and MS)
The bottom line is that if you really need some self-help, then go to a reputable organization such as the Self Realization Fellowship or a psychologist. If you want to see clouds disappear or form, then lay on your back and watch them do their natural thing. If you want miracles, then join the Catholic Church or ingest some Peyote. Just make sure you use common sense in all of your dealings.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 7, 2010, at 11:40:36
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Yoder on February 6, 2010, at 16:25:01
> his "science" writings ... are replete with cliches and non-sequiturs. Many of the papers he throws out are merely rewrites of Lingo's work.
Welcome to Babble. Please don't post anything here that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Yoder on February 7, 2010, at 14:03:04
In reply to Re: please be civil » Yoder, posted by Dr. Bob on February 7, 2010, at 11:40:36
My bad. No offense taken.
Posted by Deneb on February 7, 2010, at 16:19:54
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Yoder on February 6, 2010, at 16:25:01
Hello Yoder!
Welcome to Psycho-Babble! Thanks for the information.
Deneb
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 7, 2010, at 18:24:34
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Yoder on February 7, 2010, at 14:03:04
Posted by Dashiki on February 8, 2010, at 18:06:25
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Cam W. on April 2, 2000, at 3:22:43
Exactly! I agree Cam W!
This is a document Neil Slade Demanded to be removed from Sarlo Muesling's Guru Ratings Positive Partizan Feedback! Makes me wander why! Original page is (now gone) -- http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Flingo.htm)
More on TD Lingo
I've been a student of consciousness expansion and spirituality for over 35 years, and have taken more than 100 workshops, trainings, and classes in consciousness development, starting at the age of 19 with T. D. Lingo. I was one of his early "experiments." Lingo was an amazing teacher, a true hidden genius. Nutty as hell, in some ways, but certifiably brilliant in many others. [Neil Slade is not considered by any of Lingo's students "his successor," but rather an egoist who is using Lingo's materials (unauthorized) to promote himself. Nothing surprising there.]* Lingo did not expect to die, so his estate was a mess, and although he promised to pass his amazing school property (250 acres of prime Colorado mountain property, log cabins, pump well, wind generator-driven printing press) to one or another of his students, it ended up in the hands of his adopted drug addicted son (long abandoned), who sold it for $3M to developers.* Too bad, because Lingo lived in basic poverty, struggling to become known, although his unique and quirky writing style and manner turned almost everybody off.
I have the only (to my knowledge) complete version of his 100-lesson workbook*, which I'm trying to get the legal right to publish. He was democratic in the extreme, stressing self-therapy, brain self-control, and self-empowerment all the way. He stated clearly that he didn't want to be a guru, but of course, at some level he wanted people to buy his point of view whole hog and work for him for free. We disagreed on that point (and many others) many times, but I studied with him for four years, and consider him to be my first TRUE teacher. He released me from the bonds of my historical programming, and freed me to explore on my own. He had a great heart, and was generous with many people, but also had a harsh and angry streak when people weren't generous to him in kind. He lost students about as fast as he got them. He was an original -- and his death was a real tragedy. I hope to write a book about him one day.
~ Lion Goodman,
Everyday Awakening.comeverything is fair in love and war - but stealing is NOT Holy!
-D
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2010, at 10:59:38
In reply to Re: Clicking the Amygdala?!?!?, posted by Dashiki on February 8, 2010, at 18:06:25
> Neil Slade is not considered by any of Lingo's students "his successor," but rather an egoist who is using Lingo's materials (unauthorized) to promote himself.
Welcome to Babble. Please don't post anything here that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself, including a link to a nice post by Dinah on I-statements, are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Other follow-ups should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Alternative.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 11, 2010, at 8:31:45
In reply to Redirect and please be civil » Dashiki, posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2010, at 10:59:38
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Here's a link:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20091103/msgs/936686.html
That'll be considered a new thread, so if you'd like to be notified by email of follow-ups to it, you'll need to request that there. Thanks,
Bob
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.