"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Watching the Wheels - John Lennon
People say I'm crazy doing what I'm doing,
Well they give me all kinds of warnings to save me from ruin,
When I say that I'm o.k. they look at me kind of strange,
Surely your not happy now you no longer play the game,

People say I'm lazy dreaming my life away,
Well they give me all kinds of advice designed to enlighten me,
When I tell that I'm doing Fine watching shadows on the wall,
Don't you miss the big time boy you're no longer on the ball?

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round,
I really love to watch them roll,
No longer riding on the merry-go-round,
I just had to let it go,...
 

    This page is for those of you who have reviewed a bit of, or are considering devoting some time to analyzing the content of this site but may not because you are tempted to leap to the conclusion that I probably suffer from schizophrenia or am bordering on the disorder. On this page I respond to this specific accusation from several people. It’s easy to understand why many do this, (I probably would have a couple of years ago) to have one’s most fundamental and foundational views vigorously challenged can be unsettling and even terrifying. Consequently, it can be more comforting to believe the author is insane so their reasoning and even the evidence they present is not worth evaluating. (Personally I find mentally ill people fascinating such as those presented by Oliver Sacks in his books.)

    Admittedly some of the content of this site is superficially similar to the subjective and largely unsupported claims made by others. However, on this page (as well as others on this site) not only do I support my claims with compelling evidence and rational arguments, I also continually challenge those who make differing claims to substantiate their views with external evidence and sound reasoning (I wish to learn as well). While I challenge you to draw your own conclusions, I’m confident that if you do read this page you’ll find that none of my accusers convincingly demonstrate that their view of reality is ‘less delusional’ then my own. There are many parallels to this debate. Some of those I recommend are; Plato: The Allegory of the Cave from The Republic, or here. The Cave And The Matrix Towers, K-PAX, by Gene Brewer and A Beautiful Mind… based on The Life of Mathematical Genius and Nobel Laureate John Nash.


“Ghintp...your comments about schizophrenia make me think that you've been diagnosed with it before but disagreed with the diagnosis. Have you? When did you start having ideas like these, your mid twenties or earlier? I assume you were on meds before but stopped taking them for some reason, am I right?”
- uberjoop, msg 2808 

You are wrong about everything.

* Never been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
* What you call ‘ideas’ I call a product of reason and I’ve been working on them for about six months at the age of 33.
* Never been on medication. I very seldom even take drugs like aspirin. I have a glass of alcohol, maybe a beer with pizza perhaps once a month.

I shudder to think what would happen if you were in a position to diagnose people and prescribe meds. In regards to your previous post regarding psychoactive drugs I would agree that many or most disorders have a physical basis. I would also agree that many drugs are able to mask, subdue or alleviate the symptoms of the disorder (at least to on-lookers). I would ‘strongly’ disagree however with the implication that these drugs are a ‘cure’ for these physical ailments. It’s my understanding that researchers have only a very rudimentary understanding of why various psychoactive drugs have the effects they have. It’s my understanding that the psychological effectiveness of many of these drugs were discovered merely because they were ‘side effects’ of drug treatment for other medical conditions unrelated to neurochemistry. If I am mistaken I would appreciate being pointed to a URL explaining otherwise.

I understand your posts and concern are well intentioned. (Well, except for your rantings about robots. ;op )


“And ghintp, if you just started having these type of thoughts, have been ever been a user of stimulants, cocaine, amphtemenes, even a heavy coffee drinker? or undergone some stress recently?”
- uberjoop, msg 2809

Again I've been putting this stuff together for about six months. The most effective drug I've ever used is coffee but I wouldn't describe 1 to 1.5 cups in the morning a heavy drinker.

I had a somewhat stressful job two years ago. After a bout with pneumonia I reestablished my priorities and began exercising, changed work environment and made adjustments in my diet to specifically reduce stress. If you are looking for an event to explain the abrupt change in my reasoning I would again point those of you interested, to Kathrine Benziger’s papers on the physiology of type and my subsequent ‘enlightenment’ as described on this page; as well as here and here.

Thanks for your interest.


“I thought science was based on evidence that can be seen in reality... “
- lantenec, msg 2813

And what do you think you are using to 'see' or 'interpret' reality?
Here's a test. Can you put in objective and scientific terms an explanation for the following observation?

"Reality is a fluid - perception designs the shape of the container into which it's poured.... " - Whisperycat

“what kind of "observation" is that? It sounds like poetic nonsense to me (the quote, that is). You're not going to descend to old "invalidity of sense data" argument so soon are you?”
- lantenec, msg 2818

Beautiful! That was the expected response almost word for word. Anyone else want to try to explain it before I post my interpretation?

"Wise guy..."
- lantenec, msg 2820

Sorry about that. No disrespect intended. But take a look at the adjectives you used and mine. (Feel free to correct the neurophysiology info and sequencing. I just pulled info out of my head and didn't go verify it.) This explanation is from this page on my web site.

To someone who uses and is trained in the use of objective reasoning this statement probably looks like poetic nonsense. But it is not. It is a profound scientifically valid observation. In my interpretation it is the neurological equivalent to one of the premises of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principal and the problem encountered in sociological studies. Simply put in both of those situations it has been noted that when observing an object/subject the observer must somehow interact at some level with the observed and this interaction changes the behavior of the object/subject.

What the quoted principle is stating is the fact that in the process of observing or interacting with an environment the observer is in fact changed. This is true with every single image, sound, touch, person, thought, food, air, etc. that we encounter and interpret. For example, during the process of observing an object, a pattern of light enters the optic nerve through the retina. The cones and rods cellular structures are charged and convert the light into neural electric patterns and the signal is sent to the occipital lobe where the image is stored as chemical bonds between neurons. The perceived data is then considered by one or both judging functions where it is analyzed and interpreted in relation to similar data that is again retrieved from the occipital lobe. Interpretations of the results are stored in both the objective and subjective reasoning quadrants of the brain again in the form of sequences of neural-chemical bonds (engrams). The observer is now more or less permanently altered. The observer’s subsequent observations and analysis will be compared and contrasted with the previously stored memory engrams.

The quote is written in such a poetically beautiful and subjective style because the individual who wrote it uses and his perception is shaped by subjective reasoning (Fi is dominant function, Ne is secondary, INFP). Because Broca’s Area language structure is in the objective reasoning quadrant the expression lacks the objective and stereotypically dry style that my explanation is written in and is instead written with the fluid expression of language enabled by the unnamed(?) mirror image of Wernicke’s area.

“Your web site is consistent with borderline schizophenia, yes. It's probably not dangerous, but I'd be surprised if I were the first to mention this to you.”
- will_sargent, msg 2835 

Could you site a specific example and your reasoning that supports your conclusion? Or would that be too much trouble for you? I don't believe you've read the 14 web pages I referred to and definitely not the links that support my perspective.

“I'm sure your worldview seems very valid to you, and I would expect you to defend it.”
- will_sargent, msg 2843

You are correct it does. It didn’t at first and I wondered for several weeks if I had gone mad. I kept focusing on hard facts such as the geologic data and 220 million year galactic orbit. Today, what I find personally reassuring is that my perspective, while admittedly novel, is not only internally consistent but becomes more and more externally consistent with each passing day. Can you say the same of yours?

"Here's a link -- I'd go into examples but I'm really, honest-to-deity not interested in arguing with you. You can decide for yourself how accurate the link is http://www.geocities.com/ptypes/schizotypalpd.html "
- will_sargent, msg 2849


Schizophrenia: Clarification

I previously had only a vague understanding of the disease so I reviewed it here,
http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/mh/blschizoph.htm
http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/mh/blschizoph2.htm
http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/mh/blschizoph3.htm

First of all, when reading the material I’m disturbed by phrases like, “may have seemed different from other children at an early age”. I’m concerned because I don’t think Jungian personality theory that has now been proven physiologically by the work of people like Dr. Haier at UC Irvine is commonly recognized and understood as an explanation for fundamental perceptual differences in people including children. No care is taken to distinguish what is ‘different’ or abnormal in light of the fact that those who prefer intuition are usually a 3 to 1 minority and by definition are preoccupied with perceiving information that ‘cannot’ be seen.  I think this lack of understanding is widespread. For example I found no mention of cognitive preference in the DSM description of ADD when I looked it up at the bookstore. Not only do those who prescribe psychoactive drugs not know how they work or what causes the underling physical problems for many neurological diseases they don’t even appear to be cognizant of the fact that there is a variety of ‘normal’ people. (Brave New World, we’re there. Shut up and take your Soma [Ritalin]!) And these are the kind of people you want to judge the implications of a rare and previously barely recognized event such as enlightenment? Speaking with a Buddhist Monk or an American Indian spiritual healer is a more appropriate suggestion.

A couple of the symptoms mentioned in the articles above are very similar to some of the concepts in my recent posts concerning my subjective experiences. However in my opinion, the majority of symptoms don’t appear in my work, my thinking, and don’t explain my current state of mind, the results of my research or the external evidence supporting them. For example the following definition is very much like dajfamily’s description in msg. 2837, “Delusions are false personal beliefs that are not subject to reason or contradictory evidence and are not explained by a person’s usual cultural concepts.”

Since I claim my conclusions are based on physical evidence, reason, both objective and subjective, and even the most bizarre have at least a theoretical scientific explanation I don’t see how this definition applies. In fact what I’ve been doing for the past several weeks on this club is presenting the reasoning and evidence to support my assertions while accepting and discussing alternate explanations. (Big Bang, QSSC, Panspermia, and AI for example.) Interestingly, your unwillingness to support your perception seems to fit a good portion of that definition. Nevertheless I don’t expect you to accept the validity of my subjective experiences. You can no more objectively disprove I experienced them then I can objectively prove that I did. And I’m not going to try.

I don’t think an off the cuff, haphazard opinion based on a couple of similar concepts is sufficient grounds to diagnose a person with a complex, varied and serious disease like schizophrenia. Do you? If I were to make similar judgments about your reflexive categorization of my comments in your recent posts, 2835 & 2843, I would presume you were dismissive, presumptuous, and that you reject novelty and cling to beliefs and perceptions that feel safe and reassuring. But you’re not really like that are you?


Schizophrenia: CIA

I would be willing to see a psychiatrist as you recommend if I had problems supporting my reasoning or my ‘worldview’ as you put it, but interestingly I seem to find more and more evidence every time I look. Seeing as you’ve made a public implication that I’m mentally ill based on the content of my site but refused to support your view in this club I think it only proper that I attempt to identify and explain at least a few of my more [delusional] ideas here.

How about the idea that someone or several people in the CIA were behind the deadly Anthrax attacks. I brought this possibility to the attention of half a dozen mainstream media outlets on Nov. 1. On Nov. 2 while watching FBI director Mueller on CNN speaking with a room packed with reporters I witnessed higher than normal concern and tension on everyone’s faces while the reporters asked about possible sources of the weapons grade anthrax. While no mention was made of the CIA, Mueller’s emphasized response was that they were looking into ‘all’ leads. (See what I sent on this page.)

Well that would be a pretty crazy idea to most Americans until they consider that the FBI investigation uncovered the factual evidence in the following weeks making the idea ‘highly’ probable. The CIA hires ex marines for operations that, ‘others don’t want to do’ don’t they? (Ref. to CIA Agent Mike Span)

Anthrax Sender May Have Military Past, Daschle Says
Saturday December 8, 2001 1:51 PM ET
“Asked if he believes the source was someone with a military background, Daschle said, ``That's correct.'' Daschle has been in frequent contact with investigators.”

U.S. Recently Produced Anthrax in a Highly Lethal Powder Form
By WILLIAM J. BROAD and JUDITH MILLER The New York Times
Thursday December 13 09:07 AM EST
Government officials have acknowledged that Army scientists in recent years have made anthrax in a powdered form that could be used as a weapon.

Capitol Hill Anthrax Matches Army's Stocks
Sunday, December 16, 2001; Page A01, Washington Post
Law enforcement sources, however, said the FBI remains extremely interested in the CIA's work with anthrax, with one official calling it the best lead they have at this point. The sources said FBI investigators do not yet know much about the CIA program.
 

Since that takes care of the ‘means’, and the ‘opportunity’ is easy to account for since the letters were mailed from New Jersey, that leaves ‘motive’. Does anyone care to consider ‘how’ the CIA would benefit from the attacks? Are the CIA’s motives beyond questioning?

“For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. …We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.”
- President Harry S. Truman, Washington Post, December 22, 1963

Rhetorically, would you encourage the FBI not to investigate leads that would lead to the arrest and conviction of the actual perpetrators of these acts? I for one would like to see the guilty party prevented from killing again even if it entails political turmoil. Does someone know the number of people taking prophylactic antibiotics because of these attacks? Was it 10,000 or 100,000? (more here)
 

Schizophrenia: Cosmology

To better put many of my ideas in perspective let’s consider cosmology.  I’ve recently posted some information on this but perhaps you haven’t read it. If you think that the Big Bang origin of the universe was a certainty you might want to consider that even a well recognized proponent, Stephen Hawking acknowledges that the field of cosmology not long ago was a pseudo-science and today is not yet a proper science. I contend the Quasi Steady State Cosmology is far more theoretically and evidentially valid.

A Different Approach to Cosmology : From a Static Universe Through the Big Bang Towards Reality
by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar

A NEW COSMOLOGY, from Science Frontiers #124
William R. Corliss, Jul-Aug 1999, Science Frontiers ONLINE, JUL-AUG 1999
“In the April 1999 issue of Physics Today -- certainly a mainstream publication, but occasionally daring -- we find a long, technically deep article outlining a new cosmology that jettisons the Big Bang and even redshifts as infallible measures of cosmological distances. It should come as no surprise that the authors are G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, and J.V. Narlikar. They propose a quasi-steady-state universe to replace the hot Big Bang. “

“It is easy to itemize narrow, specific problems bedeviling the Big Bang, but the three "boat-rockers" listed above also have an important philosophical bone to pick with modern astronomers and cosmologists.”

"The theory departs increasingly from known physics, until ultimately the energy source of the universe is put in as an initial condition, the energy supposedly coming from somewhere else. Because that "somewhere else" can have any properties that suit the theoretician, supporters of Big Bang cosmology gain for themselves a large bag of free parameters that can subsequently be tuned as the occasion may require.

"We do not think that science should be done in that way. In science as we understand it, one works from an initial situation, known from observation or experiment, to a later situation that is also known. That is the way physical laws are tested. In the currently popular form of cosmology, by contrast, the physical laws are regarded as already known and an explanation of the later situation is sought by guessing at parameters appropriate to the initial state. We think this approach does not merit the high esteem that cosmologists commonly accord it."

Schizophrenia: Cosmology 2