Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Why PFAL sucks


T-Bone
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 11/2/2022 at 7:09 PM, OldSkool said:

In 1991 some interesting doors were opened to me at UCSD Cognitive Sciences Department, where  I became a member of a club that met weekly for 2 hours, for 7 years.

15 hours ago, Mike said:

No.  That looks too formal.    What I joined was very informal.  I never signed anything.

One of the reasons for it was for graduate students to have a chance presenting their work, and to cross pollinate ideas around the different departments.  It was very informal. 

 

See..you start out making it all sound formal and full of brainiacs and God opened these massive doors for you to study with the top neuroscientists when in reality it was so informal it didn't officially exist, so naturally having you along for the ride looked like it was all inclusive....but why exaggerate it in the first place? Joining a club is FORMAL and clobs formally exist and are recognized by the university as having FORMAL benefits to the students and such. You definately led people to believe it was something a LOT more than it actually was.....basically you were in an informal study group that didn't exist in any meaningful way as far as the university was concerned....just a group of folks getting together of which you were the tag-along-mascot kinda guy.

Edited by OldSkool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mike said:

Before the Pandemic, I did a lot of free will "surveys" at Star Bucks.  It's also a great way to talk to ladies.

 that sounds a little creepy…but I think you may have found a loophole to get around a nonconsensual charge…

For some reason I’m reminded of wierwille, slipping a Roofie to a woman in the way corps - cheers

 

Edited by T-Bone
Found a loophole in my Fruit Loops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mike said:

I used the words "a bit of" to mitigate my statement.

All forms of neuroscience see that there is lots of confabulating going on in both brain damage victims and in normal people.  

The older schools of thought look at the confabulation as incidental, while smaller but very vocal schools of thought are looking at the confabulation as fundamental.  I kid you not.  It is, again, neuroscience coming around to agree with the Bible on consciousness, and "all men are liars."

So, I may have been expressing a minority point of view, but it is one that is growing.

But one by one, the unique things of the human mind are turning up to not be so unique after all, and "man has no preeminence over the beasts." 

In the Bible man's mind is portrayed as egotistical and self boasting. and not possessing the great wisdom it likes to think.  Neuroscience is finding this to be the case in many ways.
 

Here ya go, Mike. The TedTalk is for a wider audience and easier to understand, it seems to me. The Lex Friedman podcast is a deeper and more granular treatment with lots of math and science that goes over my head, but I still found it fascinating and profitable - it should be a walk in the garden for you. I don't remember confabulation mentioned once.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, T-Bone said:

your lack of knowledge has never stopped you from posting before :rolleyes:

Actually, it is often the case that I back off or avoid a topic due to my lack of understanding.  That would be totally transparent to you, or you might conclude I was dodging to avoid being proved wrong. 

Much more often it's the case that because I have been continuously reviewing PFAL since the mid 80s, I find that lots of things were forgotten by folks here, so I speak up. The more I know from my constant reviewing, the louder I post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, waysider said:

If you really want to make your "research" marketable to neuroscientists, you'll need to start by getting it peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal.

That is the old fashioned way.  There are other ways to get an idea considered.  Grad students are easy to get an hearing from. Most professors will read a well written and concise letter or text. I have had a lot of luck doing that. It also works for super-star authors, who spend a lot of time reading in airport lounges. In his autobiography, Abbie Hoffman relates how he did this in the olden days of pen, paper, and typewriters, and how often he got through to celebrities and politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OldSkool said:

Geez. You obviously lack any depth of understanding in what you are actually talking about. There isn't a scientist anywhere that wants to hear anything about spirit becuase it can't be scientifically proven. 

That is EXACTLY what I have been saying.  Body and soul can be proved; spirit cannot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OldSkool said:

And you just unequiviocally know when spirit is present, or not....

We are talking about a THEORY.
In my theory  I START OUT with considering the body and soul man, because that it easier.

In Physics, students are started out with analyzing something  very simple: a pendulum.  By working on all the details of a pendulum, which is super simple, the details of how planets orbit the Sun becomes workable.

Science always limits itself to the measurable and the simple; that mean body and soul only for discussions on free will.

Spiritless man is where I start out in my theory, because that is a simple place to begin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldSkool said:

 

 You definately led people to believe it was something a LOT more than it actually was.....basically you were in an informal study group that didn't exist in any meaningful way as far as the university was concerned....just a group of folks getting together of which you were the tag-along-mascot kinda guy.

You must have missed the post where I said I was like a groupie there.

You also missed the main point: "...it was just a group of folks (superstar brain scientists) getting together..."

If you ever get the chance to be a mere tag-along groupie with the world's top brain scientists, I would strongly suggest you jump on such a great learning experience.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T-Bone said:

 that sounds a little creepy…but I think you may have found a loophole to get around a nonconsensual charge…

For some reason I’m reminded of wierwille, slipping a Roofie to a woman in the way corps - cheers

 

You mind has become jaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Mike said:

Actually, it is often the case that I back off or avoid a topic due to my lack of understanding.  That would be totally transparent to you, or you might conclude I was dodging to avoid being proved wrong. 

Much more often it's the case that because I have been continuously reviewing PFAL since the mid 80s, I find that lots of things were forgotten by folks here, so I speak up. The more I know from my constant reviewing, the louder I post.

M: Actually, it is often the case that I back off or avoid a topic due to my lack of understanding. 

T: On the contrary, I notice you plow ahead with nonsense anyway

 

M: That would be totally transparent to you, or you might conclude I was dodging to avoid being proved wrong.

T: You’re absolutely correct – it’s plain to see that you’re dodging to avoid being wrong

 

M: Much more often it's the case that because I have been continuously reviewing PFAL since the mid 80s,

T: well…that might be part of the problem – you’ve got you head stuck in a place where the shine never shines

Man-with-head-in-the-sand.jpg

 

 

M: I find that lots of things were forgotten by folks here, so I speak up.

T: That’s another problem…I’ve never forgotten the twisted nonsense that wierwille/PFAL taught – matter of fact, I usually can remember in great detail everything  BETTER  THAN  YOU  CAN…and I wish I could forget the 12 years of making bad decisions based on a cult-leader’s agenda…but Grease Spot Café is part of my therapy now and where and when I can, I like to help others – and what I share with others isn’t always “This is how you can recover…”   rather it’s something inexplicable – maybe as a subtext to what I share – it may provide hope to a reader. NOT as a guide for how to leave The Way International and unpack the mental and emotional baggage. But merely as proof that it can be done, and it won’t ruin your life. Their how-to’s, therapies, and recovery strategies may be totally different than mine. And they'll probably work just as well……and for those reasons I speak up.

 

M:The more I know from my constant reviewing, the louder I post.

T: absorbing huge amounts of LoShonta to reach critical mass – I understand

nuclear-mushroom-cloud.jpg

 

iyay absorbyay ereforethay iyay ostpay

(pig-Latin for the greatest philosophy in Mike’s world today: I absorb therefore I post)

 

Edited by T-Bone
ixnay on the post ay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Here ya go, Mike. The TedTalk is for a wider audience and easier to understand, it seems to me. The Lex Friedman podcast is a deeper and more granular treatment with lots of math and science that goes over my head, but I still found it fascinating and profitable - it should be a walk in the garden for you. I don't remember confabulation mentioned once.

 

Thanks for the links.


Without listening yet, I will predict that the WHOLE TOPIC he is explaining is a GIANT CONFABULATION we all suffer from, which is our perception of reality. 

Just a guess.  Since the rainy season is happening here lately I may have time to listen to them today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Here ya go, Mike. The TedTalk is for a wider audience and easier to understand, it seems to me. The Lex Friedman podcast is a deeper and more granular treatment with lots of math and science that goes over my head, but I still found it fascinating and profitable - it should be a walk in the garden for you. I don't remember confabulation mentioned once.

 

YIKES!
What are you doing to me?
I just noticed that one of those videos is over 3 hours long!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike:  "Most professors will read a well written and concise letter or text. I have had a lot of luck doing that." 

 

Hey, how about doing that here? Making your posts "well written and concise"?

That way, maybe we could all benefit. You might not get so many attacks, and everyone else might begin to understand what you're saying. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Mike said:

YIKES!
What are you doing to me?
I just noticed that one of those videos is over 3 hours long!

 

And it barely scratches the surface. 

But it's less than 10% the length of PFAL - 36 focking hours! Yikes!

Edited by Nathan_Jr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, T-Bone said:

your lack of knowledge has never stopped you from posting before :rolleyes:

 

48 minutes ago, Mike said:

Actually, it is often the case that I back off or avoid a topic due to my lack of understanding.  That would be totally transparent to you, or you might conclude I was dodging to avoid being proved wrong. 

Much more often it's the case that because I have been continuously reviewing PFAL since the mid 80s, I find that lots of things were forgotten by folks here, so I speak up. The more I know from my constant reviewing, the louder I post.

 

40 minutes ago, waysider said:

Can you list 3 of those things here?

I don't mean expound on them, I mean simply list them as such:

1.)

2.)

3.)

 

38 minutes ago, Mike said:

That is the old fashioned way.  There are other ways to get an idea considered.  Grad students are easy to get an hearing from. Most professors will read a well written and concise letter or text. I have had a lot of luck doing that. It also works for super-star authors, who spend a lot of time reading in airport lounges. In his autobiography, Abbie Hoffman relates how he did this in the olden days of pen, paper, and typewriters, and how often he got through to celebrities and politicians.

 

37 minutes ago, Mike said:

 It is all in the archive for you to find, if you are interested.

 

coming full circle:

Mike said: Actually, it is often the case that I back off or avoid a topic due to my lack of understanding.  That would be totally transparent to you, or you might conclude I was dodging to avoid being proved wrong. 

 

T-Bone: your lack of knowledge has never stopped you from posting before  

 

Edited by T-Bone
Typo vs Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mike said:

I try my best to not consider what other people say what they think was on the mind of VPW. 

What I have learned to focus on are his printed writings that went through a bunch of filters (including holy spirit in many of his editors), and re-writings over the years.

His recorded teachings are a secondary focus for me, and after that I find it useful to not do very much considering about him.

It matters almost nothing to me what you think VPW's "obsessions" were.
It matters almost nothing to me what VPW's actual "obsessions" were.

It took me years to find that this way of thinking is best.

I choose to look at what went most right in VPW's life: the collaterals.
I offer this as an alternative to the mental rut many are stuck in here.

So this sounds like a really comfortable version of Plato’s cave.  Furnished with a complete set of signed versions of collaterals.

The collaterals themselves are Rhoda’s sermon notes basically.  The bullshonta spoken extemporaneously by VP in the BRC was edited by Rhoda and circulated widely.  They represent a minuscule fraction of any of the research effort put into the JCPS and JCOP books.  So not even the research described by penworks in her book is performed on the collaterals.

People have brainwashed themselves on repeating it to themselves for years.  Like the camera analogy from the blue book.  It’s basically a 15 minute lift from another source that people have been trying to extract more meaning from for decades.  There’s not more meaning.  There is only logic like The Promise.

No I will pass on visiting your rut.  At least whatever ones I’m in I can see 15 feet ahead and jump from one to an adjacent one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

 

coming full circle:

Mike said: Actually, it is often the case that I back off or avoid a topic due to my lack of understanding.  That would be totally transparent to you, or you might conclude I was dodging to avoid being proved wrong. 

 

So you don’t think we are aware you are trolling?

As a former failed stand up comic you are hyper focused on how you play to an audience.

You we’re sheltered from any personal effects of these amoral a holes so you have no skin in the game.

And you choose to live with blinders only focusing on a small portion of the truth and or facts that make your comfortable.

And you have no original thought.  You survive off the second hand vomit from 2 decades ago emitted by a narcissistic joke of a preacher who stole everything in sight and chased everything available with a skirt.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...