Mystical and religious experiences are hypothesized to be evoked by transient, electrical microseizures within deep structures of the temporal lobe. Although experiential details are affected by context and reinforcement history, basic themes reflect the inclusion of different amygdaloid-hippocampal structures and adjacent cortices. Whereas the unusual electrical coherence allows access to infantile memories of parents, a source of god expectations, specific stimulation evokes out-of-body experiences, space-time distortions, intense meaningfulness, and dreamy scenes. The species-specific similarities in temporal lobe properties enhance the homogeneity of cross-cultural experiences. They exist along a continuum that ranges from “early morning highs” to recurrent bouts of conversion and dominating religiosity. Predisposing factors include any biochemical or genetic factors that produce temporal lobe lability. A variety of precipitating stimuli provoke these experiences, but personal (life) crises and death bed conditions are optimal. These temporal lobe microseizures can be learned as responses to existential trauma because stimulation is of powerful intrinsic reward regions and reduction of death anxiety occurs. The implications of these transients as potent modifiers of human behavior are considered.
FIML is both a practice and a theory. The practice is roughly described here and in other posts on this website.
The theory states (also roughly) that successful practice of FIML will:
Greatly improve communication between participating partners
Greatly reduce or eliminate mistaken interpretations (neuroses) between partners
Give partners insights into the dynamic structures of their personalities
Lead to much greater appreciation of the dynamic linguistic/communicative nature of the personality
These results are achieved because:
FIML practice is based on real data agreed upon by both partners
FIML practice stops neurotic responses before they get out of control
FIML practice allows both partners to understand each other’s neuroses while eliminating them
FIML practice establishes a shared objective standard between partners
This standard can be checked, confirmed, changed, or upgraded as often as is needed
FIML practice will also:
Show partners how their personalities function while alone and together
Lead to a much greater appreciation of how mistaken interpretations that occur at discreet times can and often do lead to (or reveal) ongoing mistaken interpretations (neuroses)
FIML practice eliminates neuroses because it shows individuals, through real data, that their (neurotic) interpretation(s) of their partner are mistaken. This reduction of neurosis between partners probably will be generalizable to other situations and people, thus resulting a less neurotic individual overall.
Neurosis is defined here to mean a mistaken interpretation or an ongoing mistaken interpretation.
The theory of FIML can be falsified or shown to be wrong by having a reasonably large number of suitable people learn FIML practice, do it and fail to gain the aforementioned results.
FIML practice will not be suitable for everyone. It requires that partners have a strong interest in each other; a strong sense of caring for each other; an interest in language and communication; the ability to see themselves objectively; the ability to view their use of language objectively; fairly good self-control; enough time to do the practice regularly.
[In mathematics, a ‘computation’ is the process of performing mathematical operations on one or more inputs to produce a desired output. A problem in analyzing human psychology arises when we understand that human psychology cannot be reduced computationally. The ‘computational irreducibility’ of human psychology does not mean, however, that there is no way to probe it and understand it. In the following essay, I show how FIML practice can greatly enhance our understanding of our own psychologies and, by extension, the psychologies of others.
Rather than rely on tautological data extractions or vague theories about human psychology, FIML focuses on small interpersonal exchanges that can be objectively agreed upon by at least two people. These small exchanges correspond to what Wolfram calls ‘specific little pieces of computational reducibility’. When we repeatedly view our psychologies from the point of view of specific little pieces of computational reducibility, we begin amassing a profoundly telling collection of very good data that shows how we really think, speak, and act.]
FIML is a method of inquiry that deals with the computational irreducibility of humans. It does this by isolating small incidents and asking questions about them. These small incidents are the “little pieces of computational reducibility” that Stephan Wolfram remarks on at 45:34 in this video. Here is the full quote:
One of the necessary consequences of computational irreducibility is within a computationally irreducible system there will always be an infinite number of specific little pieces of computational reducibility that you can find.45:34 in this video
This is exactly what FIML practice does again and again—it finds “specific little pieces of computational reducibility” and learns all it can about them.
In FIML practice, two humans in real-time, real-world situations agree to isolate and focus on one “specific little piece of computational reducibility” and from that gain a deeper understanding of the whole “computationally irreducible system”, which is them.
When two humans do this hundreds of times, their grasp and appreciation of the “computationally irreducible system” which is them, both together and individually, increases dramatically. This growing grasp and understanding of their shared computationally irreducible system upgrades or replaces most previously learned cognitive categories about their lives, or psychologies, or how they think about themselves or other humans.
By focusing on many small bits of communicative information, FIML partners improve all aspects of their human minds.
I do not believe any computer will ever be able to do FIML. Robots and brain scans may help with it but they will not be able to replace it. In the not too distant future, FIML may be the only profound thing humans will both need to and be able to do on their own without the use of AI. To understand ourselves deeply and enjoy being human, we will have to do FIML. In this sense, FIML may be our most important human answer to the AI civilization growing around us. ABN
We have black ABS plastic fragmentation in the floorboard of the SUV that took Charlie to the hospital. There are flat balck and glossy black fragments scattered in between the seats exactly where Charlie’s body was loaded into the SUV.
Røde wireless transmitters/receivers use a durable black ABS-like plastic housing (rigid, matte black interior and a glossy black exterior). While these cases are tough and resist normal drops, extreme mechanical force (e.g., impact, crush, or a explosive force) can cause the plastic to fracture into small, irregular shards — exactly like the tiny black pieces visible in the photo.
Thanks to Candace Owens for providing the details that bring it all together once again.
A lot of the disagreement here comes from what kind of emergence people are talking about.
Most philosophers are perfectly fine with weak (scientific) emergence. Temperature, liquidity, elasticity, traffic jams, economies, etc. all emerge from lower-level interactions. They’re not properties of single particles, but once you understand the micro-story, there’s nothing mysterious left over. Crucially, all of these are structural or functional properties, describable entirely in third-person terms.
The worry about consciousness isn’t really about complexity. It’s about the fact that consciousness seems to involve an experiential aspect — there being something it is like — and critics argue that this doesn’t follow from structural or functional descriptions in the same way temperature or liquidity do.
Similarly, when people say “you can’t open the skull and point to consciousness,” they’re not making a naïve spatial claim. The point is that no amount of third-person description of neurons, firings, or networks seems to capture or entail first-person phenomenal qualities like pain or redness.
So you see, consciousness isn’t treated as special because it’s complex, but because it seems to introduce a different kind of property — phenomenal experience — that standard emergence stories were never designed to explain. Whether that really is a problem is exactly what the debate is about.
They clearly must have pulled this off with help from ‘lawmakers’ in USA. Maine has a very similar problem with per capita ramifications possibly even worse than Minnesota. Only the federal government can fix this. State voting scams and political and financial corruption are so tangled together, there are no state entities left to grapple with the problem. Maybe we can rely on the feds, if only because it will provide a way for them to look good while shifting public attention to the small potatoes of compromised states, away from themselves. ABN
“Don’t come to the Diet anymore!” What’s going on? Because Katsuya Okada went to meet with the International Department of the CCP. What is the International Department? Kazuhiro Haraguchi laid it bare directly: “Do you even know what the International Department is? It’s above the CCP’s Foreign Ministry—it’s the CCP’s party affairs organ!” “It’s an organization specifically for foreign work and infiltration!” “Why would you meet with an organization like that?” What’s even more outrageous? Katsuya Okada also questioned Sanae Takaichi in the Diet, demanding she provide specific evidence for “a Taiwan contingency.” Haraguchi exploded right there: “That’s enough from you! Which side are you even on?” “For diplomacy and national security, even with political rivals, we must speak with one voice externally!” “You’re actually asking for specifics on a ‘Taiwan contingency’? And asking which ‘closely related country’ we’re operating in which ‘region’ with?” “That country is obviously the United States! What are you playing dumb for!” “Japan’s national security absolutely cannot take a single step back—any further, and Japan is done for!” “At a time like this, meeting with the CCP’s united front organization—what the hell are you trying to do?” Haraguchi finally laid down the harsh words: “I’m really pissed off—parliamentarians like you, just stay away!” “The Japanese political world has already been infiltrated like a sieve!”
The concept of a soul or vital force is consistent across scientific, medical, theological, and philosophical thought1 . The soul is often described as contained within specific organs but separate from the body, and it is unsurprising that its location has been a subject of great debate throughout history2 . Despite much contention, those historically in search of the soul have generally agreed that it is the essence of a person – their true and immortal self1,3 . Indeed, when confronted with the challenge of identifying themselves, most people point to their chest or, approximately, their heart. This cardiocentric model of who we are is described in humanity’s earliest writings from the third millennium BCE, indicating that Ancient Egyptians believed souls were immortal and located within the hearts of impermanent bodies4 . The related idea of the pneuma – ancient Greek for breath, spirit, or soul – represents one among many similar beliefs about the essence of human life5 . Consistent with the heart’s exalted status throughout history6 , and until very recently, irreversible cardiac arrest was considered the medical standard for death7-9 . Which is to say, when your heart stopped beating, you stopped being. However, the importance of other bodily organs did not go unnoticed by our ancestors. Notable philosophers such as Plato and Descartes championed the brain as the locus of the soul10-13 and modern definitions of death rest squarely on the structural and functional integrity of the brain, not the heart7,8 .
The “blue-gold-yellow tactic” (often abbreviated as BGY or in Chinese as 蓝金黄, Lán Jīn Huáng) refers to an alleged infiltration and influence strategy attributed to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).It was popularized by exiled Chinese billionaire and dissident Guo Wengui (also known as Miles Guo) in 2017 disclosures. According to Guo and sources echoing his claims, BGY is a systematic program to exert control over foreign individuals, institutions, and governments through three parallel methods:
Blue (蓝/Lán): Control over the internet and cyber operations. This involves hacking, surveillance, propaganda dissemination, and manipulating online narratives (e.g., via social media, censorship tools, or tech companies like Huawei).
Gold (金/Jīn): Economic influence through money and bribery. This includes buying loyalty with financial incentives, investments, loans, or corruption to gain leverage over politicians, businessmen, media, and elites.
Yellow (黄/Huáng): Seduction and sexual compromise (honey traps). This refers to using sex, romance, or scandals to blackmail or entrap key figures, often referencing “yellow” as slang for pornography or illicit sexual content in Chinese contexts.
Guo described BGY as part of a broader effort to undermine adversaries (particularly the U.S.) and achieve global dominance, alongside another alleged plan called “3F” (weaken, fracture, and fell America). These claims surfaced in press conferences, interviews, and documents Guo presented as leaked CCP intelligence directives
.Context and Controversy
The term gained traction in anti-CCP dissident circles, Falun Gong-affiliated media (e.g., Minghui.org, GNews), and some Western reports on Chinese influence operations. Examples include accusations of CCP-linked honey traps, economic coercion via Belt and Road initiatives, and cyber espionage.
Do you know how the CCP takes down foreign politicians? It’s not through money, not through power. But through a kind of… ancient culture. A former Japanese high-ranking official, who once served as the secretary-general of the “Japan-China Friendship Delegation.” He personally recounted his own experience. It was during a visit to Beijing, with the welcome ceremony held at the Great Hall of the People. A long table, with the Japanese delegation seated on one side and CCP officials on the other. But strangely, Next to each Japanese representative stood a beautiful woman. Before departure, he had been warned: “These women are specially tailored for each of you, Selected entirely according to your preferences, You absolutely, absolutely must not touch them!” He was half-believing, half-doubting, but when he arrived at the scene and took a look, “Bingo!” The woman standing next to him was completely his type. And this was just the beginning. In the evening, the delegation checked into the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse. He was warned again: “Listen up, cadres, they will definitely come knocking at night, You absolutely cannot let them in! The rooms are full of cameras; once they enter, you’re done for!” Sure enough, they came. They knocked on the door and asked: “Are you thirsty? Would you like a drink?” He refused. Think it was over? Not at all. A little while later, another knock: “Do you need a massage service?” In short, they tried every possible means, just to get into your room. In Japan, many members of parliament started out as secretaries. Today’s foreign minister is the secretary of one of his former colleagues. What does it mean if these people get caught with leverage? This isn’t an isolated case; it’s the CCP’s systematic infiltration over decades. The Japanese political arena has long been their hunting ground.
Hatred of the host inspires and justifies vicious parasitism and cruelty. Freud was a fraud, an ‘intellectual’ subversive. He was describing Jewish Supremacy when he said a people can be cohesive as long as they have someone to hate. ABN
Sigmund Freud argued that social cohesion is fundamentally dependent on the existence of an external enemy or outgroup, which allows internal group members to unite through shared hostility. He posited that love within a group is only possible because of hatred directed toward those outside the group, as this external aggression serves to bind the group together. In his work, Freud explained that society coheres through the identification of an outgroup, enabling group members to displace their own aggressiveness onto this external target, thereby deflecting destructive impulses that might otherwise turn inward. This mechanism allows for the construction of group identity and cohesion, as the shared antagonism toward an “other” reinforces internal solidarity.
Sigmund Freud infamously said, “They don’t realize that we’re bringing them the plague,” upon arriving in New York Harbor in 1909 during his first and only visit to the United States.
American Buddhist Net 