Sakiro wrote:

I don't know if i remember well, but i believe reading that the idea for the tutorials is that they should be updated once a year because of all the new research coming.
them.

hmm... nope you don't...

I guess you're referring to the quote facing the 'Theory & Research' sub-section of the library:


Theory & Research   ( 21 Articles )

"At the current pace of neuroscience observations and discoveries,

theory should be updated every day." - Alex Ramonsky


so, it was more like a funny conundrum, and about 'theory' and not 'practice' (tutorials).

actually, I would have to ask Alex to be sure, but if I'm not mistaking there are 7 tutorials to go yet (at least) and existent ones are easily updatable now that they are on this site (each article in the library shows when it has been last updated at the bottom of the page when they have been modified after the date of creation).

Cheers,

Scalino

Hello dudes,

(i have never before said dude before i came onto this site)

I want to briefly post and give my two cents for what it is worth concerning when and what should be updated on this site.

I have been neurohacking now for less than a month and I feel pretty f-ing great.  The process is FUN as well as making A LOT of sense to me.

In case it is useful to you, here I post my FA scores in percentages.  These were my scores when I first came on:

N1N2  F 80% O 18% X 2%
N3    F 60% O 40%
N4    F 94% O 6%
N5    F 50% O 50%
N6    F 60% O 40%

Dont know exactly what you would make of that, but I say there is a lot of wrong use.

Anyway, it seems to me that there is a certain impatience in me that does desire more and more tutorials.  But on the other hand, it is becoming more and more apparent that one can't underestimate the simplest tutorials... i.e. smiling, sentiment wiping, rich imaginings, modeling, input control, and breathing.  It seems there is a lot of mileage one can get just staying with these.  Plus, since I don't yet have any of the tech like GSR or Proteus, well until I get these biofeedback machines, I can't say I have taken these "simple" tutorials to their maximum potential. 

This is my next step, to get the machines.  I dread it at the same time, because I am so tech-illiterate, and I wonder if I will even be able to connect them to my humble MAC laptop!

So, I hope this helps you Alex, because it seems that in your last post here you were calling for a sort of census on everyone's status. 

Let me also just express my deepest gratitude to those of you that are running this site and interacting with us faceless "students".  I feel very very lucky.

later dudes, daniel (sirhinojo)

Hi dudes,

well... this is a very tricky question in my point of view. So, I'm gonna be as honest as I can and I hope no one will feel bad about it.

The path that led me to "here and now" is a very complicated and unusual (in the mainstream's sense) set of research and discoveries I mostly made "on my own", in what Alan Watts would call a "goo" approach of the world. (in brief: prickle people sees reality as made of particles; goo people considers it is made of waves. but the truth is that reality is prickly goo and/or gooy prickle)

By "on my own", I don't mean I discovered everything our predecessors had discovered and wrote about by myself, but rather that, whatever I had read before or found on the net or anything, I suddenly "realised" in my own terms / integrated into my cosm a particular truth, while living a particular moment.

So, it is this series of "realisations" that defines fundamentally what is my current "location and position in the universe".

And I've learned to decipher the truth in whatever shape it was taking way before I met Alex, and this is what allowed me to understand that he was spot on a fucking crucial truth for our times, in reading ICMM.

Besides, as I'm rather - sentimentally - on the goo side of the polarity of prickle & goo, I rather see Alex's approach and even tutorials somehow, as a prickle approach. But beware, it looks that way from my own goo point of view. for, let's say, academic scientists, Alex's approach is most likely considered as quite gooish....

But anyway, thing is if I decided to put up this site with Alex, racking my ass off to make it run more or less like we wanted, it's because I felt this corpus of information deserved to be presented in a prettier display than what we had on the yahoo group, and that a lot of people could then - more easily - benefit from it, and so I can understand people ask for more. If I can also benefit from them, finding smart exercices, glorious insights and great advices for myself in them, the path I'm walking is more related to my experience of the flow of the universe - as it flows - and not to a strict application of the tutorials' guidance.

On another hand, I as anyone else, always act towards my very selfish and direct interest (and having more intelligent people to interact with is my very direct interest...), and so that means... in this instance, I'm a bit torn apart dudes...

Cause you know... ICMM has been released in 2004... and I'm longing for more...

Okay, voilà ! as we say round here... Unfortunately, I guess this won't be extremely helpful for you to make a choice...

I did my best...

Scalino

Woh! Dude!  :  )

Sirhinojo wrote: Dont know exactly what you would make of that, but I say there is a lot of wrong use.

I'd say, Holy FA, Batman, where are the N scores?? If they are genuinely zero you are an extremely rare and fascinating anomaly and wow, I want to see your brain right now!  :  )
Best,
AR

Hi dude,
There's nothing wrong with being alright; it's just very unusual. I've never met anyone with no N scores before; do you think this warrants a party?  :  )
AR

On PG: There are all sorts of Psychological Gaming methods. Stuff like Dungeons & Dragons,  World of Warcraft, and various PG 'techniques' recommended by various groups here and there.

What we do here is simply enter the forum as a character, usually a role model whose skills we need to learn. There are no rules, borders or boundaries; we interact as that character and we are provided with feedback from other characters.

Everything is anonymous as you can join the site again with an alternate username & email address. You can't post as your character outside the PG forum, because unfortunately not everyone is developed enough to perceive the real relationship between play and reality, a fact which has caused us some awful problems in the past! Being aware of gaming as an important skill-development exercise, how it works and why it works, are vital factors to achieve before beginning.

We currently only have one PG forum in the residents' section ('Residents' are people who have worked on the site, had a lot of interaction on the site for a long time or met each other in real life. Most residents are at 'intermediate' NH level, and discussions there can seem ridiculously complicated or even anxiety-raising for newbies.) But I see no reason why we shouldn't have PG 'topics' in the Lab; after all labs are meant for experiments, right?  :  )  As long as the topic is clearly labeled 'PG only', why not?*
If you would like to give it a try I'm sure one of us could start it off!

Because of past problems I would put one caveat on this suggestion -to run PG successfully in the lab, people who want to join in must take responsibility for finding out about how 'behave as though' modeling and imitative play operate to increase our intelligence. This is in chapter 6 of ICMM, so nobody has to get out of their chair to find it out.
Best,
AR
*If anybody can think of a good reason why not, now would be a good time to mention it.

*If anybody can think of a good reason why not, now would be a good time to mention it.



The good stuff is the chance to have more interaction in that forums, but with an increase in chance to break the "fourth wall", maybe we will need some "stickies" in that forum explaining very clear the rules of PG?

For example if we are having a PG thread and someone new come and post "wow great job dude, btw how do you get the idea of this character?"  .... game over!

Of course we don't lose nothing to try? (ok some time maybe =) )

mm maybe having "two levels" of PG forums? (one in resident and the other in "beta test" in lab?)

Anyways personally to me, i feel hard to get benefits of playing PG in "writing mode only" i feel like that is something you must do face to face to work (for me), so i don't think i will participate in there in the short term ..

About tutorials ..

Maybe one way that can help to answer the question about the progress of the members ... is having a dedicate forum about tutorials? probably not worth the time/work because we are still few, but maybe in the future having it to make only question relate to X tutorial.

I know that the LAB is the place right now to that stuff, but to me, can help to newbies to after the reading of the tutorials, can read some other related question of that recently tutorial from others users in that dedicated forum (and ask his own of course)

I will love to have some nootropic/drug forum section too, but probably is too early for that.

And i shut up before Scal kill me =) LOL

News: At this weekend i will have some work done about the network exercise stuff, so i will post it, it will be a LONG post, so get coffee or you prefered stimulant!

Cheers