04-29-2020, 09:36 AM
Okay, fair enough! I was just trying to put myself in the body of a man from that era, to see if anything of use could be gleamed because I know I've had a measurable amount of fear. Seeing that the primitive "lizard brain" seems to be the focus in solving this issue. Maybe it goes even deeper than I thought. No worries.
I agree with you about fear being possible to turn off. It isn't permanent, there's evidence of that in everyone. It is a learned response. So, then, it can also be unlearned. The question is, just how much can you be able to get that deep into our minds, and tinker with the wiring in there to generate such a result. We shall see. I remain optimistic, but I do understand the level of complexity in such a thing. That's encouraging to hear you that have a few new approaches for FRM 4.9 and thus the new DMSI! Great news!
I respect the conflict here that you have. It would conceivably be very simple, given your words of that mind's priorities, to just buff the hell out of the fear/pain portions of things if it didn't go along with the script, in order to counterbalance the scale and then tip it in the opposite direction to avoid the new superior fear and the new superior pain. But, that would go against the ethics I've respected for a long time. So, like I said, I do respect this issue you have here...maybe if you painted a picture of a possible future if it took action positively to show it what's possible and that it can fulfill it's sexual needs through this path after all, I think you've already done that though. It may not have such a nuanced understanding of such an image anyway, or even be capable of processing such a thing.
Yeah, I was just mentioning DRS or even TRS, because they both seem to offer more benefit to the listener than NDRS. Both have their positives. I know you mentioned "energy issues" with DMSI, so TRS seemed best given that. Even if I don't understand the whole energy portion of things, just speaking to what was said to be a bottleneck of performance. Hell, even the DRS would be great for when people are “hatin’ on you”, to make them "stop their hatin’", LMAO that sales page...hahaha...I laughed and cringed at the same time. Impressive! DRS would be massively effective especially if the program starts seriously delivering, I imagine there could be a huge flood of "hatin'" taking place on users. TRS, or DRS, we'll see what is best from what you say in time.
Okay, as long as the design goal isn't being removed, no worries. I didn't think you would remove it, because that's what makes it so complex and difficult to begin with. Which was the whole point, to make it hard in order to make 6G as amazing as possible through it's possible eventual success. I hear you now.
Thanks, Shannon. REALLY looking forward to hearing all about development of FRM and DMSI in the next little bit. Very excited for that!
Post #2:
Just thought of this...I'm not sure if it would trip the "ethical/moral sensor" or not. I have some reservations about it, it's 50/50. But still, I wanted to bounce it off you...
You mention your assertion that fear is a reaction, "it always results from an assessment of the surroundings or an imagined threat". I would agree with that. So...maybe...if we attack this from a different way, this can work. So far, you seem to have been attacking it head on, trying to overcome the fear etc. and thus getting the eventual back and forth from it. However, maybe we can do something far more subtle, but far more effective. You mention this part of the mind has a low level of awareness, and I would agree also. So perhaps, we can use that extremely limited view to our advantage here. It helps cut down potentials here.
My proposal...is to script in horse's blinders in regards to fear. Horse's blinders work extremely well at cutting the horse's field of view, to keep them focused so they don't get startled etc. by things occurring around them. The new tunnel vision keeps their perception limited to what is important, and avoiding potential fear and the consequences from said fear. So, horse's blinders, in this concept, could block the perception of possible fear, or negative consequences that are imagined and overblown, basically anything else except what's in front.
The concept was to illustrate the idea of not necessarily attacking the fear anymore, or even to acknowledge it's existence, just to cut the PERCEPTION to it. That, could subtly allow the subject to proceed without the fear registering at all.
Horse's blinders. Just a thought to get around this, from a clever problem-solving entrepreneur. Not sure if it's viable for you, or even moral/ethical, or even possible.
I agree with you about fear being possible to turn off. It isn't permanent, there's evidence of that in everyone. It is a learned response. So, then, it can also be unlearned. The question is, just how much can you be able to get that deep into our minds, and tinker with the wiring in there to generate such a result. We shall see. I remain optimistic, but I do understand the level of complexity in such a thing. That's encouraging to hear you that have a few new approaches for FRM 4.9 and thus the new DMSI! Great news!
I respect the conflict here that you have. It would conceivably be very simple, given your words of that mind's priorities, to just buff the hell out of the fear/pain portions of things if it didn't go along with the script, in order to counterbalance the scale and then tip it in the opposite direction to avoid the new superior fear and the new superior pain. But, that would go against the ethics I've respected for a long time. So, like I said, I do respect this issue you have here...maybe if you painted a picture of a possible future if it took action positively to show it what's possible and that it can fulfill it's sexual needs through this path after all, I think you've already done that though. It may not have such a nuanced understanding of such an image anyway, or even be capable of processing such a thing.
Yeah, I was just mentioning DRS or even TRS, because they both seem to offer more benefit to the listener than NDRS. Both have their positives. I know you mentioned "energy issues" with DMSI, so TRS seemed best given that. Even if I don't understand the whole energy portion of things, just speaking to what was said to be a bottleneck of performance. Hell, even the DRS would be great for when people are “hatin’ on you”, to make them "stop their hatin’", LMAO that sales page...hahaha...I laughed and cringed at the same time. Impressive! DRS would be massively effective especially if the program starts seriously delivering, I imagine there could be a huge flood of "hatin'" taking place on users. TRS, or DRS, we'll see what is best from what you say in time.
Okay, as long as the design goal isn't being removed, no worries. I didn't think you would remove it, because that's what makes it so complex and difficult to begin with. Which was the whole point, to make it hard in order to make 6G as amazing as possible through it's possible eventual success. I hear you now.
Thanks, Shannon. REALLY looking forward to hearing all about development of FRM and DMSI in the next little bit. Very excited for that!
Post #2:
(04-29-2020, 08:38 AM)Shannon Wrote: [ -> ]Based on what I have seen, I think that you are over-ascribing ability to think to the parts of the brain that fear seems to most deeply originate from. The parts we are dealing with have the awareness of a lizard, quite literally. They understand hunger and thirst, drive to sex, drive to safety, drive to comfort/pain avoidance, and that's about it. This is a very low level of awareness, a very instinctual and "dim" awareness, if you will. It is survival only. All the fancy stuff I have tried so far has failed to get at this level because it is not what I was aiming at with what I was doing. But because it is the root of fear, and it is not being dealt with, when triggered it naturally it keeps responding with fear.
If this is correct, then we have a very challenging situation on our hands, which is probably binary in nature. It is either possible to shut down fear, or it is not. If it is, there is very likely a very specific way to do it, which we haven't tried yet. I disagree with those who conclude that fear is "hard wired and impossible to stop", because it always results from an assessment of the surroundings or an imagined threat. In other words, it is always a reaction, not a constant or an innate state. To kill fear, we have to stop the reaction somehow. I think the key is very specific, and we just haven't tried it yet. I believe I have some very good ideas in the pipeline for how to do this.
Just thought of this...I'm not sure if it would trip the "ethical/moral sensor" or not. I have some reservations about it, it's 50/50. But still, I wanted to bounce it off you...
You mention your assertion that fear is a reaction, "it always results from an assessment of the surroundings or an imagined threat". I would agree with that. So...maybe...if we attack this from a different way, this can work. So far, you seem to have been attacking it head on, trying to overcome the fear etc. and thus getting the eventual back and forth from it. However, maybe we can do something far more subtle, but far more effective. You mention this part of the mind has a low level of awareness, and I would agree also. So perhaps, we can use that extremely limited view to our advantage here. It helps cut down potentials here.
My proposal...is to script in horse's blinders in regards to fear. Horse's blinders work extremely well at cutting the horse's field of view, to keep them focused so they don't get startled etc. by things occurring around them. The new tunnel vision keeps their perception limited to what is important, and avoiding potential fear and the consequences from said fear. So, horse's blinders, in this concept, could block the perception of possible fear, or negative consequences that are imagined and overblown, basically anything else except what's in front.
The concept was to illustrate the idea of not necessarily attacking the fear anymore, or even to acknowledge it's existence, just to cut the PERCEPTION to it. That, could subtly allow the subject to proceed without the fear registering at all.
Horse's blinders. Just a thought to get around this, from a clever problem-solving entrepreneur. Not sure if it's viable for you, or even moral/ethical, or even possible.
