(09-21-2022, 11:58 AM)Shannon Wrote: Keep in mind that what you think of as being "you" is your so-called "conscious" mind, and it is basically a small sliver of your whole consciousness.  There are many different parts, layers and levels of awareness within you, and some of them will have different points of view, desires and levels of understanding from that sliver of consciousness, which is generally among the least conscious of all of them, from what I can tell.  So it's entirely possible for "you" you deeply want something, and maybe one or more parts of your subconscious, while other parts may deeply want exactly the reverse.  And those parts may simply be too deep for your conscious self to detect in a way that it understands.

(09-22-2022, 12:48 PM)rono Wrote:

(09-21-2022, 11:58 AM)Shannon Wrote: Keep in mind that what you think of as being "you" is your so-called "conscious" mind, and it is basically a small sliver of your whole consciousness.  There are many different parts, layers and levels of awareness within you, and some of them will have different points of view, desires and levels of understanding from that sliver of consciousness, which is generally among the least conscious of all of them, from what I can tell.  So it's entirely possible for "you" you deeply want something, and maybe one or more parts of your subconscious, while other parts may deeply want exactly the reverse.  And those parts may simply be too deep for your conscious self to detect in a way that it understands.

This is a very interesting theory and possibly correct as far as I can tell. I have some questions about it I'll include in my update I'm also posting today.

Cheers,
RonO

(09-23-2022, 10:03 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-22-2022, 12:48 PM)rono Wrote:

(09-21-2022, 11:58 AM)Shannon Wrote: Keep in mind that what you think of as being "you" is your so-called "conscious" mind, and it is basically a small sliver of your whole consciousness.  There are many different parts, layers and levels of awareness within you, and some of them will have different points of view, desires and levels of understanding from that sliver of consciousness, which is generally among the least conscious of all of them, from what I can tell.  So it's entirely possible for "you" you deeply want something, and maybe one or more parts of your subconscious, while other parts may deeply want exactly the reverse.  And those parts may simply be too deep for your conscious self to detect in a way that it understands.

This is a very interesting theory and possibly correct as far as I can tell. I have some questions about it I'll include in my update I'm also posting today.

Cheers,
RonO

I wouldn't exactly call it a theory, after doing this since 1992, but take it as you will.

(09-23-2022, 10:36 AM)rono Wrote:

(09-23-2022, 10:03 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-22-2022, 12:48 PM)rono Wrote:

(09-21-2022, 11:58 AM)Shannon Wrote: Keep in mind that what you think of as being "you" is your so-called "conscious" mind, and it is basically a small sliver of your whole consciousness.  There are many different parts, layers and levels of awareness within you, and some of them will have different points of view, desires and levels of understanding from that sliver of consciousness, which is generally among the least conscious of all of them, from what I can tell.  So it's entirely possible for "you" you deeply want something, and maybe one or more parts of your subconscious, while other parts may deeply want exactly the reverse.  And those parts may simply be too deep for your conscious self to detect in a way that it understands.

This is a very interesting theory and possibly correct as far as I can tell. I have some questions about it I'll include in my update I'm also posting today.

Cheers,
RonO

I wouldn't exactly call it a theory, after doing this since 1992, but take it as you will.

Touché

I'm accustomed to calling anything that I cannot access or test the data a 'theory' it doesn't demean it, it just allows it to be superseded when new info emerges as it almost always does in scientific investigation.

RonO

(09-23-2022, 11:14 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-23-2022, 10:36 AM)rono Wrote:

(09-23-2022, 10:03 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-22-2022, 12:48 PM)rono Wrote:

(09-21-2022, 11:58 AM)Shannon Wrote: Keep in mind that what you think of as being "you" is your so-called "conscious" mind, and it is basically a small sliver of your whole consciousness.  There are many different parts, layers and levels of awareness within you, and some of them will have different points of view, desires and levels of understanding from that sliver of consciousness, which is generally among the least conscious of all of them, from what I can tell.  So it's entirely possible for "you" you deeply want something, and maybe one or more parts of your subconscious, while other parts may deeply want exactly the reverse.  And those parts may simply be too deep for your conscious self to detect in a way that it understands.

This is a very interesting theory and possibly correct as far as I can tell. I have some questions about it I'll include in my update I'm also posting today.

Cheers,
RonO

I wouldn't exactly call it a theory, after doing this since 1992, but take it as you will.

Touché

I'm accustomed to calling anything that I cannot access or test the data a 'theory' it doesn't demean it, it just allows it to be superseded when new info emerges as it almost always does in scientific investigation.

RonO

"Theory" is a word frequently abused by those outside the scientific establishment.  In formal hard science circles, a thing is a theory until it becomes a law, as far as I recall, which can take decades or even a century or more.  In that sense, certainly it is indeed a theory.  But most people don't use the word in that sense, they use it as a way of throwing shade on something, or casting it as doubtful.  In the former usage, I have no problem with it being called a theory.  The latter rather bothers me.  Good to see it is being used in the former sense, not the latter.

I doubt there will ever be 100% certainty concerning the subconscious awareness, but this I have shared with you has indeed been built upon and survived decades of experimentation, testing and every challenge I could find to throw at it.  It's not a certainty, but it is a very well supported and very strong and stable conclusion.

(09-23-2022, 11:40 AM)rono Wrote:

(09-23-2022, 11:14 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-23-2022, 10:36 AM)rono Wrote:

(09-23-2022, 10:03 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-22-2022, 12:48 PM)rono Wrote: This is a very interesting theory and possibly correct as far as I can tell. I have some questions about it I'll include in my update I'm also posting today.

Cheers,
RonO

I wouldn't exactly call it a theory, after doing this since 1992, but take it as you will.

Touché

I'm accustomed to calling anything that I cannot access or test the data a 'theory' it doesn't demean it, it just allows it to be superseded when new info emerges as it almost always does in scientific investigation.

RonO

"Theory" is a word frequently abused by those outside the scientific establishment.  In formal hard science circles, a thing is a theory until it becomes a law, as far as I recall, which can take decades or even a century or more.  In that sense, certainly it is indeed a theory.  But most people don't use the word in that sense, they use it as a way of throwing shade on something, or casting it as doubtful.  In the former usage, I have no problem with it being called a theory.  The latter rather bothers me.  Good to see it is being used in the former sense, not the latter.

I doubt there will ever be 100% certainty concerning the subconscious awareness, but this I have shared with you has indeed been built upon and survived decades of experimentation, testing and every challenge I could find to throw at it.  It's not a certainty, but it is a very well supported and very strong and stable conclusion.

I'm glad you have the classical understanding of 'theory' as I do. I don't use it to disparage the operating paradigms, just to remind myself that there is always the possibility I might be wrong in some way. Mostly right but for the wrong reasons, etc. I was taught that the 'truth value' of a theory is not as important as its usefulness in interpreting data from the real world.

The unconscious/subconscious deserves more attention than it gets in the scientific community. After discussing my results from the first weeks of experimenting with HOY with my functional medicine/hormone doctor yesterday she was very excited about my 'experiment'. Made me wonder if you'd consider doing a double-blind gold-standard test at some point if you get consistent results? Seems you may have something to add to the existing body of scientific knowledge here. But perhaps you'd have to divulge your IP in order to do that? At any rate I think it merits some more attention.

RonO

(09-23-2022, 11:59 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-23-2022, 11:40 AM)rono Wrote:

(09-23-2022, 11:14 AM)Shannon Wrote:

(09-23-2022, 10:36 AM)rono Wrote:

(09-23-2022, 10:03 AM)Shannon Wrote: I wouldn't exactly call it a theory, after doing this since 1992, but take it as you will.

Touché

I'm accustomed to calling anything that I cannot access or test the data a 'theory' it doesn't demean it, it just allows it to be superseded when new info emerges as it almost always does in scientific investigation.

RonO

"Theory" is a word frequently abused by those outside the scientific establishment.  In formal hard science circles, a thing is a theory until it becomes a law, as far as I recall, which can take decades or even a century or more.  In that sense, certainly it is indeed a theory.  But most people don't use the word in that sense, they use it as a way of throwing shade on something, or casting it as doubtful.  In the former usage, I have no problem with it being called a theory.  The latter rather bothers me.  Good to see it is being used in the former sense, not the latter.

I doubt there will ever be 100% certainty concerning the subconscious awareness, but this I have shared with you has indeed been built upon and survived decades of experimentation, testing and every challenge I could find to throw at it.  It's not a certainty, but it is a very well supported and very strong and stable conclusion.

I'm glad you have the classical understanding of 'theory' as I do. I don't use it to disparage the operating paradigms, just to remind myself that there is always the possibility I might be wrong in some way. Mostly right but for the wrong reasons, etc. I was taught that the 'truth value' of a theory is not as important as its usefulness in interpreting data from the real world.

The unconscious/subconscious deserves more attention than it gets in the scientific community. After discussing my results from the first weeks of experimenting with HOY with my functional medicine/hormone doctor yesterday she was very excited about my 'experiment'. Made me wonder if you'd consider doing a double-blind gold-standard test at some point if you get consistent results? Seems you may have something to add to the existing body of scientific knowledge here. But perhaps you'd have to divulge your IP in order to do that? At any rate I think it merits some more attention.

RonO

I have had plans to do a formal double blind clinical trial, or series of them, when I achieved what I believe is worth the time, attention, energy, money, etc, for those involved.  I'm not interested in wasting people's time, whether they are getting paid for the project or not.  We are approaching that situation, but I cannot reveal the scripts that go into these programs.  I would instead like to prove or disprove exactly what they really do in a scientific examination, and perhaps comparison to other known variables.  For example, I would like to do a trial of Advanced Stress Relief and compare it to the effects of a chemical drug for achieving a similar result, like maybe Xanax or something similar.

How I do this is very secret as much because it costs me a lot of time, money and work to figure out and I don't want to give my work away to competitors, as it is that I don't want this information to fall into the hands of those who would use it for less than positive or honorable things.  And information is one of those things that is very, very difficult to un-do once the cat is out of the bag.

My goal is to show what the human mind and body can do, and open the door to new options for mental, emotional and physical care to be explored by those who have positive intentions.  How I will go about setting it up and funding it is currently not something I have figured out, but there is a lot of potential we do not know we have, which this is going to reveal in ways that cannot be ignored forever.  I'm hoping that it will make the world a better place, and help people have better, richer, more productive and successful lives.  In the process, I would like to make myself independently wealthy in exchange for the decades of work, effort, research, experimentation, expenditure and countless failures that go into achieving each success.  But ultimately, my goal is to open the door to what human potential really is, and I think we have our eyes firmly shut on that in the general scientific community specifically because it is not a hard science field. 

Sadly, the field of psychology as a science seems to be desperately trying to turn itself into a hard science to feel legitimate because hard science does not see it as being such.  But it is not a hard science, and it never will be.  The best we will get on that front is a partial meshing of hard science and psychology, such as biology, chemistry and psychology. 

But I could be quite wrong, in the end.  We shall see.  What I know is that what got me here is a scientific approach, and what will find the truth whatever it turns out to be is a scientific approach.  It is the truth I am after, and so if that means I must admit to being wrong in the future, so be it.  So far, that seems rather unlikely as a whole, although I am constantly making improvements, adjustments and revisions to the minutia of my theory and the work that result from it.

I would absolutely love to have my efforts make a positive contribution to science and the world.  When the time comes that I am finished developing what I am developing, I will certainly be looking for clinical double blind gold standard trials to verify what I believe I have achieved.

1. Is it possible that the volume level emphasizes different aspects of the effects of the sub? This appears to be what I've observed so far.
   
2. Would it make sense to alternate volume, higher one night, lower the next? or a High-volume cycle followed by a low volume cycle?
   

(09-30-2022, 01:30 PM)rono Wrote: Hi All, (9/30/2022)

Just finished another 5 day on, 1 day off cycle of the HOY. Listening on iPhone 6s with Ounne case at 6 clicks, 4 loops per night. (these were personal recommendations from Shannon).

I'm observing an interesting phenomenon. It seems that there are a couple of 'see-saws' going on.

Now that we're on the lower volume, I have seen better response re sexual response. Libido is still quite low, BUT it has increased since starting the 6 clicks protocol. This is progress. 

Also, testicles returned to appropriate size and have stayed that way. Yay! This is also progress.

At this stage though, I'm also suddenly experiencing a decrease in mental acuity and motivation (especially the latter) which had initially surged when listening at higher volumes.

Sooooo... the sexual stuff has improved but my ability to stay focused and work consistently without distractions is in the toilet. 

So, a question (or two?) for @Shannon:

1. Is it possible that the volume level emphasizes different aspects of the effects of the sub? This appears to be what I've observed so far.
   
2. Would it make sense to alternate volume, higher one night, lower the next? or a High-volume cycle followed by a low volume cycle?
   

If you'll remember we reduced the volume based on the idea that the volume needed to be lower to speak to the libido (for lack of a better word) part of my hormone/nervous system. Since doing that my motivation has gone downhill. So, do we keep it here and wait for changes to catch up (so to speak) or do we tweak?

The distraction/motivation/focus thing is killing me right now. I'm reaching for the nootropics to see what they can do, but so far not much effect (unlike before when I was on TRT), so it may be hormonally related...

Cheers!
RonO

(10-05-2022, 10:29 AM)rono Wrote: Hi Shannon,

Glad you're making progress on other subs.

Fair enough on your evaluation of my 'logic' I am just reading the tea leaves and guessing, really.

We have been through a very demanding couple of weeks, not getting our usual downtime and the intensity has affected our sleep a bit.



Last night I think I forgot to turn up the volume on my phone to 6 clicks, I believe it was on zero or maybe 1. At times I have to adjust the volume to off on my phone while I'm streaming a show or something to my TV. Last night was so blasted, I think I forgot the step of adjusting the volume.



To make up for not listening to the sub last night, I'm going to listen once or twice during the day today since tonight was supposed to be our night off the sub.



Today the nootropics seem to be helping... go figure.



I figure 3 more cycles and I'll be ready for another round of tests. BUT I may decide to wait a couple weeks longer, just to be on the safe side.



I wonder if there are any 'mental exercises' or 'affirmations' that could help my subconscious let down its guard for the sub (providing that there IS subconscious resistance as you suggest).



Cheers!

RonO

• Mood is pretty good
  
• Mental clarity is pretty good
  
• Motivation is ok (could be a lot better) 
  
• Distraction isn't too bad, but it's not great
  
• Able to perform sexually
  
• Weight is staying constant - it had dropped and I was certain I was losing muscle mass, now I'm staying pat
  
• Resting heartrate is great
  
• Blood pressure is in the sweet spot, 
  

• low sex drive - I don't even think about sex unless it is 'time' and I have to -- so not like me in the past, just glad I can perform
  
• Strength is terrible -- for a couple weeks I was unmotivated to work out, BUT I still did. Early on, I was tearing up the gym and getting back to my pre-covid strength. Now my strength has dropped at least 20%
  
• Endurance is down
  
• Pain in my shoulders in spite of the fact I'm doing less exercise with less weights.
  
• Exercise is becoming a drag because of the decreased strength, endurance and pain... I'm wondering if I should take a break from even trying because I'm seeing the opposite of progress. It's not a plateau--I've seen these before, this is worse. I'm suddenly struggling to lift weights that I was able to lift easily right after my bout with covid.
  

1. Peptides that encourage your body to boost Growth Hormone
   
2. Peptides that help induce deep sleep
   
3. Testosterone injections - could do a low-level like 200mg rather than 500mg 2x/wk
   
4. HCG - could do half doses to see if it picks up the slack