Amnesia through hypnosis to erase painful memories.

jimmyh wrote:And you don't see how that could just be "I should probably make it explicitly clear that I have good intent and am not trying to cause trouble because this guy seems unnecessarily hostile and might find a reason to respond to this with more unwarranted hostility if I don't make this clear"?

Hilarious.

In one post you accuse me of reading into his intent and in the next breath you develop your own long winded interpretation.

No. I don't see his comment through your personal rose colored glasses. I see his comment through my rose colored glasses.

I'm asking if you're capable of conceiving of the possibility that you're wrong of if that ability is beyond you.

Krystian, can you make me forget I read all the way through this thread?

Jimmy was indeed correct about my intention of the statement, but I don't have time for people who want to fight the world.

jimmyh wrote:I'm asking if you're capable of conceiving of the possibility that you're wrong of if that ability is beyond you.

Yes. I am capable of conceiving the possibility of being wrong. I am wrong all the time. Every single day. Do you also have that capability?

So what?

I'm not saying you're fat, but...
I'm not saying you're ugly, but...
I'm not saying you're stupid, but...
I'm not saying you're a jerk, but....

You can say these things all day long in the most wonderful, sincere, caring, and loving ways with the hope of just helping another person improve, but don't be surprised when the person you target isn't so receptive to your "help".

So yes jimmy, I can see where I can be wrong. I can see where an ignorant person might believe they are trying to be helpful when they say, I'm not saying X, but...and then they "help" someone.

krystian4684 wrote:Jimmy was indeed correct about my intention of the statement, but I don't have time for people who want to fight the world.

Well then, I'm not saying your opinion was ignorant, BUT you might consider a different approach to being "helpful".

I am aware this was due to a misinterpretation of intention, and that is something i will be wary of.
Text lacks tone, and is sometimes difficult to interpret. I still however do not agree that such an aggressive attitude is require to solve a problem.

I just want to mention that the intention of the rest of the original post was much less a desire "help" anyone in particular, but moreso to express that I disagree with the view that it cannot be done based on my own experiences with subjects that have been kind enough to allow me to try various things. I have no beef with you, let's just move on from this.

When I am trying out new techniques i tend to try to apply the same logic as computer code.
This is simply my interpretation but I have been in Computers for most of my life, and I kind of see the Human brain as an organic computer with self-awareness. It is a self-aware, learning computer effectively. Once the conscious filter of ingoing information is removed, reprogramming can take place (in my own experiences). In regards to the original post that started this thread, I would think permanently removing a memory regarding an event linked to a depressive disorder or anxiety disorder / both, or something like PTSD would be extremely immoral, on account that a persons life experiences, memories and knowledge of the past makes that individual who they are. In my opinion, this could have a severe knock on effect on other memories and experiences linked to the one removed, changing that person, even if it is just slightly. I personally believe the correct approach would be to help an individual respond to the memory of the experience differently to help them manage their depression / anxiety / PTSD or whatever it is, rather than removing the experience alltogether.

krystian4684 wrote: I still however do not agree that such an aggressive attitude is require to solve a problem.

-1- Aggression is subjective, no?

-2- There is ample evidence that aggression in various forms is actually conducive to solving problems.

... but I have been in Computers for most of my life, and I kind of see the Human brain as an organic computer with self-awareness.

The computer model is popular and provides a fun analogy, yet is not accurate. Long term memory is not a hard drive, short term memory is not RAM. A computer doesn't benefit from aggression or cognitive bias.

No indeed I agree with you there, i'm more talking about the approach I use in my words while with a subject "Personal Preference". In my computer code I tend to work in the principle of:

Condition (The target effect of the code)
Trigger (The specific command or situation that will trigger the condition)

So when coding I might have a piece of code that works on a principle of:
When value 1 is equal to 1 instead of default zero, run a piece of code to delete a file. Something like that.

I tend to use the same kind of logic when I am programming a mind, but as I said is personal preference.
I'm naive enough to think the brain is as simple as a standard PC in someone's living room lol. The brain is far more complex than that obviously. I think the processing of memory alone is regulated by approximately 6 different brain processes? Possibly more?

The brain is fascinating. One of nature's greatest achievements.

krystian4684 wrote:
Condition (The target effect of the code)
Trigger (The specific command or situation that will trigger the condition)

So when coding I might have a piece of code that works on a principle of:
When value 1 is to 1 instead of default zero, run a piece of code to delete a file.

This is why deleting a specific memory is pseudoscience. The code/trigger create a program or code analogy is fun to think about, but it isn't how the mind works. Behaviorism in psychology went down a similar path, stimulus/response. Using the correct stimulus in the correct order and with the correct intensity people could be programmed. That was the zeitgeist for a few decades, until the theory was shredded. NLP has the same problem.

With computers, when you create a code to trigger a program to delete a file it works not on just one computer, but all computers. It is transferable and can be tested. You beta test, you debug until you get a program that can be marketed and used by everyone.

But, when working with the human mind, you can't create that program that deletes a file that can be tested across people. The fall back then is to get these one off case studies that are claimed a "success". People come forward to claim it worked or a specific memory was selectively deleted. Over time, you get 50, 100, even a thousand people to provide testimonials that indeed it worked for them. This is how pseudoscience profits, selling hope and making good money selling hope that if I can get a custom program, designed just for me, then I can be rid of my bad memory.

When a person hand over money in hope, and the program fails, the excuse most often provided is the program works, but the subject just didn't believe strong enough, or they didn't follow instructions, or they were not open minded. Hogwash! When you create a program it doesn't work every other Wednesday and only for select individuals that have faith.

Point being, if you are using a program analogy, then the program better be capable of testing and installing across individuals. It is not acceptable IMO, to sell a program that must be customized per individual and may or may not function on your machine.

People have wanted to get rid of bad memories for thousands of years. If there was a reliable, special combination of words or steps that could be used to access and delete a specific memory there would be a store on every corner. It would be more popular than Starbucks or KFC.

Note: I'm not closed to the idea a person can't continue to work on and develop such a program. If that is what floats a person's boat, if that is what they are passionate about, go for it. But in the process of developing and testing that program don't bullsh*t someone into believing something exists based on pseudoscientific testimonials. That is just my personal standard. I'm not going to sugarcoat and tell someone to go waste their money and time chasing a way to eradicate a specific memory when the overwhelming scientific evidence shows otherwise.

Richard, this is what I'm talking about. You're felt attacked and you responded with explicit and intentional aggression towards someone who's only crime was saying something in a way that they knew you might choose to interpret uncharitably. Kristian was not intending to slap you, and you willingly deliberately tried to verbally slap Krystian in response, knowing full well that maybe it wasn't intended as a slap but not caring to make sure. And you were wrong. If you are going to act in a way that makes you an a**hole when you're wrong, you should make sure you're not wrong if you don't want to be an a**hole.

If I were in your position I'd be eating crow right now, and working up the best apology I am capable of. You don't have to apologize to Krystian if you don't want, but either way your response here will show the quality of your character.

Krystian, I'm sorry about Richard and welcome to the forum. I wanted to make it clear that just because no one opposes him all the time that it doesn't mean we agree with him or that he's some high status member of the community. We're just a quiet bunch that only sometimes get aroused from our slumber, and I'd hate to see new members driven away because of Richard. No one will think less of you if you decide not to engage with him. Non-response won't be taken as inability to respond.

As to the topic of therapeutic hypnotic amnesia, I think you're basically right. At least, it seems to agree with how I see things. This is a pet topic of mine because of how quickly it gets deep and counter-intuitive. I've written up an analysis of some of the things I've learned when working with clients that wanted amnesia and how to deal with the discrepancy between what they are demanding and what seems like would be helpful. I can PM you when I publish it, if you'd like.

jimmyh wrote:... who's only crime was saying something in a way that they knew you might choose to interpret uncharitably. Kristian was not intending to...

Keep up the double-talk all you like jimmy. There is no reason for a person to intentionally say something in a way another person might "choose" to interpret uncharitably and then be shocked or dumbfounded when the person indeed interprets it in such a way.

In other words, if you don't want a person to possibly interpret something uncharitably, keep that opinion to yourself. If you are okay with them interpreting it uncharitably, then own it.

Richard - I fully appreciate your last comment Richard in the sense of the side of the argument you're offering, and it is good for different people to have different views, as this can sometimes lead to a positive solution, once again however you're responding in a very negative way, you're basically being an a**hole - in the sense that you are incapable of offering a view without aggression. I happen to agree with most of you're statement but the way you come across is aggressive. Do everyone a favor and shut up, apologies but I've had enough now, every comment from you has been negative in tone, and extremely aggressive. It doesn't matter if you're views are correct or not, and I'm always open to listen, the fact is, regardless, you are incapable of conversing without being a dick.

Jimmy - Yes please that would be great! I'd love to see those notes.

krystian4684 wrote: once again however you're responding in a very negative way, you're basically being an a**hole - in the sense that you are incapable of offering a view without aggression....incapable of conversing without being a dick.

Jimmy - Yes please that would be great! I'd love to see those notes.

Krystian, my last comment was in no way shape or form aggressive. It contained no attacks against you or anyone else. It was a critique of your ideas, not you as a person.

Your comments on the other hand are direct attacks. Good job.

A problem you and Jimmy face, is when you ignore the opinion of others, because you don't like how they present their ideas or you remain silent, you end up talking in closed circles so you get the feedback you like rather than the feedback that challenges your position.

Anyway, I commented on your ideas. I gave a critique of using computers and pseudoscience you didn't like and in a manner you don't like.

You on the other hand did not offer an opinion, but rather just attacked me. As I said, great job.

Old timer hopping in here...

Richard:

For what it's worth, and I do not imagine you will agree with or appreciate this comment, my experience of you on this forum is that you have a lot of knowledge and a lot of important contextual information. I think that's quite helpful, especially when we get people of all skill and knowledge levels on the forum.

At the same time, I have found that some of your comments seem to come across with a certain amount of certainty and what I experience as talking down to the poster.

I can't be certain you mean it that way, I can't be certain my experience matches what others experience, and this is what it's like for me.

I can imagine your motivation in speaking this way is to not give a stage to the pseudoscience and foolishness that we have in this field. And that makes sense to me, as that stuff does muddle the waters and make things more complicated for those who want to do real solid work.

At the same time I personally connect better with a more open and curious approach, one where words such as 'perhaps' and 'maybe' and 'in my experience' are used more freely than phrases like 'the fact is' and 'you can' 'you can't' and 'it's wrong'.

Might that approach risk allowing pseudoscience to have more of a stage? Perhaps. At the same time, in my personal experience, the gains of openness and speaking softly outweigh the loss. I could of course be wrong on that.

In any case, thanks for listening, I can't image you'll agree with much (or any) of what I wrote, and it was nice to have the opportunity to get that off my chest.

Joe