Differences in Term

This book is exactly what you think it is. It is also exactly not what you think it is. It is also not; all of this book. There are six more volumes to go. In this part:
We will take a journey through your brain;

  • Unsettle every single drug trial ever conducted;
  • Find out why cats are smarter than dogs (and I’m a dog lover!);
  • Up end the way we look at things (you need to comprehend the consequences of not doing that and dyslexics need to read that one again);
  • Understand exactly how the brains of women and men are different (but are not different);
  • Travel into the moment of the existence of space and matter and not even get our feet wet;
  • Totally discover why someone could feel like they are in the wrong body;
  • Take a trip back in time through feet and weight;
  • Gain the knowledge of why we need to measure everything and why that need, needs measuring;
  • Grasp the true meaning of “metaphor”;
  • Do some math that really won’t be difficult or boring (really!);
  • We’ll settle that pesky Evolution vs. Intelligent Design argument once and for all by turning evolution upside-down;
  • Look at some really cool images and drawings and look at them in completely different ways;
  • But most of all we will also explain the title. ‘West WithOut Heaven’ is like the first sentence on this page. It can be viewed as its words create the order of a concept or an image, or it can be viewed as the collection of symbols it is, or it can be viewed as a metaphor that requires understanding metaphors by becoming aware of what a metaphor actually is.

As you most undoubtedly are aware, whenever anyone observes or looks at something else, they start at the outside. It is simply not possible to see; inside out. When you observe (or look) at a new car, as much as your curiosity may be about the power plant or the gadgets inside, you cannot see the engine or the toys without uncovering the body. Hopefully, you limit such activity to the holes provided.
Yes, it is sometimes necessary to open a hole or remove a part or damage one thing to reach another that is more important; but that is to reach the inside. Wouldn’t it be a really cool thing if things were orderly and logic of construction actually had reason?
There is a metaphor of the title and there is a metaphor of the book itself, each chapter, the message actually being delivered in each example but to reach those we will have to start at the top, or the outside or the beginning of OUR perspective.

In the beginning of the brain (this is not when the brain started, that would be a time measurement, this is a location measurement) the most easily acquired, i.e.: the first; observation is what it looks like and that observation has controlled every advance, or clandestine decline of the study of the brain since it was first found to actually be there.
From what it looks like, we spent far too many years pondering location on the outside. Phrenology is the (too bad I can’t say, ‘was’) study of the ‘parts’ of the brain that are responsible for specific things we observe the brain doing.
Phrenology was debunked and discredited years ago, but each time an fMRI receives another brain scan order,; phrenology grows stronger.
It started out with a map on the skull of ‘deviant’ people. Places on the skull represented places inside the skull and they were all sorted out. If phrenology were to become a consumer ‘fad,’ you could identify a killer who struck the person in the head just by the kind of skull traits the killer had. The study of face and head shape, and the ridiculous classification of species’ of humans by skin color, are extensions of that same kind of observational deduction. The head is a shape, so shape must matter, so what matches that on the outside, we’ll impose it on the inside and condemn suffering to the pile of just- something- else- you- can’t- control- on- account- of- your- being- born- that- way.
While the technology moved from quill marking on the skull to magnetic imaging of the blood flow inside the head, the concept never changed. Where something is, is paramount as that is as far as research has gone.
I believe it is time for research to go deeper.
Things become normal the more they are repeated. Soldiers are made that way. So are evangelicals and terrorists. Interpretations made from the outside, digging perhaps a single layer deeper than naked observation alone, have missed the metaphor, and ignored the cause.
The most beautiful thing about the missed metaphor is that it stares you in the face every moment of your life.
We look at objects as if they were objects. We do not look at objects as if they were merely results. We measure everything we see and hear and catalog it all in charts and graphs, then we observe those results, take a deduction from what they might mean as results, and we create theories based on the results of a result that was corrupted by the interference of our measurements.
That is simply not logical.
Nature has a sort of knack for doing things completely logically (How else could those things survive?), while people have a certain knack for studying them illogically. The brain doesn’t really start at the brain. It starts at the holes provided to allow things into the brain, those things like eyes and ears and other assorted receptors.
Can you imagine a world where human beings made decisions only by their receptors commonly known as ‘taste’?
That is not logical. If it were logical, the world would taste a whole lot better. But why is it not logical to be a creature controlled by flavor? If the flavor were sweet you would approach it. If it was sour or bitter or acidic you would avoid it. You would walk around all day with your tongue hanging out just to take in the world and, when you got tired, you could simply shut your mouth and all would be well with the world. “Tasting thinkers” would obviously not make good hiking partners, and I doubt if I would want to sit near one in a crowded theater.
If that were the case, if we really did think by our senses of taste, there would be far fewer loudmouths in the world. Loud takes energy and once it does you would have to shut your mouth to stop the bile you created.
Since taste is not how we think, what would it be like if we made decisions by the receptor commonly known as ‘the nose’? “Smelling thinkers” would contemplate far too long. Smells come and go with the wind. If we had to “smell think” because that was the way we thought, the odor that just whiffed by might mean something prophetic and we could miss the next great whiff. How many missed whiffs do you think it would have taken for humans to not all be eaten by “tasting thinkers”? Since the species survives today that kind of rules out “smelling thinkers”.
Phrenology did not bother with where the information came from, just with where it was ‘acting out’. Its resulting map of the mind is depicted on the cover of ‘Modern Mysticism’. It is duplicated here in order to show that ‘areas’ of the skull meant things.

Is it any wonder how ‘Hope’ and ‘Love of Truth’ made it to the top of the outside observatory? Outside, top, starting point… what’s the difference? Each one means the same thing. They are the highest or largest or most observable, i.e.: easiest, matched with the most desired. And who says phrenology was heartless?
fMRI, on the other hand is heartless. The use of fMRI’s to study blood flow in the brain is like psychoanalysis of rush hour drivers from the noisy passenger seat of the traffic helicopter, based on the city’s traffic pattern. That metaphor–staring the driver in the face–is unsettling, yet papers are released every day in journals across the globe pointing out where the things the brain does, are. It is no different than ‘Love’ residing at the top of the skull and any trait deduced from measured blood flow in the brain.
Neither one considers that the observation is nothing more than, ‘you get what you see’, and both ignore ‘how’ you ‘get what you see’, which is actually the cause of what you see and not what you see at all.
Observation, or looking at something acting like you are studying it carefully, can place the observer (as in peeping tom) in dire straights. It depends on how you observe and whether you observe at all. If you (peeping tom) stare into a window to watch something you should not be watching, because doing that would give you jail time, then you are observing in an incorrect manner. Incorrect manner that only will get you half the jail time. The other half comes from observing at all.
In science, observing in an incorrect manner will simply give you incorrect results. You would not measure the length of a football field by how much it weighs just because you only had a scale… Neither would you measure the weight of a football by how long it is just because you only had a tape measure.
Imagine if you indeed measured the length of a football field by how much it weighs…
In order to find out how much the football field weighs, you would have to distribute the football field into a weight measurable condition that would render the length of it a moot question.
The same thing applies to the football. To measure the weight of the football by checking how long it is one would have to literally ignore the weight (easy to do when all you are using is a tape measure). Rendering the field useless to measure length is the same as ignoring the length, (easy to do when all you are using is a scale).
That is exactly what phrenology did. It ignored what was being measured by measuring what could be measured. It was the easy way out, ignoring everything within.
Visual Observation through pretty, color-enhanced photos from an fMRI has continued the process of ignoring everything within by taking within only one step deeper. From the top of the skull (location) to inside the skull (location) fMRI has given researchers color- enhanced photos. Color- enhanced photos are like a bigger slice of air pizza. That should make sense in a short bit.
Without actually spending the amount of time and depth of discussion now as we will in Chapter Five; the differences in term of the brain can be touched on in a look at just one symptom of a person controlled by Comparative Focus Disorder (CFD).

Flipped Focus:

a primary symptom of Comparative Focus Disorder.
Indicated by long-term control of brain structure and is the primary method of evaluating long-term control.
Flipped Focus is when the topic becomes exactly what it is not.
Example: A lady verbally attacks harshly about the five puppy dogs our friendly neighbors live with.
The Flipped Focus Process: The lady whose dogs have just been attacked receives the concept presented by the lady with the mouth and the past memory the canine lady has had with everything connected to those dogs. The lady of the dogs reacts by flipping the focus to the attacks made on her dogs by that lady with the mouth.
She takes it personally. Her personal history is what makes up who she is today. Her reaction is to focus on what most impacts her memory based on her perception of what the concept was.
That perception is a combination of the concept presented to it and the memory that will compare with it. The output is the same words making a different concept. Perception, (regardless of sense,) is the inverted reflection of the input compared to the previous input.
A person living with long-term control is the product of that previous input.
So how could there be such a thing as an inverted perception? Take a look at something near your eyesight as you read this. Focus on that something while you read this.
Keep focus on the something you are looking at and remember what that something is while you continue to focus on it.
Do you realize that the light reflecting from that something you are focusing on is the light that is being rejected by the object? The light shining on the object comes from a light source. The object is not a light source. It is a light reflector.
The object in focus is merely absorbing the light frequencies it really is and reflecting (or rejecting) the light frequencies it is not. Light actually returns a negative image when reflected. If the thing currently in focus is red that means the thing is actually rejecting red and giving you the impression it is red while all the while it is sucking up all the green, and some of the blue it can get and that addition of frequencies will impact the material of the thing in focus and, just ever so slightly, warm it up.
For there to be reflected light there must be absorbed light. The result is, we look at the object in focus as telling the truth about itself. It is lying. It is not red or whatever color we see it to be. It is really the complimentary, completely opposite color. Your blue car is really orange and its very make-up forces it to lie about what color it really is.
The subject of the light has to mix with the subject of the material for there to be any interaction at all. That interaction can be aggravating, stimulating, or ineffective and every possible combination between all three axes. It is the very same process the brain uses to receive the input and compare it to previous input and output the same upside down perception. If that were all there was to humans, we would not be mutually enjoying the topic as much.
The externally observable trait of eye sight being upside down to the real focus and how we literally perceive everything we view upside down from what it really is; a sample of a very observable duplicate of the same process.
Humans have that one extra step that allows the input and previous (memory) input to be controlled, as if the brakes were being applied. That extra step also outputs and it can evaluate previous input much closer and deeper in clarity than the long-term process can. It cannot only control the brake; it can control the gas pedal as well. Short-term control of the brain is able to take input, compare it to previous input, and still ignore the result. It is part of what makes the brain a wonderful thing.
After a short visit, the lady of the fur managed to accept that the concept was the source and not the perception and the babies she rescued from pending death were still rescued. “A lady verbally attacks harshly about the five puppy dogs our friendly neighbors live with.” Instead of concentrating on the dogs being attacked, she began to focus on the source of the attack. The event says it all. ‘A lady verbally attacks harshly.’ That’s it. The moment she understood the concept she took control over her previous history and changed from a depression- in -waiting to a stimulation of both understanding and realization that the aggravating lady that insulted her children was aggravating and that it had nothing to do with the dogs.
She walked home preppy and sarcastic and her little companion wagged his tail behind her. Focus was flipped back to where it started.
An observer can easily identify each incident of Flipped Focus. The observer is not part of the perception or the source. The observer’s perception would consist of the source and the previous perception. It would result in the point being understood again. It is the process that allows judges to hear two sides of a case and make a logical decision based on which one they believe the most. That doesn’t just ‘happen’. Judging is the application of the same memory process the brain functions in. It is just hoped that judges are more short-term thinkers than the average human- being as the consequences are on one of the reasons for the perception of guilt or innocence. The consequences of being wrong are not upon the short-term intellect making the decision. In life, we are all judges of our own thoughts and actions. How well we judge ourselves determines how well others would judge us. It has a familiar ring to it.
“Short ‘-term”‘ and “long- ‘term”‘ is the vertical division of the human brain. The differences in term require a bit more effort.
Just as it would not matter if a slice of pizza made of air was larger or smaller,; it does not matter that what you see is what you get, not what you see. What you see does not tell the truth. No matter how much we measure or observe, our observation is measuring the wrong thing and calculating the opposite point that results in our perspective, based on our relevant perception of reality. It continues in that loop unless the brakes are applied.
The brakes exist in two places. Emergency brakes and driver brakes. Just like your car. Imagine that?!?! Something invented by a brain works like the brain that invented it. We’ll wait until Chapter Three before we dig deep into time, timing, and intellect.
Emergency brakes are on display everywhere. When the dog runs up to a foul odor and quickly backs away the emergency brake was applied. It consists of the previous things that were subject to the brake and the subject of the moment. If the subject odor is offensive to the dog, the dog’s reaction is to distance himself from the source, even if it is a head tilted back or a dash to the door. How offensive the smell is will determine how drastic the reaction is.
That is not at all what happens in humans when a hand is hurt before one realizes the water was way too hot.
That is the other brake. It is stuck in the rust of inattention. Immediately upon becoming aware of the heat it sends a command to jerk it out. Pain of any sort requires attention to be effective.
Short- term processing, or as I like to refer to it as simply ‘short- term’, is the supervisor. I have known quite a few supervisors in my life that were asleep at the wheel or so stuck in rust that they managed by crisis with each event raising the bar of tolerance and chipping away at the boss’ self-worth. It is what causes the Peter Principal.
When short- term is working as it is capable of doing, the reactions of long- term feel the brakes and begin to respect them by reducing intensity of reactions and the repetition of remembering what you just remembered.
Being ‘in control’ is the result of short-term dominance. The result of long-term dominance is exactly the opposite: out of control, reactive, depressed. The degree of being out of control depends on the direction depression takes. As a reduced signal level, depression itself reduces control of short- term. It breeds on itself. As an enhanced signal level, rage reduces control of short- term and likewise breeds on itself. Whether there is someone we know that sounds like the completely reduced short-term process faced with experience in memory of sad moments and lives their life in pain or depression is just as possible as someone we may know who sounds like the completely enhanced long-term process faced with no experience in memory of glad moments.
The signal level between long-term and short-term types of thinking in humans results in the stronger signal’s degree of control. A strong long-term signal meeting a weak short-term signal does not tend to engage short- term brakes. A brain simply reacting ought to consider a life at the beach with coconuts and freshly caught fish. It would be like returning to our first ancestor except it would likely be a life out of reach, full of nuts and stale day old bread.
The same ingredients make different things depending upon which ingredient is strongest and which is weakest. Let us call the strong and weak thing what it really is. It is amplitude. Amplitude is like how high a wave is, while another term we will use; –frequency– is like how often that wave crashes ashore.
The types of brain processes, with the discussion of terms, start us as we take a journey through your brain and unsettle every single drug trial ever conducted.
It all happens the same way. How your brain works is the same way everything else works. It is the structure of the mechanism that matters. When people ask ‘how does the brain work’, as I did in quite a few different perspective blatherings, they mean, as I did I but more specifically, how does it do what it does and does that have any bearing on how I can use it to its utmost potential or use it to eliminate the pain of the past!?!!
The division of the human brain into types encompasses up and down (long- or short -term dominance), side- to- side (visual or aural dominance), and slow to fast (processing speed of both long- and short- term and visual and aural processes). With such a vast degree of variation resulting from the combinations of those types it is no wonder there are so many different types of human personalities and different human perspectives. If the process was the same for each person, only environment would control the differences and that would be boring.
The terms themselves invoke perspective interpretations. Memory is considered to be storage. But just because something is retained does not mean it is ‘stored’ and retrieved. It could very well be fluid and moving. Short- and long-term processes are ignored in today’s research, in turn accepting short- and long- term as memory storage processes.
While scientists have struggled with defining what happens in the brain, they have managed to do what happens in the brain with each definition. They compare it to something they already understand and impose that understanding on what is being defined.
Memory is viewed as the memory example of storage so it must mean storage. Short- term processing is deemed to be memory that also must be storage, only for a shorter period of time. No consideration is given to the process that is happening, only to the result that is held in storage. Then the concept of storage is imposed on the process of the brain and what is stored becomes what is processed.
Back in 1956, Professor George A. Miller of Princeton came up with the notion that since the brain works in words, then it must store words as words. He tried to make sense of that by properly declaring that information in the brain is not stored in finite bits like computers use. Good start, but then came the deduction based on what he was already familiar with.
He deduced that memory in short- term brain function is measured in ‘chunks’. That should make the Hershey Chocolate people happy, but what is a ‘chunk’?
A “Miller Chunk” can be a word, or a digit, or a group of words, or a group of digits that are aided in recall by grouping them. So Miller said the brain stores data by what the data is, not by what the brain does with it. In other words, storage ignores the brain and is ruled by the receptor.
He was correct in that brains do retain input, but they do NOT retain the input TO the receptor, they retain the input FROM the receptor. A word is only a word outside the brain system. It is nothing but a symbol for explaining something else. It is a shadow of the thing it describes, it is not the thing itself. This imposition amounts to clouding what is really happening by ignoring it for the easiest observational deduction.
What the real nature of the brain is–its quiddity–has eluded researchers who settle for the brain’s subjective nature. The true entity of the brain is missed for the peripherals. The true central or vital processes the brain functions in are ignored for the things the brain results in. The superficial becomes the object of study as the underlying causes are ignored.
So how does the brain ‘store’ information? It doesn’t. It processes information, and it does it in its own system of processing. It does not receive a word through the ears and take that word and find a nice place for it so we can call it a ‘chunk’. It does not receive a word through the eyes and take that word and find a nice place for it so we can call it a ‘chunk’. A ‘chunk’ of a word received visually is processed exactly the same way as a ‘chunk’ of a word received aurally. The brain processes them both in the brain’s system. Only the inputs are different.
Input to the ear is sound. Input to the eye is light. How does the brain take sound and light and process them the same way? Both are frequencies with amplitude and both are converted in the receptor into the method used by the brain to process them where the frequencies are kept separate by their sensor accepting them and the amplitude varies for each received input.
When scientists observe brain function, they focus on the input being processed, not the function being performed. It is logical. The input is the topic on top. We need to dig deeper in the logic to find out what is really going on.
In a very simplified explanation: inputs within sensors of the body regulate the signal they monitor by how much is allowed to pass through the sensor and how strong that signal is. How much is passed through is frequency, how strong it is, is amplitude. Sensors are regulators, not doorways letting things in to be used as the things they were before they got in.
When a signal is not present at a sensor to be regulated, the result is an inoperable sensor–blindness, deafness, and, in rare cases, the inability to sense pressure or temperature or smell or taste. It is the lack of a signal to regulate that causes most such conditions rather than the defective sensor unable to regulate a signal.
Since frequency and amplitude are regulated, the brain is then able to process the frequencies of light and the frequencies of sound in the same manner by working with them in its own frequency process.
What that specific frequency process is, is detailed in ‘The Brain Is A Wonderful Thing’ and does not need to be repeated here to understand what the process is. Suffice to say that a frequency is processed inside a cellular structure and is not affected by the frequencies of the cellular structure.
As each input regulates the signal passing through the sensor, accepting that input it does mimic a sort of a ‘chunk’. Each input is timed. How psychedelic it would be if input were not separated into time elements. Everything would run together and strange comparisons would create even stranger observations.
Sensors are the first step in the brain. Without input of some sort, the brain would be processing only feedback and not have a base with which to compare it. Reality would cease to exist.
As the first step in brain function, sensors are the slowest. Sensors only accept data in twice per second ‘chunks’ or discrete packets or wavelets. Each packet is comprised of a degree of the signal fed to the sensor regulated by the degree of the input placed upon the sensor. And each sensor is tuned for specific frequency reaction.
It might be difficult to imagine how we can think so fluidly and how existence seems to be smooth and not jerky with only two packets of input for each sensor. It really isn’t difficult when you imagine a campfire.
Each tiny particle of flame is vibrating in proportion to how hot it is, changing the color of the flame to reflect the frequency of the resulting heat. Campfires are beautiful to stare at.
If all particles of flame were on the same frequency, the campfire would take on a strobe appearance and scare off all the bears. Of course, to the bears, it would look like that. Bear sight is not as wide a spectrum as people sight. Flame comprises as many colors as there are material frequencies from which they arise. The more there are, the more white the result. It is why white smoke in a house fire is burning wood and natural products comprised of many different compounds, while dark smoke is the burning of a manmade substance,; engineered for its specific compound and not ‘infected’ with ancillary ingredients, such as a degree of H2O.
With water, carbon tends to insulate itself allowing the bonding of cellular structure; where without water, carbon and its entire plastic compound derivatives burn more carbon without the insulation.
With many different frequencies, there is no strobe effect and the flame appears to be flowing and active. The different frequencies cause the flame to blend into a viable image instead of the flicker of the same frequency. So it is with the input receptors your brain receives its data from.
All of those rods and cones in your eye are not ‘firing’ at the same time. They are ‘firing’ at different times and that blends the image into a viable and comprehendible thing.
To understand how that symphony of input makes sense, we need to start at the beginning of the signal: the input side of the receptor.
Each receptor is the beginning of a pathway of information. Like a railroad switching yard, many pathways share the same track only at different times so there are many more inputs then there are tracks to take as the tracks process many inputs. It can make an fMRI reading a really confusing thing and embarrassing when it is declared to be something it is not.
And we need to begin with a single receptor.
Look at this drawing. You will see two collectors and one emitter: two “ins” and one “out”.

It is obvious that the inputs are sending something into the chamber and the chamber is doing something with those inputs and sending out one thing. What is happening inside the chamber is what neurons do. They accept the first charge value that represents a specific height or amplitude to enter the ‘charged’ state. The neuron is primed and ready for business. It is only big enough to hold a charge slightly larger than the one placed in it. So when something else comes along, something inside that chamber has to give.
When the input from the other side enters its charge value into the chamber there is too much charge value for the space provided, so the charges compress while increasing the pressure of the chamber. When they compress, part of one is merged into a part of the other one, and that merged charge, explodes and ‘fires’ out’ of the chamber.
Now imagine the left input represents the long-term memory of your best friend. When your friend acquires ‘you’ (as the right input), ‘you’ are merged with what that memory represented. If the memory is far away from the same amplitude, most of the ‘fired’ result will be ‘you’. But if the memory is very close to the same amplitude, the ‘fired’ result will be a mixture of you and that memory. The output will represent a degree of recognition.
That is all that happens in a neuron: tiny little confined explosions of frequency with variable amplitude.
The charging signal is forced into the neuron.

When the clock strikes, the input signal is forced into the neuron.

When both ‘charges’ are resident in the same confined space, Bernoulli’s Principal takes effect and the charges compress while increasing the pressure inside the chamber. At the critical level of compression and pressure, the most compressed explodes out of the output of the neuron as a merged ‘mean sum’ of the two parent charges.

Over a short period of time the remaining charges inside the neuron erode to make the neuron ready for the next ‘firing’ sequence.
It is the same process inside sensors. The ‘charge’ applied to the neuron waits for each half-second input of the receptor. The combination of the two regulates the output to the brain. Each output represents a sample taken during one half- second of time for one pathway of processing.
Once sent into the brain, the sensor’s regulated signal meets a faster moving signal: a higher frequency.
To me, one of the most fascinating topics of the brain is the speed of processing and what it results in. Sure, it is not one of the topics in brain studies today, but it is nevertheless a serious bit of knowledge with which to reach deeper into brain function. Actually, without comprehending what the differences in speed mean, where they come from, how they are made, and what their use is, it is nearly impossible to comprehend the brain.
If we have two trains side by side, each heading in the same direction and each loaded with 100 cars, each car having a fog horn turned on full blast, and each one passes the same point at the same time, we have nothing more than two trains. If we make one train travel faster than the other, at that ‘point’ we will observe more cars passing during the same time as one car passes in the slower train.
We could say the slow train was traveling at 2hz (or each car passes the ‘point’ in one half second (–two cars per second), which is actually a rather fast moving train.
The faster train would be traveling at 60hz (or each car passes the ‘point’ in 1/30th of a second– (60 cars per second), which is a really fast moving train.
To the person standing at the ‘point’, the slow moving train’s foghorns would appear to be warbling. The faster train would appear to be just one foghorn. Nice example, but how does that show the importance of different brain speeds?
‘Just one fog horn’ is not a very romantic way to introduce clocking.
Do you ever listen to music and find some songs depressing and others invigorating and never bother to listen to the words?
If you grew up in the late 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, or early 80’s, you probably had a favorite style of music and hearing that music today invokes memories of the era when you liked it. That would be nurture. Nurture is environmental input. Every memory you have other than of your own speaking or acting is environmental input. Believe it or not, nurturing has very little to do with what kind of music you like today. Nature controls that far more than nurture does.
A ‘slow’ song could represent passion or pain. The message its full compliment provides is the metaphor of the music. It is what the song really means. The words are the lyrics and most often just get in the way of what the music is trying to say. If you find a song with a musical metaphor that matches the lyrical metaphor, and it isn’t just plain silly, you have a potential hit on your hands. It is a ‘talent’ radio program directors used to use in selecting what song to play or not play on their stations. They didn’t know it was just an equation at work. Many were hired for their ‘innate’ ability to pick the hits and therefore drive a winning station. If you were a really good program director you would make your station match the music you play so the station’s metaphor (which would show up in research as the top of mind awareness of the listeners recall of station names and frequencies) would say the same thing the music was saying. That connection guaranteed a winning station but was so misunderstood by the sales people running the thing that most great program directors were laughed at for not being normal.
At some point, a salesperson running a station had a bad hair day and let a program director call the shots for the product they would sell instead of designing the product for what they could sell and that resulted in the very few innovations and winning strategies that wound up being the ‘next big thing’ in radio. I have had the privilege of knowing the man who made the first such great stride as a program director in Los Angeles. Ron Jacobs had an ‘innate’ knack for knowing that the product made the station and building his station on the product that he almost was never wrong about. The real birth of Top 40 radio can be argued forever, but it is widely accepted that Ron Jacobs, a man I can humbly call friend, was responsible for the first execution of the Top 40 format.
His station matched his music that was matched by the way the music was presented and in the promotions he conducted. It was one completely focused effort. He played music that was similar in beat, similar in tone, and even similar in metaphor, and he molded that into a station that was likewise similar and the result was 93 KHJ with Robert W. Morgan at the helm in the mornings.
The music played was rock and roll of its time: a breed past the 50’s amateur groups and the choral and buttoned- up style which embraced the previous generation’s rebellious rock. The style was an enhanced revolution, a step past rebellion. It stood for non-conformity, but it retained the beat of 50’s rock and roll.
If you grew up in the 60’s, you listened to music that was experimental at the time. Now, it is considered classic rock and lumped upon the generic rock and roll archives.
If you grew up in the 70’s, you listened to the same experimental music, but one that had started to fracture because of the change in beat. What was rock and roll split off from what evolved into ‘urban music’ that had a third combination of the two that became ‘disco’.
Just a few years ago, some brilliant lug nut of a programmer (it might have been a sales person cooking up something he knew he could sell) created the Jammin’ Oldies format in radio. Since everything gets tossed on the generic archives that lug nut picked out the music beat of the 70’s, ignored what rock had become, and lumped the rest into a mix of wonderful songs based in Motown and the Philadelphia sound and, since it was also based somewhat on NOT being rock and roll, disco was added. It stuck out like the comedy diversion it was in relation to the core music of the format.
I had the rather unique (no, I won’t get started on that topic) experience of programming a Jammin’ Oldies station where the presentation of mixing the music closer to a natural progression of beats was met with a total blank stare. What in the world would mixing the music by beat have to do with songs? Songs were mixed by category to keep those pesky disco songs away from the fringe beat songs so they didn’t stick out too much. The concept that beats of a song matching another beat of a different song might make the two more acceptable and less rejected never entered that brain. Playing salesman, I was able to program the music flow to match the music. It was a fantastic sounding station, music wise (I won’t get started on that topic).
The station waved at its listeners. When a disco song played, it had only done so after the previous songs had worked their way up to the disco level. After what had become a nice refreshing tune, the music once again worked its way down to the low side of the wave. It was a wave running at about 1 cycle per hour. A previous station was more intense in tempo and beat and waved at its listeners at 3 cycles per hour. That supervisor didn’t comprehend why mixing music mattered either, but the results were wonderful as evidenced by the phone calls.
Timing is a wave in progress; a wave with a frequency set to match its use. An orchestra is a collection of similar frequency control, each playing notes at different times and in different frequencies of sound. The result, as long as the notes are written in the right key, is orchestral music that can then tell its story in its own metaphor.
The brain is a symphony of frequencies, acting under the control of frequencies set to match their use.
Like a bass drum pounding twice a second and a snare drum rattling at 60 times per second, it is a really fast- sounding beat. Drop in a 10 beats per second tom-tom to handle motion. Top that with a tinkle bell striking at 1800 times per second and we have the human brain. But it is slower than snail trails in comparison to what it came up with.
How could the human brain come up with a computer’s method of timing? How could different levels of brain speed be completely responsible for conjuring up a binary process? On the surface, your thinking is binary. Things you perceive are in some degree either good or bad. Right or wrong. Left or right. Up or down. In or out. Large or small. On or off. 1 or 0. It is a logical resulting method of calculating. Or is it?
Apparently quantum physics does not think so. The ‘superposition’ (I won’t get started on that silly topic just yet) is like a third option to “on” or “off”. Gee, on and off have something made up of both yet neither. Just think of the power a computer could have if it was processing three bits instead of two. Wow, that would make the vulture capitalists drool.
So, let me ask you. What ever happened to the parts in between?
If the metaphor of binary is the absoluteness of opposing forces, how could anything exist at all? If existence were made up of off’s and on’s then there would be no variation of ‘on’. Any old’ ‘on’ would do. The campfire would be all the same color. The brain would be all the same speed. Nothing could advance past the point of ‘on’. No ‘new’ ‘on’ could be made and, indeed, nothing would exist.
What if the digital age were able to calculate the values between and use the power of the difference to make machines with power exponentially greater than a program alone and do it still using the binary options? Don’t worry; vulture capitalists have not caught that fever.
If quantum computers are so desired, why isn’t the infinite computer desired more? If one additional bit can cause millions of international grant dollars, how much should the nearly infinite difference between 0 and 1 account for? How much should .5 get on its own? Would .7 be more valuable than the poor little .0001? Isn’t existence really a binary system that simply uses what it has in between?
That is what the sensor outputs to the brain; the value in between its parent values. In between is not the middle. It is closer to the more dominant side. It is what gives variations to children yet similarities to the parents.
It is the gray areas of existence that make it interesting at all yet without the extreme opponents there could be no gray. How big the weaker opponent is does not matter. A 1 is a 1 is a 1 regardless of amplitude or size.
So why do we run computers in black and white? That is the result of the brain viewing its own process and declaring any variation of good or bad to be either: good or bad, right or wrong, left or right, up or down, in or out. It can make the metaphor of bad take on a whole new meaning just by how it is said. It can make anything connected to it match its method by repetition. It can become its own destiny as it has. Who in their right mind would be content with a two-option computer? A third option is simply wonderful. All options are intelligent stuff.
All it takes is one section running faster than the previous section, working on the same data. Then just place the results into the previous section and there you have every brain that ever happened before the current human brain. Previous results are more important than current input. It is how experience can overcome fear or ignorance and how a slow moving input can contribute to a faster moving system. In the present human brain another step is added (short term) and the results for long term are fed by short term instead of long term, which feeds short term and its all very terminal talk if you can’t take dizziness.
The words were simple enough it was just the way they were strung together it was hard to tell what the concept or metaphor of that sentence could have been. A concept is what I was trying to convey but a metaphor is the concept of the author, while the sum of the parts of the whole that is a sentence or paragraph or book or verse is the perception the reader receives from the very same words.
It isn’t what you say that matters. Its how you say it. Hey, that is bad. Hey, that is bad! Not too easy to type but very easy to say in your head. If you cannot hear words in your head then see the picture this brings forth:
A rock group sounds really, really great and the young kid says, “Hey, that was bad!”
Your grandmother was just arrested for prostitution so you think about, and after deciding it really wasn’t funny at all you sadly exclaim, “Hey, that was bad.”
Saying ‘shut up’ can be harsh and hateful or it can be soft and playful. The ways a person is told to shut up vary from the one that got the term into all that hot water with purists and the other one that should be used more often to even the score.
Metaphors are those things the phrase is really saying. It is not its words. It is the whole made up of the words. Not greater than the sum of its parts,; the opposite of the sum of its parts.
You read a letter from Aunt Hattie and for some reason it sounds sad. It isn’t written sadly. It isn’t worded sadly; it is simply a sad letter. The sum of the parts had meaning. Meaning is what a metaphor is.
It is too bad the term got off to the same start ‘shut up’ found itself in.
Webster says a metaphor is “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them.” You see? A bad start. The very concept of a metaphor was even lost to the poor soul stuck with deciding what a metaphor was. You didn’t think words told the dictionary people what they meant did you? Somebody made that stuff up!
And they were just as susceptible to the fault of not understanding a metaphor. They became the metaphor.
Did your Grandparents ever tell you about a stupid cow? How about a stupid horse? Did your mother or father ever tell you about the stupid uncle or the stupid boss? Did you ever consider those moments to be where metaphor is comprehended but the point is not the metaphor?
The stupid cow was simply stupid as when it was a cow stupid then meant mentally stupid. Horses and cows and grandparents make for a time frame reference in the metaphor: using your head to understand the meaning of a sentence instead of what the collection of words says.
The other time frame was more recent. An uncle and a boss are closer to ‘now’ then horses and cows and your parents are younger than your grandparents.
The combination of the two comparisons show that the metaphor of the two sentences is the sum of the opposing parts and there has no metaphor meaning at all. Comparing two opposing processes or values cancels them out. The result is not to play the game, as WHOPPER had asked in some relatively old but still too recent to dismiss as old; movie where the computer asking ‘shall we play a game’ made metaphors cast in Hollywood.
No matter how a computer voice could have said, ‘shall we play a game’ it would have the same deep metaphorical meaning of a computer coming to terms with its own intellect’s boundaries and an easing reaction for having been bested by humans. There are two ways to ‘take’ the phrase.
Metaphor is the language of the author. The author uses words to create concepts that elude to a meaning but do not complete the meaning, leaving you, the reader in the position where your memory’s long term process is the same as the path you had been taking and the result would be in whichever direction the author had aimed. Good storytellers write in the reader’s perspective. Good cryptologists-linguists (politicians) speak in the reader’s perspective. Neither the author nor the politician is what his presentation has been. At least the author has the literary license of not always writing biographies. The politician meets a better politician who destroys him. The story teller simply tells stories whereas the politician makes them up; the same overall concept results in opposing points; one of which is a good thing and the other a bad one.
From two things came one. The one was made up of the two, not all but half of each. Written out in impressive numerals that are only symbols; a-a’/2+a’ would sum that up.
There are also the times when the equation is ignored. From two things can come from only one. Make sense to you? ‘From two things can come from only one.’ Didn’t think so. Yet that is exactly what the process of perception focus results in.
Take online security. Please: the single issue that could tank the net or save it. The process falls under the title of encryption. Encryption involves the scrambling of data with access given to descramble the data with a key. Stronger encryption algorithms change the method of scrambling and use a key. The actual source focus topic; the safety of the net is only as good as the key that locks it. It is the lock that matters in encryption, not the encryption itself. You could secure your entire life’s history (yes those embarrassing moments too) by moving every letter one step to the left and issuing the unpick-able lock your simple change of data in an easy recognizable pattern would be as strong as any other data secure by the same lock. Yes, it still reads the same way but that is all encryption is. It just makes the data unrecognizable unless you speak the same language. But the language of the encryption is only as good as the lock that permits its translation.
Take the lock of a typical house door. The key enters the slot and passes under a series of rods, each one of the same lengths. When the key comes to a rest at the back of the opening, the notches in the key will have pointed the right rods up to fit the free swinging door knob.
To pick that lock, just jiggle the free-swinging doorknob until you feel rods slide into place. But you can’t do that if you only have two options in your computer. You can’t feel a rod slide into place. You have no idea how the rod slid into place. You can’t guess how it felt when it slid into the slot. You can’t do anything with only a two-option computer. Well, not everything. You can do anything you want that does not take what you have; Intelligence.
Can you pick a lock one rod at a time? Can you search for rod 3 and write down its depth potential then return for each other rod and upon completion, generate a key for the lock? Of course you can. But can you do it in one insertion of the key? Of course not. That would invoke a third potential other than off and on. It would involve a degree of ‘on’. Even the length of the key would involve a degree of ‘on’. The depth of the slot would involve a degree of ‘on’. So cryptography has concentrated on the method of covering up and essentially ignored the lock that keeps it covered up.
The barrier to conjuring up concepts not rooted in memory is how much control long term (the environment’s record in your head sorted by time) has over short term. Reducing the barrier means increasing short term’s control of the brain. Sometimes though, the brain’s own structure can get in the way.
A symptom of Comparative Focus Disorder is Gender Focus: When the short term thinking style of a person does not match the physical structure of that person. In degrees from distaste for sex to opposing gender assumption, gender focus makes the person perceive life not from the perception of the body.
A male with a visual short-term dominance (the greater the intellect the more applicable) can perceive existence the same as the visual female, finding the concept of touching a female to be questionable and the concept of touching a male to be acceptable. A female with an aural short-term dominance (the greater the intellect the more applicable) can perceive existence the same as the aural male, finding the concept of touching a male to be questionable and the concept of touching a female to be acceptable.
That process is one of perception based in short-term dominance and the resulting persons would require nurturing to perceive themselves to be a gender they are not. The stronger process is long-term dominant and requires from far less to no nurturing at all.
A male with a visual long-term dominance can perceive the same as the visual long term female, finding the concept of touching a female to be repulsive and the concept of touching a male to be desirable. A female with an aural long-term dominance can perceive existence the same as the aural long term male, finding the concept of touching a male to be repulsive and the concept of touching a female to be desirable.
When both short and long term are flipped in the body, male gender with visual long and short term processing or female gender with aural long and short term processing, the result is a total disownment of the physical gender.
The dimensions, therefore the divisions of the brain amount to long and short, sparse and dense and the opposite of width while being a perspective dimension: thin and fat. In other words, the brain’s divisions are the length, the density and the volume: different words for different concepts yet saying the same thing. Three dimensions of brain structure depicted in the perspective of the brain. The observer of that very same brain would perceive, length, height and width; the three dimensional concept strongly held by many observers of space and the brain as such perspective is obvious and easy, yet it is not deeper as it needs to be.
The inquisitive observer may toy with the notion that perhaps the brain is what it is and not what the observer perceives it to be. Toying does not last long, fret not.
Short term and long term divisions of the human brain account for which form of processing is in control of the brain. A brain needs control. Without it, it is, well, out of control and destined for a soft room. The brain needing control can only do so with what its opposition is. Without opposition there can be nothing to have control over. Visual is opposing to aural in overall sensor dominance. Luckily we rely on our eyes and ears for things pressure, temperature and acidic level could only guess at. Visual and aural processes compete in the second division of the brain.
From long versus short to visual versus aural there remains only one variation opposition: density. In the perspective of the brain, density is then perceived as clarity. Your television set has clarity when it is not out of focus but your HDTV set has clarity that makes your television set appear prehistoric. Your brain has clarity too. You perceive it in how well you can recall something and in how well you can evaluate something. Recalling is long-term memory, evaluating is short-term memory. Each have a dominant sense–aural or visual.
The density happens in whether there are 30 seats in the bus for those 30 people or if we can only take 12 at a time. It is what intelligence is made of.
Clarity provides the details in recall necessary to recall other details and solve problems from experience and it likewise provides the depth of detail for short term processing to make the decision to either pay attention to that long term recall or select some other form of reasoning.
The ‘gut’ feeling is not foreign to most living people. It is that long-term process resulting in matches that just do not seem to fit the current ‘now’. Long term reacts while short term “proacts,” if it is working well.
The division has been considered left versus right which is also logical since observing the brain from the outside and there being two distinct ‘halves’ one being left and the other right, results in seeing two parts which are nicely on one side of your head or the other.
Phrenology (where traits were placed in locations marked on the outside of the head) was replaced with the notion that traits could be marked inside the head and nicely grouped in either the left or the right section of the brain.
Schooling has been developed to address the ‘whole brain’, based on two parts must be made whole to do any good.
What if those two parts managed to have one of them, more in control than the other?
Traits of right versus left brain observations include:

Left Brain Right Brain

Logical Random
Rational Sequential
Analytical Holistic
Objective Subjective
Looks at parts Looks at wholes

When these observable outputs of the brain are viewed as being in between the extremes the person is said to be more ‘whole-brained’.
Think about it. If the only reason a person was logical, sequential and rational was that the brain was working on the left side more than the right, where is the logic that location makes a difference and what that location might be doing does not?
Brains do things that are viewed in terms the left and right theory espouses to have been magically assigned to a specific side. Yes, magically. If the left brain does thing subjective while the right side does things subjective, where does that come from?
Those terms are what the brain does. They are not what is causing the brain to be observed as making any such evaluations possible.
Quite a lot of evaluation has gone into examining all of the potential deeper meanings of the left versus the right brain.
One such examination pretty well sums things up as presented at www.web-us.com published by Intelegen Copyright 1995 – 2005 Intelegen Inc., as a nice means to sell their braintainment tapes.
They start with this; “In general the left and right hemispheres of your brain process information in different ways.” No they do not. They process exactly the same form of information from two different input receptors in exactly the same method.

“We tend to process information using our dominant side.” No we do not. We process information in all parts of the brain that are still alive. If we only processed information on one side the other side would be dead. In reality we process information in the same way for all receptors and we output information the same way from all pathways. There is only one method of brain function.
“However, the learning and thinking process is enhanced when both side of the brain participate in a balanced manner.” Continuing the misinterpretation of ‘process’ to mean ‘ do things with specific things in specific ways’ results in the illusion that a matched pair is best. A matched pair is still just a matched pair. What we need IS one to be dominant and in control and the other to be used by it, not have both run the show without any control from either. That leads to Comparative Focus Disorder.

The opposing forces of left versus right brain theory are:

From the web site:

“Linear Vs. Holistic Processing

The left side of the brain processes information in a linear manner. It processes from part to whole. It takes pieces, lines them up, and arranges them in a logical order; then it draws conclusions. The right brain however, processes from whole to parts, holistically. It starts with the answer. It sees the big picture first, not the details.”

So let us reword this statement to be correct.

Aural Vs. Visual Dominance

The aural section of the human that happens to be normally in the left side of the brain processes information in the brain’s processing system. Being aural it thinks in concepts that must be assembled to create a concept. The concept could be considered to be a conclusion. The visual section of the human that happens to normally be in the right side of the brain information in the brain’s processing system as well, but it does it with a visual memory input instead of a visual memory input. It creates images of reality and could be said to have come to a conclusion when the image looks right. It starts with the answer it has determined to be reality from previous answers and it sees the big picture first (which is that previous image), not the details (which are the challenges to it).”

“Sequential Vs. Random Processing

In addition to thinking in a linear manner, the left brain processes in sequence. The left brained person is a list maker. If you are left brained, you would enjoy making master schedules and and daily planning. You complete tasks in order and take pleasure in checking them off when they are accomplished… By, contrast, the approach of the right-brained student is random. If you are right-brained, you may flit from one tack to another. ”

So let us reword this statement to be correct.

Aural Vs. Visual Dominance

What appears to be sequential is really bottom up logic. Aural thinkers need parts to make wholes so it appears they reach conclusions methodically or sequentially. Visual thinkers start with wholes and justify the inclusion of a new section to that image, the inclusion of which may have nothing at all to do with the topic being evaluated. It may have more to do with its fit in the image the topic has a place in. There is no logical order of fulfilling an image so it would appear random in observance.

“Symbolic Vs. Concrete Processing

The left brain has no trouble processing symbols. Many academic pursuits deal with symbols-such as letters, words, and mathematical notations. The left brained person tends to be comfortable with linguistic and mathematical endeavors. Left-brained students will probably just memorize vocabulary words or math formulas. The right brain, on the other hand, wants things to be concrete. The right brain person wants to see, feel, or touch the real object.”

So let us reword this statement to be correct.

Aural Vs. Visual Dominance

A concept is symbolic to a visual thinker while the term concrete means cast in stone, or a complete and correct image which goes a long way to show which type of thinker thought up the coolness of left versus right brain thinking. The visual thinker needs as much stimuli as possible to inject a new image into a previous image that did not have a hole waiting for it.

“Logical Vs. Intuitive Processing

The left brain processes in a linear, sequential, logical manner. When you process on the left side, you use information piece by piece to solve a math problem or work out a science experiment. When you read and listen, you look for the pieces so that you can draw logical conclusions. If you process primarily on the right side of the brain, you use intuition. You may know the right answer to a math problem but not be sure how you got it.”

So let us reword this statement to be correct.

Aural Vs. Visual Dominance

It is actually rather amusing that aural thinking is considered to be logical while the opposite of logic is considered to be intuitive. Think about that a moment. It makes anything intuitive to be illogical and that is not the case. Intuition, or the quick reaction long term memory provides in response to a series of events that could culminate in a specific memory already processed, is the thing brain processing does. It does not refer to memory and output a ‘gut’ feeling without that processing coming from somewhere and something. This comparison is not at all between left and right. It is far more between long and short. The description, “you may know the right answer to a math problem but not be sure how you got it,” is a good explanation for long-term control over short-term awareness.

“Verbal Vs. Nonverbal Processing

Left brain students have little trouble expressing themselves in words. Right brain students may know what they mean, but often have trouble finding the right words.”

So let us reword this statement to be correct.

Aural Vs. Visual Dominance

Aural thinkers think in the process of sound and have no problem expressing themselves in the same form of input. Writing is the output most easily conveyed with. Speaking takes a bit more control. Visual thinkers have little trouble expressing themselves in words as long as the words are spoken but if they are written the word itself may conflict with the image being described. Visual thinkers may know what they mean, but often have trouble finding the right words to write about them. In person, while speaking, the output is aural which does not match to the visual image so there is no conflict.”

“Reality-Based Vs. Fantasy-Oriented Processing

The left side of the brain deals with things the way they are-with reality. When left brain students are affected by the environment, they usually adjust to it. Not so with right brain students. They try to change the environment! Left brain people want to know the rules and follow them. In fact, if there are no rules for situations, they will probably make up rules to follow! Left brain students know the consequences of not turning in papers on time or of failing a test. But right brain students are sometimes not aware that there is anything wrong. So, if you are right brain, make sure you constantly ask for feedback and reality checks. ”

So let us reword this statement to be correct.

Aural Vs. Visual Dominance

This battle is likewise far more indicative of short versus long-term control than it is aural or visual differences in pathways that are dominant but the underlying use of the comparison does apply to the differences in thinking types.
Aural thinkers contemplate in concepts based in sounds which can blend to make beautiful music or balance each other to make logical deductions, while visual thinkers contemplate in images based in visual inputs which if blended seem out of place and are only beautiful when they compliment the image already contemplated.
Previous contemplation builds upon the image a visual thinker lives by. It gradually changes over the years and if not taken under control by a short-term dominance will create its own reality. That reality can be as harmless as a false belief of being overweight to as harmful as a false belief to be the messiah where followers belong; come hell or dry ammunition.
Phrenology picked on the skull and locations while Split Brain Theory picked on the two big pieces and both committed a cardinal sin of science: they took the ball they brought and rolled with it.
The questions really, are ‘how do we measure thought’? In what manner do we even begin to calculate a thought? How can we contemplate the very system that allows our contemplation?
One way to reach those answers is to use an example of a symptom of Comparative Focus Disorder (CFD) that will have a far-reaching consequence. The question of how we measure something is fraught with easy ways out. The obvious screams for attention while the point, the metaphor, sits quietly by, not concerned in the least as to whether it is caught or ignored.
When we do simple math we are at the most vulnerable condition to CFD. We are so assured by our advanced use of the symbol language that we allow the obvious to rule deductions and ignore the potential our simplicity results in.
Take the process of drug tests. This topic was addressed earlier in a chapter entitled, The Real Drug Abuse Epidemic but this time we’ll make it far more comprehendible.
Clinical trails that are conducted for most treatment testing are placebo-controlled clinical trials. The placebo-controlled clinical trial has become the norm, the standard procedure for testing new drugs (those that can be tested with placebos).
At anyone given moment there are literally thousands of clinical trials going on somewhere. Even though they are not all studying the same drug or therapy, they do share the same methodology.
The method has only been around for a short time (1948). The placebo ‘effect’ used in blind trials is calculated the same way for every blind trial.
While patients are receiving either the drug they joined up to receive (because people who volunteer for blind trial testing are SICK!) or the placebo and nobody, not ever the Doctor knows who is getting what: the end result will not consider what happened. It will consider only what was desired to happen.
The trial of streptomycin in tuberculosis established the need and the method to compare whether a drug had benefit or not and if so, how much benefit over the placebo ‘effect’.
The placebo ‘effect’ is actually the patient thinking they received the benefits of the drug when they really didn’t ‘get it’.
The people who really didn’t ‘get it’ are not the patients. They are the statisticians and physicians who rely on a fatal logic to determine the admissibility of a new drug or therapy.
Patients do ‘get it’ and that is the problem. Where studies have gone awry it has been because researchers have believed only the placebo served patients ‘get it’.
People taking studies know they are taking part in a study. They all know they are taking part in a study. Whether they know they may receive a placebo or not does not change their motivation in taking part in the study. They want to benefit from the drugs being offered in the study. No patient takes part in a drug study desiring the drug to not work at all.
So when a study results in 60% of the participants benefiting from the drug, and those receiving placebos had a result of 40% the clinician will declare the drug works 20% better than the placebo. But it does not.
Not only the placebo patient wanted to be helped. All patients wanted to be helped. So the math is not 60% – 40% = 20% the worth of the drug more than a placebo, it is actually 60% – 40% = 20% the actual worth of the drug for the test population. The drug is not 20% more effective than the placebo; it is only 20% effective.
If that were not the case then the drug would be a miracle drug as it would have wiped out the desire of the patient to be helped and completely eliminated the placebo effect.
It doesn’t take rocket scientists to figure out the math. It is the same perspective calculation used in politics. If a new bill introduced by congress includes a growth of 50% in funding for a specific program and it is then amended during conference to include only a 30% increase in function for that program, proponents of the higher increase accuse the proponents of the lower increase of decreasing the budget for the program by 20%, when in reality they are increasing the program spending 30%. The interpretation of the math depends on the perspective of the calculation’s results.
Drug makers want the drugs to work. So they interpret the test results in favor of a working drug. That is erring on the side of greed and ignorance.
Patients want the drug to work so they, after being told that the drug they are receiving is either the real drug or a placebo, or even not having been told at all and assuming the drug received is the real drug, their taking it at all requires their desire to have it work for them. Every single patient has that motivation making the current interpretation of trial results to be literally fatally inverted.
The problem in using those study results comes when drugs receive what Prozac did from its studies: being ‘ahead’. Being some degree greater than the placebo effect accounted for. That ignores that the placebo effect was also at work in those who received the real drug. When a drug is ‘ahead’ of the placebo it is actually very far behind.
Eli Lilly makes Prozac. According to an article republished in Cognitive Therapy, written by Thomas J. Moore, as “No prescription for happiness, Could it be that antidepressants do little more than placebos?” published in the Boston Globe on Oct 17, 1999. © Copyright 1999 Globe Newspaper Company:
“Lilly had conducted 10 such clinical trials for Prozac, according to FDA records. However, in six of these trials no measurable overall difference could be detected between those treated with Prozac and those who got the placebo. Prozac was usually ahead slightly, but within a margin that often could be explained by chance.
One trial deemed successful was based on such a small group of participants that only eight patients taking Prozac completed it. The FDA discarded another ”successful” trial because no one could explain why one investigator got so much better results than others giving the same drug to similar patients.
If one combines all the Prozac studies in FDA files, it becomes clear that nearly 90 percent of the improvements reported by patients taking Prozac were also reported by the patients taking placebos.”
Published in the Washington Post May 7, 2002, Washington Post staff writer Shankar Vedantam presented, “Against Depression, a Sugar Pill Is Hard to Beat”.
“After thousands of studies, hundreds of millions of prescriptions and tens of billions of dollars in sales, two things are certain about pills that treat depression: Antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft work. And so do sugar pills.
A new analysis has found that in the majority of trials conducted by drug companies in recent decades, sugar pills have done as well as — or better than — antidepressants. Companies have had to conduct numerous trials to get two that show a positive result, which is the Food and Drug Administration’s minimum for approval.
What’s more, the sugar pills, or placebos, cause profound changes in the same areas of the brain affected by the medicines, according to research published last week. One researcher has ruefully concluded that a higher percentage of depressed patients get better on placebos today than 20 years ago.
Placebos — or dud pills — have long been used to help scientists separate the “real” effectiveness of medicines from the “illusory” feelings of patients. The placebo effect — the phenomenon of patients feeling better after they’ve been treated with dud pills — is seen throughout the field of medicine. But new research suggests that the placebo may play an extraordinary role in the treatment of depression — where how people feel spells the difference between sickness and health.
The new research may shed light on findings such as those from a trial last month that compared the herbal remedy St. John’s wort against Zoloft. St. John’s wort fully cured 24 percent of the depressed people who received it, and Zoloft cured 25 percent — but the placebo fully cured 32 percent.”

Hold it. Do the math. Placebo cured 32%, St. Johns wort 24% and Zoloft 25%. That makes both treatments less effective than the placebo but how MUCH less effective?

24% – 32% = -8%
25% – 32% = -7%

Obviously, anything other than the placebo is all side effects. Side effects have to come from something. The negative amount has to equal the opposite of the beneficial effect. It has to be destructive.
When the required side effects are shown to a patient, anything remotely close to a known side effect will prove to that patient that the drug is working. It is causing side effects. After the trial the patients having to actually pay for the new drug are convincing themselves it works. Doctors do it more than patients do.

In the same article:

“Some observers assert that the medicines themselves work because of the placebo effect, but most psychiatrists believe the drugs do have an effect of their own. Drugs are a “placebo-plus” treatment, said Helen Mayberg, head of neuropsychiatry at the Rotman Research Institute at the University of Toronto.
In a study published last week in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Mayberg evaluated brain changes during trials using a sophisticated brain imaging technique. She found that medicines, besides working on areas that are activated by placebos, also work on areas deep in the brain stem, the hippocampus and striatum.
Since both depression and the effect of the medicines are still not well understood, it’s not clear what these changes mean. While they could be irrelevant effects, Mayberg said a better explanation is that the drugs affect areas deep within the brain and then work upward to affect parts of the brain that control mood. Placebos may work in the reverse direction. In part, this may explain why drug effects tend to be more reliable than placebos in the long run.
Mayberg likened depression to a room with a hole in one window.
“You are trying to set a thermostat — it’s 100 degrees outside and you want it to be 70,” she said. “If you set the thermostat to 70, that doesn’t work. But if I set my thermostat to 50, that fools the system and gets the temperature back to 70.”
Both drugs and placebos — chemicals and beliefs — may impose different chemical pressures on the brain that reset the “temperature.” The real problem, of course, is that no one knows how to fix the hole in the window, or even where exactly it is. “This is a thousand-piece puzzle with no picture on the box,” sighed Mayberg.”
Besides the concern expressed by many for the way drug trials are conducted in a money is no object madness to market process, the very perspective of the calculation used in all drug trials is fatally flawed.
To determine if the flaw is indeed fatal we must have a reverse calculation to the method. If a method of logic is not perfectly reducible to itself (i.e.: able to go in either direction) it is not a valid method of logic. And that is the problem in deducing the correct and non-fatal method of logic to use. The target perspective sees the result of the cause of the logic, while the source perspective see the target as the cause of the logic.
Whether to view causes from the target focus or the source focus is literally the least observable symptom of CFD. The target focus is logical to the target, while the source focus is logical to the source and to the target but not logically observable by the target.
Everything we see is seen from the target focus. It is what sensors do. They collect input they do not cause the input. The target focus is not only the observer it is also the higher or more filtered, more refined, more efficient, superior process.
The flaw is fatal in that the error is not an error in reverse. An error has to always be an error to be an error. It cannot have the slightest not being an error. The slightest positive makes the error no longer an error.
The target perspective itself is the error. Long term reacts so it naturally perceives from the target perspective. Short term proacts and has the ability to observe from the source perspective.
Short-term process is superior to long term in that it is not only longer, it is also far faster. It is not ‘logical’ to long term to assume such a process exists. We know it does, as it is what makes us aware of being us. We cannot come to agreement on what that actually is, or where it takes place or what it would mean to be without one (ask any other creature than human) because it fulfills its own prophecy. It is literally a slave to the long-term memory process. Unless it is invoked, which requires being aware that it actually exists and what it actually is, it will rubber stamp the past and build its perception of self around that past. It is also able to overcome the past and reach for the future instead of watch it creep up. It is not only consciousness it is and awareness and self, short term memory processing is the ‘you’, you know you are.
Long-term memory process represents everything that entered your senses, built upon everything that had already entered you senses. Without short-term memory process control that brain is reacting to everything based on how well it reacted to everything before. It is essentially wasting the greatest and most efficient thing that makes us human at all.
Having the lights off while someone is home is the result of a person aware of self but just not using that process. It amounts to the condition of the majority of the population of this planet.
The differences in term are their tasks. Long term’s task is to remember and recall and output reactions. Short term’s task is to evaluate and contemplate and output actions. When we only react we make mistakes, such as adding instead of subtracting or even adding when the result should be multiplied, or assuming the target’s perspective is more important than the source’s perspective by not being aware of the source perspective.
One does not have to ‘fool’ a system to put it back where it belongs. One only has to know how to use the system. The system of long and short term memory processing and its variations of speed and clarity gives us the wonderful tool of the human brain by which to observe existence while living it. Knowing how to use the brain instead of the brain using you changes your perspective.
With apologies to Mayberg, it is not a window with a hole. It is a mirror with a focal point. It does not need fixing; it needs being understood so the full picture comes into view of where we are really standing in that image.
Then it will not appear to be puzzle-like at all. A good first step is to recognize the perspective.
A metaphor is the perspective of the author, the source. A perception is the perspective of the observer, the target. It never matters what the observer’s deductions are if they are not made on the perspective of the author. If not, perception is just a mirror image of the reality the author attempted to convey.
Any sound you make is either the source or target perspective. If you care to enjoy its arriving at the target then view it from the target and deduce every reaction you have to it by all means enjoy the perspective. It is what makes great music, art. But if you desire to study why the reaction or target perspective is what it is, then seek the metaphor and view it from the perspective of the author. Actually hear what the sound is saying instead of just hearing the sound.
Today’s music is based in the sound and the beat. Much of it ‘sounds’ and ‘beats’ the same. When a new song arrives for review and it has a different ‘beat’ and the ‘sounds’ actually say something that matches the ‘beat’ and the lyrics agree and support and are themselves enhanced by the ‘sound’ and the ‘beat’, you grab it and run to the control room to get it on the air as soon as humanly possible. It doesn’t matter if the current thing airing is news or not.
It does matter that those who listen to your station depend on you to give them what they want more of (variety that is not different than the rest it is variety in that it is far better than the rest), it matters that you want to give them what they want because it results in success in ratings and increases in revenue and if all goes well less of a reason to react to the sales department’s tossing the blame for their inability to sell on to the product. Passion requires a motivation and will always meet the dreaded anti-passion moment. The trick to sticking with a passion is maintaining it so high that those who ruin the current step cannot interfere with the journey.
Before the great musician composers of the 17th through 19th centuries started to become bored with purpose, replacing it with payment for performance, the great classical movement told stories in sound. Words were added to peasant music, not respectable music. But it sure did make for a more interestingly understood metaphor to actually hear the words and let the music support them instead.
Opera was born to be respectable and became more than one metaphor at a time. To those who understood the language used it was beautiful story telling. To those who could not speak one lick of the language it became an aid to the story telling of the music where voices became instruments. The same progression took place in the visual arts.
Can you imagine a world where human beings made decisions alone by their receptors commonly known as ‘touch’?
‘Touch’ is the only single ‘sense’ where there are two parts: pressure and temperature.
Two parts where there is an opposing controllable potential just like visual and aural senses share between them and we would all ‘see’ and ‘hear’ like the blind and deaf. A nicely balanced set of ‘senses’ as backup to the loss of one of the primary senses is a good thing to have.
But it is only a ‘backup’. The primary methods of thinking are hearing thinkers and seeing thinkers. The primary types of the primary methods are long and short-term memory processes where one of them will be ‘in control’ of the whole brain and therefore its inhabitant.
The ‘sense’ in control of the ‘in control’ short term process is what awareness is. It is why you either hear words in your head or see pictures. You are aware of that. Awareness is shown in knowing that you think as well as knowing how you think. How you communicate with yourself. In images or in words you ‘hear’. If you are not in short term control and you have an aural short term dominant process the ‘voice’ you hear in your head is ‘you’. Say hi. Then stop talking to yourself.
Awareness means more than just knowing or realizing. It is the gift of not having to stop with what you know and what you realize. Humans looped short term brains have a driver in charge. Whether that driver is nurtured into believing it has no control over the vehicle or nurtured to believe a driver can actually drive, the actual result of awareness is the same. The more you are aware the more in control you are and that includes the ability to put one’s faith or one’s fears ahead of what one’s entire history refuses to realize. A new idea. A unique thing. A special treatment. An improved process. A new scheme or style. More than what went in came out.
Animals, or I should say, any animal not human, is doomed to live at least half of the lives all over again. The only memories an animal has are those it has viewed and when it goes to sleep it is romping or playing somewhere it has already romped or played. You cat or dog have no ability to analyze their dreams so they are not able to concoct potentials metaphors from things that would never make up such metaphors.
Humans without much short-term control are not stupid. They are not unique. They are normal. The human who has just as much intelligence as other humans but refuses to be normal may create new things, while the human with advanced intelligence and a refusal to be normal will discover and create and improve things. Those people are most susceptible to the mistakes that happen when the control is lost.
The Freudian Focus: the moment you fail to control the output as long-term memory has far too much control over the topic. Otherwise known as the Freudian slip, this moment of no self-awareness can get you in really big trouble.
If your short term is in control and you have recently surmised that you can know how you think; you can indeed contemplate thinking that way but if you know how you think it is impossible not to think that way.