Changing Your Mind - Literally

A few minutes ago I finished watching an interview on gaiam tv with Dr. Joe Dispenza on how we can change our minds using the power of our thoughts. It wasn't something abstract or metaphysical in any way, there were clips of what happens in the brain when we break habits, learn new things, and think powerful thoughts. It was fascinating to me to see it put in such solid, realistic, and scientific terms. You can see the preview of the interview here , but I wanted to post another video - this is what it looks like in the actual brain when we break habits, think new thoughts, and learn new things.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI388XoCp48

This may not be new to some of you. If that is the case, please add to this with your own knowledge and experience.

Ah, another What The Bleep chap...
So let's see what an alternative medicine "Doctor" and disciple of yet another Atlantis cult has to educate us about in matters of neurobiology and psychology, shall we?
Wait... he doesn't actually talk about any of that. A relief.

Gisteron wrote: Ah, another What The Bleep chap...
So let's see what an alternative medicine "Doctor" and disciple of yet another Atlantis cult has to educate us about in matters of neurobiology and psychology, shall we?
Wait... he doesn't actually talk about any of that. A relief.

I knew I could count on you.

Tell me how he isn't and your actual thoughts behind it, rather than.. whatever.. this is? I would be interested in hearing how/why you don't agree? Not only that, but I would be interested to see some other videos or articles that explain your own view or how you came to your conclusions.

I have now read several neurological articles that support what is being stated here and I need to see the other side. So if you don't mind.. elaborate.

Here's another about neuroplasticity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8wW1t1JqUc



Edit: I am most curious about how neuroscience is "alternative medicine"...?

Breaking habits, changing thoughts, and neuroplasticity. A simplified, short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELpfYCZa87g

Well, the first video you posted was some labels and illustrations... And the preview of what you linked to was him telling how people ought to live their lives in the vaguest of terms... It's not like there even was something for me to disagree with, there was more or less nothing there to begin with.
I also didn't say anything about neuroscience or the merits thereof within the confines of this thread. I did say that Mr. Dispenza was an alternative medical practitioner, which seems to be pretty accurate, even according to his own website, but I shall stand corrected if a more reliable source says differently.
As for neuroplasticity itself, that brains change throughout are lives and well after our formative years, and that those changes on several levels of resolution occur in what seems to be a correlation with the respective brain activity in question, while indeed a rather new observation, is nonetheless well established at this point, albeit not completely accounted for.
Now, whether we have any conscious control over this, as the Sentis video would suggest, and Mr. Dispenza would have to imply, as necessary to build his further instructions on, I would at a first glance dispute. It would seem that our minds are but a product of our brains, and while the brain's workings do influence its development, it stands to reason that even as much as our desire for any particular change is itself but a result of some other circuitry or change thereof that already had occurred. It would of course be amplifying and cascading as we make it happen, but it is not like we can will something to be without our brain being already well on its way toward that willing.
Indeed, if memory serves, there have been studies demonstrating how in some areas our brain makes choices whole seconds ahead of our conscious mind recognizing them at all, let alone expressing them.
Now, granted, if you choose to break a habit, to take an example, while the thought of breaking it was a path your brain had already walked enough for you to become aware of it, the process of actually resisting the urge and suppressing the brain from carrying out the specific path of the habit will cause that path to degenerate. It's just that when it comes down to it, thoughts come to you without your having any say in or control over it. What such a "you", that could in principle have such control, even is, I have yet to hear explained.
In retrospect, reading through this post again, it looks like I am arguing against the notion of free will itself, really...

Gisteron wrote: Well, the first video you posted was some labels and illustrations... And the preview of what you linked to was him telling how people ought to live their lives in the vaguest of terms..

So... Your entire comment was formed after only watching a 1 minute preview of an hour long interview.

Okay

As far as who the interviewee is, the titles he holds, etc. doesn't seem very relevant to me because of the fact that he is pulling his information from credible sources. Before today I had never heard of him but can easily find other sources to support the actual facts that were shared. The fluff in between is simply "motivational" and "inspiring", which is why this was only the beginning of a search. Searches usually begin somewhere.

As I said before, this is something new to me that I rarely ever hear people discussing but believe has some reason to be discussed. What you have stated in these clarifying paragraphs is nothing different than my own search has provided. While you may not appreciate the fluff, some people do, and in spite of it can learn quite a lot without getting too caught up in it.

Now I will ask, and it will seem as if I'm being rude when I do, but I have to ask because I do not know you - have you spent much time studying neuroscience? Do you think it's a topic worth discussing?
Again, if you have links I would love to learn more about it from a variety of different perspectives.

Well you didn't post the interview, now, did you? Nor did I respond to the interview, now, did I? If you want me to respond to a specific point he raises, raise it in his stead. Obviously he is not here to represent his opinion himself and I am not here to seek it out either.
Perhaps I should be fairer than that. After all, you didn't ask anybody else's opinion. Rather, you just informed us that you came across some material you found engaging in one way or another and pointed us to a preview of it as well as some inspirational video that is to some extent related in content, or so one would think.
So with that in mind, thank you for sharing, I guess...
Likewise, I posted my, let's say, first reaction, uncalled for though it was. I suppose the elaboration later on was perhaps more thought through. Either that or I may have had more material to work with, seeing how you posted what one would think is yet more related content... Or maybe it was both. And maybe I should have stayed out of it altogether. Perhaps next time then. We shall see.

Edit:
You are right that the credentials are technically irrelevant in discussing the veracity of any given claim. Of course, I didn't watch the interview, and if you did post any specific point that was raised there, it would have helped to cite the sources Mr. Dispenza cited, rather than citing him, but then I cannot recall having dismissed any specific points just on the grounds of his lack of topic-relevant credentials.
Now, I tend to be rather dismissive of all the fluff, and perhaps I would do better trying to glance over that rather than address it. It is nonetheless true that the fluff adds little information to the mix and if mixed in thoroughly enough can occasionally even obscure the genuine education that may or may not be there to some extent or another. Many may see it as a folly of science that it does so little to fluff up its findings and remains strange and often incomprehensible to the general public; I see it as an inherent property of the kind of thing that science is. It is brutally honest by design, in that it doesn't and wouldn't pretend to anything. It is hard, and it wouldn't pretend being easy, ever. It would try and not sacrifice accuracy for accessibility either. Generous life-changer gurus of our time, on the other hand, gain a lot from being accessible. They have no quarrels distorting genuine discoveries to something fluffy enough to appeal to a vast audience and vague enough to not offend any portion of it, because that is pretty much their job and they have no concept of integrity as far as I know. Of course, popularity begets profit, and science, especially complicated science only a few and only very dedicated and very busy people understand, holding the prestigious status that it does and getting the attention that it does, is a good place to start.

To answer your inquiry, I have had what one could call an introductory neurobiology course for half a year in school, as biology was my second main subject. I feel like I am by all means a layman in that field, and I try to avoid making specific claims in it for that reason; that includes citing the claims of others I have not the experise to understand enough to evaluate. I do however find it a genuinely fascinating subject, well worth discussing, and though I fear it might not come to this, I hope to one day have an opportunity to learn about it in depth, too. But then I am a curious man in many things and I can say that of a vast array of fields of scientific study, hence the fear that I may forever stay but a mere layman in this.

Gisteron wrote: Well you didn't post the interview, now, did you? Nor did I respond to the interview, now, did I? If you want me to respond to a specific point he raises, raise it in his stead. Obviously he is not here to represent his opinion himself and I am not here to seek it out either.
Perhaps I should be fairer than that. After all, you didn't ask anybody else's opinion. Rather, you just informed us that you came across some material you found engaging in one way or another and pointed us to a preview of it as well as some inspirational video that is to some extent related in content, or so one would think.
So with that in mind, thank you for sharing, I guess...
Likewise, I posted my, let's say, first reaction, uncalled for though it was. I suppose the elaboration later on was perhaps more thought through. Either that or I may have had more material to work with, seeing how you posted what one would think is yet more related content... Or maybe it was both. And maybe I should have stayed out of it altogether. Perhaps next time then. We shall see.

It isn't easy to read how a person means something through type. If I have upset you in some way, I am truly sorry.
You're right that I didn't ask for specific opinions on that particular interview and I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything, but I do want to learn more and hoped this would spark some conversation and ideas. My hope was that someone here had some further information regarding the subject, or that it might lead to a discussion of people, like myself, who are entirely new to it - while taking what little information I had provided and doing their own searches. A combined effort, I suppose.

That isn't likely to happen at this point, unfortunately. Perhaps next time...

Use it or lose it, as they say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Gisteron wrote: To answer your inquiry, I have had what one could call an introductory neurobiology course for half a year in school, as biology was my second main subject. I feel like I am by all means a layman in that field, and I try to avoid making specific claims in it for that reason; that includes citing the claims of others I have not the experise to understand enough to evaluate. I do however find it a genuinely fascinating subject, well worth discussing, and though I fear it might not come to this, I hope to one day have an opportunity to learn about it in depth, too. But then I am a curious man in many things and I can say that of a vast array of fields of scientific study, hence the fear that I may forever stay but a mere layman in this.

I thought you would have some experience and hoped you would help contribute to the thread, even if it's in a "what if" or an idea sort of way. I understand and respect that you like facts and evidence and that exploring something that might not have many (facts or evidence) might not be something you're interested in doing. I also respect that. But if you wouldn't mind sharing what you do know, I would really, really appreciate it. You have an interesting mind and approach to things. Even if it is in disagreement with other links I've posted. Videos, articles, podcasts, or anything else you might know about. Or if you happen across something along these lines and think it would add to my interested, please send it my way.

no idea if this will actually increase neuroplasticity or not but its all good advice regardless

http://healthreports.hubpages.com/hub/Brain-Training-Improve-Your-Neuroplasticity-with-10-Easy-Tips


also i stumbled on this, which again i have no way to determine if it really does much of any specific thing in the brain but i thought the exercises looked fun lol
i wish they would have done this when i was in school - and some of these are challenging even for adults, like rub the top of your head while you pat your stomach taken to a whole new level

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afMOUmOynRI

I've been quietly following along with this topic, and I just wanted to say that I find the discussion very interesting! I figured I'd contribute a video I feel is on the same vein of what is being discussed, it's a very thought provoking TED Talk.

https://www.ted.com/talks/sandrine_thuret_you_can_grow_new_brain_cells_here_s_how

a pretty amazing story of brain transformation at an adult age

The Woman Who Changed Her Brain: Barbara Arrowsmith-Young at TEDxToronto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0td5aw1KXA

Barbara Arrowsmith-Young is the Creator and Director of Arrowsmith School and Arrowsmith Program, and the author of the international best-selling book The Woman Who Changed Her Brain (www.barbaraarrowsmithyoung.com/book). She holds a B.A.Sc. in Child Studies from the University of Guelph, and a Master's degree in School Psychology from the University of Toronto (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education). Arrowsmith-Young is recognized as the creator of one of the first practical applications of the principles of neuroplasticity to the treatment of learning disorders. Her program is implemented in 54 schools internationally."

Thought this might be an interesting addition to this thread:
http://qz.com/722614/a-civil-servant-missing-most-of-his-brain-challenges-our-most-basic-theories-of-consciousness/

It's the medical case of a French man missing approx 90% of the neurons in his brain. This occurred over a period of perhaps 30 years.
Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.


His mind was healthy even though he had lost most of his brain. Amazing and fascinating!

Gisteron wrote: alternative medicine "Doctor"

Wondering what alternative medicine is supposed to mean, and why it's implied to be a bad thing. Basic herbalism is alternative medicine, but it works perfectly well. Ginger tea has solved quite a few stomachaches for me. Psychology and the practice of various kinds of talk therapy methods have been (and still are) looked down on as a fake science or an alternative medicine by some (this has been changing over time), though even Freudian psychoanalysis has demonstrable effectiveness. Chinese medicine is often called alternative medicine, and yet when I got nasty knuckle bruises in my kung fu classes rubbing a bit of dit da jow on the bruise solved the problem just fine. And aromatherapy has helped quite a few people with things like migraines...

Is the person who heals me not my doctor? If my doctor tells me to drink more ginger tea instead of writing me a prescription to some pill for a stomach problem, does that make the doctor an alternative medicine doctor? And if so, what's wrong with that?

TheDude wrote:

Gisteron wrote: alternative medicine "Doctor"

Wondering what alternative medicine is supposed to mean, and why it's implied to be a bad thing.

Well, alternative medicine in my understanding is pretty much any sort of treatment that is being sold as medical when meantime in actual medicine it is either not proven effective or proven ineffective. I do fail to see where in either the passage quoted above or the rest of the post it is quoted from I implied that it is somehow a "bad thing", setting aside what that means.

Basic herbalism is alternative medicine, but it works perfectly well.

The extent to which it works, it is incorporated into medicine and pharmaceutical production. The extent to which it is alternative medicine is the extent to which it has not been demonstrated to work.

Psychology and the practice of various kinds of talk therapy methods have been (and still are) looked down on as a fake science or an alternative medicine by some (this has been changing over time), though even Freudian psychoanalysis has demonstrable effectiveness.

See above. The extent to which those things are effective is the extent to which they are part of medicine and used as such. I am not myself an expert in matters of medicine but I have yet to meet one who would dismiss all of psychology as unscientific, though I also have yet to meet one who wouldn't dismiss Freudian psychoanalysis as just that.

Chinese medicine is often called alternative medicine, ...

If you would kindly specify what exactly "Chinese medicine" means, we can discuss that. From what I understand, there is medicine and then there is everything that isn't it. Much like with the examples before, the extent to which the set you mean by "Chinese medicine" overlaps with the set that is medicine, it is - tautologically - part of it. And the extent to which it doesn't it, well, doesn't. Is there some nuance or difficulty I am overlooking here?

And aromatherapy has helped quite a few people with things like migraines...

I'm not sure how that is a problem for anything either. The extent to which it does help with things it is recognized as helpful. The extent to which it doesn't, it isn't.

Is the person who heals me not my doctor?

No. A doctor is a person who holds a doctorate. That can be an MD, an academic title or a Doctor h.c. A physician is a formally educated and practicing medical professional. Someone who heals you is just someone who heals you. It implies nothing about either their job or their education or any titles to their name.

If my doctor tells me to drink more ginger tea instead of writing me a prescription to some pill for a stomach problem, does that make the doctor an alternative medicine doctor? And if so, what's wrong with that?

No, it doesn't. Earlier you wondered what alternative medicine means. Well, if it meant something as concrete as actual medicine does, there would be some standard one would have to meet, and some rule one could break. If I'm not mistaken, there is no such thing as an alternative medicine license that can be revoked the way an actual medical license can, is there?