Sometimes I wonder if schizios are just people who never learned to channel their energy correctly

I think much of it comes from childhood abuse which effectively disempowers kids from learning to channel their energy correctly.

idk, my grandfather's sister went full schizo overnight and tried to stab the family. I was on a date in h.s. and I guess my new gf felt she could confide in me, so she told me a similar story about how one night she tried to stab someone in her family. My immediate reaction was that she had gone schizo, but as it turns out, she seemed pretty normal outside of her one psychotic break. All of that shit is weird to me.

My dad was a psychotherapist for a while and he once told me that something like 90% of the clients he worked with who had serious issues had been horribly abused in one way or another. Interesting aside: he counseled Charles Manson at one point. I asked him what Manson was like and he just told me that he was small, completely psychopathic, and cdangerous. I really wanted the goods on the case but I guess he was so disgusted/disturbed by Manson that he didn't care to try to dig anything up to help him. He did remark that Manson was unintimidating in person--whatever that meant.

Yea there is some weird shit regarding it (not speaking medically), sometimes I think it's psychic ability gone wrong, or something energetic gone wrong regarding the third eye and clairvoyance/clairaudience. Sometimes I hear things down in my mind saying bad shit along those lines, but it's people that act on it.

If you look at charles manson's interviews (check it out, it's worth it!), he actually says some realistic stuff, talks about the the duality of nature and life, some of the shit seems crazy that he says, but a lot of it has deep spirituality and intellect in it!

I listened to some of his stuff several years ago, partly because I was interested in unwrapping what my dad had described to me. Manson seemed batshit crazy but there is no doubt his intellect is sometimes "available" and accessible.

I'm not sure about psychic phenomenon. I think there are elements of the "subconscious", essentially the programming background we tap into on record mode when we're young, which later control our behaviour and our beliefs. We are always autonomous, but I have read that 95-99% of the time we're basically running programmed behaviour. This is, of course, important to our survival. Consciousness is mostly about processing the "here and now", but we aren't conscious most of the time, and when we're young, at some point we're mostly in a trance. This is why some kids will actually report that what they imagine is real -- they believe it. What I'm getting at is the idea that our subconscious programming may go a bit screwy at times; perhaps any level of consciousness can, too. It is in these times when I wonder if our perception is not accurately reporting what we sense or what we would ordinarily experience in a conscious or even subconscious operating state.

Maybe there is some psychic problem or an energetic imbalance. I tend to think it's all just chemical, possibly explicable along the lines I proposed above.

I have sometimes heard voices (bit only rarely in recent years). Most often, it's just my name. My mother is fairly concerned about it. She attributes it to me smoking marijuana when I was a bit younger. One time, in town, I was driving by a graveyard and I heard "join us" inside my head. That was my creepiest experience with hearing voices. I don't get why it happened, I don't get why it happens to a lot of people at least some of the time, but I am sure there is a good explanation waiting to emerge. If it somehow turns out that we're slowly plodding toward a sixth sense, I think that's really cool.

It's innate and genetic.. My half brothers father and mother "my mom" are schizophrenic, so he was predisposed to have the genes for the disease. I feel that environment is hardly a factor 'My brother had great upbringing, as well as my mom and my brothers father".

I'm not going to disagree with you because schizophrenic is so damned weird but the field of epigenetics in some ways suggests that most of the action of genes relates to the environment of the cell, with the emphasis being that the cell membrane is essentially perceptive, whereas the nucleus and the DNA contained therein is mostly passive, like a blueprint. So the expression of genes is held to be dependent on the environment. Some epigeneticists believe that the "environment" extends beyond the sort of perception going on at the cell membrane level, and connects to our visual perception, our feelings and beliefs, and so on. I'd go as far as saying that nutrition and the effects of toxins are influential, but the extension of the theory to our fears and hopes, etc., is a big leap.

If the leap is warranted, then one can suggest that how we feel (if we are afraid, if we have horrible experiences, etc.) indeed could relate even to having the "genes" expressed or unlocked for schizophrenia. Moreover, whether or not we've had bad experiences if enough of the influence of certain feelings affects our genes -- again, I don't believe this but I am merely expressing a theory -- then perhaps even that would "cause" schizophrenia. It is ultimately a brain chemistry thing, so no matter how one claims that it's genetics at work, something is going on in the brain.

Also, some phenomenon that appear to be explained by genetics are more about the habits of a family or a culture. These could be dietary, behavioural, etc.. Hence the nature vs nurture (vs. environment) debate on all manner of things. Sometimes I'm sure it's a combination of these things. The causes of psychological and neurological disorders are still poorly understood, and misdiagnoses are the norm rather than the exception. There is plenty of good scientific information out there, but it's still a mess. When my dad told me that most of the cases he saw were cases where childhood abuse had been present, I made the assumption that the abuse was a cause. I still hold onto that assumption. My dad did not go as far. He just pointed to it as correlative data. He told me that most of the homosexuals he saw as clients were abused, too, but he was somewhat adamant that abuse was not the cause of homosexuality. He just pointed toward it as an alarming trend. What he understood was that just because most of the homosexuals who needed psychotherapy were abused, this does not mean that most homosexuals were abused. Big difference.

Agree 100% about the subconscious part. I've had experiences where I programmed my subconscious to react a certain way as in tell me things. I made a deal with him/me. Basically you take care of me i take care of you and when I listened, i achieved synchronicity. Things falling in teh right place, right place right time sort of scenarios, giving a request and recieving small ass ones which i did and the request happened.

This shit is REAL people that don't realize it are blind, we have many different universes and the subconscious will help align you with the right universe and goal. sorry if i went off on a rant, none of this is scientifically proven, because there are things science can't prove so that's why i'm not opposed to a lot of things being a doc almost.

You made a really important point about the subconscious. Even though most of our behaviour (again, 95-99%!) is programmed into the "subconscious" or the "background", we're not completely helpless against fears and habits we formed early in life. If we tune in, if we practice consciousness (sounds weird to say it that way, but that's what happens), we can interrupt our programming. We can question ourselves. Every time we do something we don't really "want" to do, we can tell ourselves to stop or we can send a new instruction in. If we repeat the new message enough, the programming changes. The more powerful the message and the more it is reinforced, the more likely it is to sink in. And for most people who don't have a perfectly synchronized psychology, not practicing re-programming amounts to not changing how you feel and you how you think. If someone is failing in some area of life, there is no alternative outside of changing the program, just because we're running on it almost all the time (when we're awake that is, the story changes when we sleep).

And the soul-crusher in all of this is that most people don't realize how to change, or even that they need to change. Our programming is so strong that we don't realize we're essentially being controlled by it. This explains the common phenomenon of telling someone "you're just like your dad" or "you and your sister are exactly the same". The person will often take this as an insult and think it's ludicrous. But that's a conscious reaction to an unchecked subconscious set of programmed behaviors.

You're 100% right about what's going on. It's a case of "the proof is in the pudding", because, from the point of view of looking at behavior and how it can change and affect someone's life, we can see what's going on if we pay attention. We don't have access to what's going on from the point-of-view of an exact science, but I think that's due to a problem of scale. We can track neuronal activity, plasticity, the electric highway of the brain, and we can see the function of (most of) the brain, but to scale up from neurology to behavior is tricky. On the other end, behavior is simple. So the complexity is in the connection between quantum level events, molecular activity, biological (chemical, cellular, and scaling up from there) activity, and behavior. We can't track all of these at the same time and see how they are working together. We can do it some of the time in limited ways that invoke a lot of assumptions, but it's just a really, really difficult job. I would suggest that with "infinite computing" and computational analysis, markers of these connections can be mapped and later analyzed by scientists to start to get a better picture of what's going on.

What's even more fascinating to me is the idea that consciousness evolved in and therefore from the universe. At a quantum level, if we're analyzing the behavior of particles, for instance, we encounter the probability that x, y, etc. may occur, and while we can often predict outcomes for a relatively small chain of events, we can't scale up and understand larger phenomena, like whether or not I will scratch my nose. Couldn't resist doing it. Moreover, if we treat the outcomes of particle level events, we need data points, and the most convenient and accurate data points are of course "bits", discrete yes or no outcomes to previous events/predictions. But "bits" describe information, so we understand that particles "contain" or "enact" information. The immediately weird jump is to realize that if particles are constantly providing information, there is something like a stream of (albeit subtle) consciousness and decision-making built into the fabric of the universe. What I'm getting at is the idea that this subtle consciousness or whatever-the-f*ck is going on actually influences our behavior at some level--essentially the level of the evolution of the cosmos (i.e., "It's nothing personal" would apply). I get the sense that over the long chain of evolution (not just earthly evolution, but the evolution of the universe), pockets of more engaged consciousness evolved via the mechanisms of biology. The various states of consciousness experienced by living things are, in this view, evolved from the subtle consciousness which still pervades the universe. The particle level has sort of slithered its way into biological and psychological behavior. If we don't believe that this is what explains consciousness, our chief resorts are:

1) deny the interpretation that any information is valid
2) suggest that explaining bits in terms of information is an anthropomorphization
3) have some other way of explicating the evolution of consciousness
4) deny the existence of consciousness

Among these choices, 2) (followed by 3) are usually the options that folks who have followed this line of reasoning yet don't wish to accept it adopt. I have considered the still deeper notion that while the claim of anthropomorphization is usually a pretty good way to debunk a theory, by invoking it here we're essentially saying that the tools we're using in science are all screwed up. There is no possible way to eliminate interpretation in science. This is not your typical fallacy in the vein of "man is the center of the universe" or "I'm just gonna say this thing is like me because I know what it's like to be me". This is about the explanatory apparatus itself. If we can't describe outcomes of events in terms of bits at the most discrete level, we're going to have trouble with bits and bytes everywhere.

It's quite a quagmire. There are other versions of the theory that I presented about the evolution of consciousness, quantum consciousness, and particle level events--I am being overly simplistic to paint a picture for a general audience--but the explanatory power of this chain of thinking is mesmerizing. To prove the point is currently an unassailable task. One does not simply scale up into Mordor.

This post was edited by RewtheBrave on Oct 26 2016 09:48am