The
title of this site comes from the following passage, as it
struck me as an interesting concept as well as a colourful
phrase when I came across it.
"The
techniques of autostimulation are extremely various.
Just as one can notice that stroking oneself in a certain way
can produce certain only partially and indirectly controllable
but definitely desirable effects (and one can then devote some
time and ingenuity to developing and exploring the techniques
for producing those desirable effects in oneself), so one can
also come to recognize that talking to oneself, making
pictures for oneself, singing to oneself, and so forth, are
practices that often have desirable effects. Some people
are better at these activities than others. Cognitive
autostimulation is an acquired and intimately personal
technique, with many different styles."
--Daniel
C. Dennett, Elbow Room
This
site doesn't have many visitors at the moment, but that will
hardly affect the content or frequency of posts herein.
I hope that doesn't bother you ... like it matters.
You may follow this link to add your own comment, but this is
what another "visitor" had to say
I
have been webmastering my own sites for several years now. (You
could say I've been the master of my own domain.) My
original home site entitled The
World Bri'ed Web is now in its seventh incarnation or
so. I write and record music, and use the site incessantly to
pitch the albums to all few of my visitors. I now invite you
to read my thoughts, rants, tidbits, musings, and brain-rains.*
May your stay be full of fruit.
*Brain-rain:
(n) Not as severe as a brain-storm, and hardly as vulgar as a
brain-fart, but somewhere safely in between.
April 16, 2004 IF YOU READ IT, YOU'LL ONLY ENCOURAGE HIM
I never intended to use Cognitive Autostimulation: The Blogger Experience as my personal diary, journal, or Hey-Everyone-This-Is-What-I'm-Up-To-Lately log. So, why did I feel the need to preface my entry with that statement? The answer is: the content which follows is what I consider to be of the type that would most likely be found here if it, in fact, WERE my intent to use this site in such a manner.
I just viewed Kill Bill Volume Two a matter of hours ago and I felt the need to express some sentiments regarding the experience.
The sentiments are such that, after reading them, you will have the impression of my having enjoyed the experience. With that said, it now remains unnecessary to divulge the sentiments in a proper manner, as you are already informed of the effect to which my stating them is meant to give. The effect is what is important, not the sentiments themselves.
I could go ahead and tell the sentiments anyway, and you will for the second time be enlightened as to the fact of what they are meant to express, by way of having both the prior knowledge and the reiteration. This, however, would be merely redundant ...
And, as you are quite aware, I don't like to be overly verbose or pedantic (or sarcastic, for that matter) in my expressions of opinion, so I'll refrain from continuing. And I'll refrain, if no other reason than to prevent you from losing track of what it was I originally wanted to express, getting muddled by my overtly elaborate syntax, and failing yourself to see the point of reading further.
However, if out of sheer curiosity, you DO wish to continue reading, as you apparently have demonstrated, you will be unfulfilled; at least, if your intent is to find SOME semblance of relevance in my attempts to conclude. See? Unfulfilled. 3:57 AM April 13, 2004 PRAISE TO THE ZOMBIE
No, I'm not planning on talking at length on the subject of physiological causality; not at this time. I wanted, instead, today, to bring up something I found rather amusing. For this past weekend, a post was made by someone, not myself, on a particular message board I frequent.
The topic heading was "Happy Jesus Was A Zombie Day" and several people were offended.
In defense, the dictionary was quickly quoted and a zombie was, indeed, defined to be nothing more than a dead body being resurrected or re-animated by supernatural means, an apt description in this case. I suppose, however, that the ever-present mist of negative connotation loomed near, and people assumed that the original poster had some far-fetched imagery in mind of a gray-skinned, tattered-clothed, sleep-walking, brain-eating monster as the Messiah. Or something like that.
Whatever my thoughts on the actual intent of the poster, I find it amusing that the post was let to slide by the usually strict moderators who enforce, if nothing else, the NO RELIGION policy. 3:55 AM April 10, 2004 THE FEYNMAN PRELUDE
As a prelude to any discussion I may have on physiological causality, I will quote the amazing Richard P. Feynman, from his book QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, which I am currently enjoying thoroughly. The fundamental aspect of my position on P.C. stems from simple rules of, say, X, Y, and/or Z dictating complexity which can explain what we seem to call "free will", a seemingly chaotic result of physical phenomena. The following passage, in its own context, paraphrases the line of thinking I take in explaining P.C.:
You might wonder how such simple actions could produce such a complex world. It's because phenomena we see in the world are the result of an enormous intertwining of tremendous numbers of photon exchanges and interferences. Knowing the three fundamental actions is only a very small beginning toward analyzing any real situation, where there is such a multitude of photon exchanges going on that it is impossible to calculate--experience has to be gained as to which possibilities are more important. Thus we invent such ideas as "index of refraction" or "compressibility" or "valence" to help us calculate in an approximate way when there's an enormous amount of detail going on underneath. It's analogous to knowing the rules of chess--which are fundamental and simple--compared to being able to play chess well, which involves understanding the character of each position and the nature of various situations--which is much more advanced and difficult.
Chaos out from order; order, then, out from chaos: this is essentially my take, with a little, somewhat vague, interpretation and adaptation. I like the comparison to chess, as overused as chess-based analogies may be. I like, in general, Feynman's ability to express a point, and the more difficult task of making points that are relevant, and ordered impeccably, such that an understanding can be reached with incredible efficiency. 2:04 AM April 7, 2004 PHYSIO-WHATSIT CAUS-HUMMINAHOW?
It has been my intention lately to post an essay here. The purpose of this essay is to translate my views, understandings, and interpretations of phenomena related to "free will." Whether or not it's the case that I believe in free will or the non-existence thereof, it is my view that free will is not compatible with a physical existence, and that all the phenomena we experience related to "free will" can be described with what I refer to as physiological causality. A subsequent purpose of my writing this essay would be, also, to solidify my views; to make them a little more coherent. And in so doing, I would manage to find whatever flaws exist therein, or anything else that would convince me to abandon the line of thinking. Intellectual exercise, indeed.
However, I have had conversations (several of them) with people close to me; and these conversations have done a fine job of helping me to solidify my understandings. Thus, one reason for composing the essay has disappeared. Combined with the fact that I'm fatigued in talking about it (and whereas I haven't found anything to disrupt my thoughts on physiological causality, giving me nothing specific to discuss to counter them), these reasons supply ample disuasion from composing the essay at this time.
I'm sorry for any inconvenience, or whetted appetites, or other forms of anticipation this has caused you. 1:36 AM
I
have been webmastering my own sites for several years now. (You
could say I've been the master of my own domain.) My
original home site entitled 
April 16, 2004