Some thoughts are believed. Is "believing" done with thought?

[SWM]

another alternative is that consciousness produces brains like the sun produces flowers.

[sakoz]

Yes; same situation as creationists and evolutionists, pick your 'camp' (hehe) thanks. such is life. ( is this where I say "touche" ; lol)

[pljames]

SWM,
Theorize away. pl

[sakoz]

BELIEVING is subjective. (this not a new thread)
The placebo effect is the result of 'believing' inert/fake pills are medicine. After a person believed such pills are medicine, you can analize the pills and NOT find any analgesic imparted  to the pill by believing. I would like to make this point as ludicrous as possible, so as to 'shock' readers into recognizing that 'believing' only affects you(us) and not the object, thought, image, believed.
Automatically believing is so taken for granted, it;s not recognized when doing it. We don't question unrecognized/unwittingly 'believing' because theresult of believing is a pereption, or rather a pseudo,simulated, counterfeit "perception" (undetectable by the believer).
You CANNOT convince your "hardwired perception reactor" from reacting to perceptions; survival depends on reacting to perceptions (unfortunaetly even to false ones) all are reacted to, there is NO MARGIN FOR ERROR at all, when it comes to survival. No matter how many times your"fooled" by "false perceptions'; there is NO recalibrations, no way , no how. That is not subject to change.
The only recourse we have is to 'regulate' WHICH thought images to believe, we can't regulate the reactions. Only believing is 'optional'. Our primitive,automatic, unconscious reacts with the same certainty/inviolabikity to 'false' but believed thought images as it does to perceptions of/from environment.
(I'm beginning to 'see' why I'm not convincing anyone, all you readers are " commited to pledging allegiance to your perceptions; involuntarily; even including false ones) I'm not trying to override your unconscious; just trying to tell you to CHOOSE what 'beliefs' to "feed' it, and not to believe 'randomly/ by default.

[SWM]

I think you might not be convincing people because those who understand you already know it. and those who do not already know it cannot understand you.

there are also some who know it but still do not understand you.

[sakoz]

SWM; your message implies 2 'meanings" to me ,let me pick 1.
Those that 'can' do; those that 'can't' teach. One can memorize a book on how to ride a bicycle or fly a plane, but can't DO either, but they KNOW it so well they can teach others verbally what they need to know. I refer you to the psychiatrists in my other thread that did not recognize "normal" people in front of their eyes because they were so busy reacting to their 'believed images' of their diagnosis of the persons. I'm sure they KNOW about mental  health and symptoms of mental illness, for all their KNOWING, they did not recognize 'normal' person from those with symptoms of mental illness. I merely use that example so show that one can not always differentiate one's believed images from "facts", my use of that example is not an indictment of mental health professionals, but merely to show how widespread the lack of recognizing 'believed images' from perceptions of facts. It's just a sophistcated version of the 'placebo effect'. and that's all I,mean.
Surely your not implying 'you' are totally immune from doing likewise? It's structured into our language to do so; it's the "Law of the IS of  Identity'" it takes  a 'shift to a higher level perspective' to 'see' that  error; it CANNOT be seen at or on the level of doing it, it has to be witness from a different level of 'understanding'. So 'knowing' and 'understanding' are not always the 'same'.
Enigma is right, in that, the 'old' part of the brain CANNOT be reprogrammed and that is well, because we need the constancy, just as we need the constancy of water flowing over Niagara Falls to turn our turbines. It's cognitive reprogramming that's called for. I said we are programmed TO and By language. Programmed to 'believe images' are real as what they 'represent'.
Anyone who  understands the 'placebo effect', understands me, but do they RECOGNIZE when 'they' react to "unwittingly believed thought images??? Including you.

[S. Earl Martin]

I see the biggest problem here as this.
1. We all are imperfect beings. Prone to make errors. Even if we manage to find and correct an error. It will be only one of many.
2. How can we see that our believed images are in error? We would have to have some insight to show us the images are false.
3. If we are acting on false images. In theory in time the false hood should become evident because it should result in more errors.
4. We can chose to ignore the errors and continue on in denial.
5. In my opinion no one is normal. We all have some degree of mental illness. It is if the degree is to an extent that the person is a danger to themselves and others.

The believing aspect is automatic because there is only so much information we can actually know. Most of what we "know" we actually only think we know. Or we don't know. Time is moving by so fast that we cannot take the time to verify all the amount of information we are exposed to. So much of it we just take for granted or at face value. The human mind is limited. We can only comprehend so much.

What is real - what has happened; what is happening and what do you foresee as happening?  What is real is important in avoiding errors.  Proper understanding of your situation is dependent on correctly assessing what is real.

What you know - defines what is real and known in a situation.  Who you are: butcher, baker, executive VP.  Whatever the title, those aspects should be known to you.  A baker must know what it takes to be a baker.  What you know as fact to the best of your ability (not just because you want to believe it, but true reality).

What you think you know - clarifies what is needed to be learned or investigated.  New ideas, rationalization, brain storming, etc.  What you think you know is a much more secure and humble position.  It allows for the possibility that you might be wrong - even among the "facts."  Formulating; hypothesizing; caution; foresight; planning; goals.

What you don't know - helps to prevent mistakes.  Defines research/strategy of new information; defines direction of project.  Admitting what you don't know could be the beginning or the end of accepting new knowledge.  It is the first step to learning information that you can know or think you know.  When you admit that you don't know it, you open yourself to the opportunity of learning it all from the start, not just adding to information you already "thought you knew" and risk adding erroneous information!

What you can't know - I believe (think I know) the main limitation to knowledge is a choice not to accept the truth.  However, if you are lying you can not know the truth.  Conscious deception is a fool's game. There are some things that can not be known
Copywrite S. Earl Martin 1984

This is an excerpt from the D-Text it is from the definition page. The D-Text is a text that is designed to put reality in formulas.

[sakoz]

S.Earl Martin;  I 'like' that.  (copyrighted ?)

[pljames]

If we can be programmed by the spoken word why not by written language. Makes sense to me. Excellent. I am inclined to believe the written word more so than the spoken word. I have been programmed by both. pl

Enigma, you wrote;"The conscious mind is such a new feature that it cannot influence the basic instinctual unconscious mind." I contend just the opposite; the conscious mind evolved
to influence the instinctive unconscious mind; as a virtual 'thermostat'. We are doing a very poor job so far because most don't know,-. we don't have 'training wheels".
pljames; you ask; "Can I program my unconscious ego from my conscious mind.?" Consider this; Animals are born with instincts. They cannot add or delete any.
I wrote; "We are conditioned TO and BY language." (Haven't you been reading my "stuff"?  hehe).
Hypnosis, placebo effect, indoctrination involves and requires BELIEVING; those are examples of "conditioned TO language" (of others).
When you BELIEVE your OWN thoughts, is conditioned BY language. My sentence; "We are conditioned TO and BY language" was not meant to be cryptic; if read cursorily, one easily 'mistakes' one's own interpretation as if that's what I meant by the sentence.
The point is; we humans are "programmABLE"; our 'programmABILITY' is utilized simply by BELIEVING language/thought/image. Animals can't add nor delete instincts.
The advantage of programmABILITY is a wider range of adaptation,( no air on the moon, as a result of foresight of THOUGHT, astronauts took some with) versatiliy, innovation, inventiveness, creativity, etc.
Judging by the number of people seeking therapy and others suffering emotionally and behaving dysfunctionally; indicates we're NOT YET efficaciously utilizing our programmabiliy.
When we don't even recognize believing false thoughts, no wonder we 'bungle/blunder'.  Images are not real empirical facts of the world we live in.

[S. Earl Martin]

All our lives we build an inventory of information. This information creates our image or belief of ourselves and our world. This image is just what we think our world is like or what we are like. When we encounter something that conflicts with our beliefs? It can have different effects on different people. Some people just deny the information. Others may react violently or emotionally. Some people who are open to change may investigate what the new information is about and if it is true? Information that doesn't fit our expectations or our view of our world forces us to make difficult decisions. It also provides opportunities to learn and grow.

Everything we allow into our inventory is programming us. Convincing us that we are this or the world is that.

[sakoz]

You both refer to 'programmining'.   Can we consider programming; conditioning; learning as the same in effect? Our species specializes in learning. (and believing).
When we think; we 'think' the information we learned and know. This brings up the question; "Is there 'natural' thinking as well as 'learned' thinking? Or am I only making a arbitrary/artificial/capricious distinction that does not exist?
Let me posit that insight/aha/ epiphanies, experiences as 'natural' thought, new, original, not pre-existent in 'learned repertoire' (memory).

[S. Earl Martin]

I would think natural thinking would be basic cause and effect. Learned thinking would be something more complicated that requires higher level thinking. So I would agree with your statement.

Also I have checked into the copywrite/copyright thing and either spelling is correct.

[pljames]

Quote Everything we allow into our inventory is programming us. Quote
I believe it. Our so called free will is challenged every moment of our lifes. Independent people are dangerous to the power elite who want to control our mind. pl

All our lives we build an inventory of information. This information creates our image or belief of ourselves and our world. This image is just what we think our world is like or what we are like. When we encounter something that conflicts with our beliefs? It can have different effects on different people. Some people just deny the information. Others may react violently or emotionally. Some people who are open to change may investigate what the new information is about and if it is true? Information that doesn't fit our expectations or our view of our world forces us to make difficult decisions. It also provides opportunities to learn and grow.

Everything we allow into our inventory is programming us. Convincing us that we are this or the world is that.

[pljames]

Natural thinking vs learned thinking. My argument is, be it natural or learned both come from a memory bank. Learned memory for birth natural memory from learned memory.pl

I would think natural thinking would be basic cause and effect. Learned thinking would be something more complicated that requires higher level thinking. So I would agree with your statement.

Also I have checked into the copywrite/copyright thing and either spelling is correct.

[S. Earl Martin]

The part that concerns me the most is more and more the media, governments, and even scientists are being influenced by people who want to control what we think and believe. So our inventory is being controlled by other people because they control what information we have access to and how it is presented. If all the sources of information tell us X+Y= Z how are we supposed to know if they are lieing?

Natural thinking vs learned thinking are just ways of defining ways of thinking. Really thinking is thinking and learning is learning. It just depends on the way you look at it or catagorize it.

[sakoz]

You gentlemen don't want to recognize/acknowledge two source of thoughts?
pljames; you maintain that thoughts come from memory;  (all of them)? "...be it natural or learned both come from a memory bank."
How can what WILL BE a new, original thought, NOT YET FORMED already be in memory? Are you referring to  SYNTHESIZING thoughts from memory, and calling it new? Like imagining a dog with wings?  ( see the last sentence in reply # 40).
S. Earl Martin: "Really thinking is thinking and learning is learning." Aristotle's Law of Identity; he observed it's 'built into' our language, so just using language, your compelled to adhere to that 'law', ( unless you take it into account).

[pljames]

As  long as mankind has been on this earth one would think, that all thoughts would have been thought of before. How does the brain associate a new thought?

Side note: We are programmed by our language. We are deluged by our language. That law will never change. We always take our language in account, I do every word. pl

You gentlemen don't want to recognize/acknowledge two source of thoughts?
pljames; you maintain that thoughts come from memory;  (all of them)? "...be it natural or learned both come from a memory bank."
How can what WILL BE a new, original thought, NOT YET FORMED already be in memory? Are you referring to  SYNTHESIZING thoughts from memory, and calling it new? Like imagining a dog with wings?  ( see the last sentence in reply # 40).
S. Earl Martin: "Really thinking is thinking and learning is learning." Aristotle's Law of Identity; he observed it's 'built into' our language, so just using language, your compelled to adhere to that 'law', ( unless you take it into account).

[sakoz]

pljames: You wrote;"As long as mankind has been on this earth one would think, that all thoughts would have been thought." ( One would be wrong.)
S Earl Martin and I both mentioned that the patent office seriously considered closing because they thought all inventions were already thought of. They did not envision i-pads; i-phones, etc
I'm a bit surprised you think the same could even be possible with thoughts.
There's no such thing as largest, biggest number, beyond we  can't go; because we can always add 1 to any number, etc.
There's more unformed energy in the universe than 'matter';(e=mc2)

[pljames]

Sakoz,
 True I stand corrected. pl

[S. Earl Martin]

To further explain what I meant by my previous statement is when I am thinking about something I am doing just that. When I learn by whatever means that is something different I am learning. Learning might include thinking, but the thinking is still thinking and learning is learning. Now you refered to learned thinking before. I took that as learning to think a certain way. In this particlur situation learning and thinking would be combined. Only because the learning is specific to thinking.

[sakoz]

S. Earl Martin:  It's 'refreshing' to agree rather than debate. We "go back and forth", it's inevitable fluctuations, like the tides, day and night, awake and sleep, etc.

[S. Earl Martin]

All people have their differences. It is intolerance that seperates us.

[sakoz]

Intolerance does separate people; but how about me wanting to 'reach' consensus with you? Intolerance is 'put aside' is it not? ( Our world view over laps, much shared aspects; it's our personal past experience and thoughts that differ, and unique; we need to 'rise above', and tolerate each others 'differences'.)

[S. Earl Martin]

I am me and you are you. We can agree on somethings, but I will still be me. Some of the information or thoughts how ever you want to label them you post I can not agree with or in some cases understand. Others I can. Such is life. You have a right to believe what you want and I the same. The difference is if we start making demands that one or the other change to our way of thinking. That is intolerance. You want to reach concensus with me. That is fine, but we will still be us. We could never agree on everthing. So lets rejoice on what we can agree on and set aside what we can't. Life is to short to waste it on hate. Peace!

[sakoz]

S. Earl Martin: "We could never agree on everything. So let's rejoice on what we can agree on and set aside what we can't."
  Agreed    Amen.