'Conditioned thoughts' are already believed-. Believing conditions thoughts

[sakoz]

Does "is of identity" cause premature believing, at subliminal level? 'Is of identity' virtually insures premature believing at subliminal level. When thoughts arrive in awareness already believed we are compelled to react, that is our 'involuntary' reacts to them.
Any one interested in pursuing this ? Tracking down how 'believing' occurs without conscious intention; we experience them, like it or not.

When you believe a false thought; you do to yourself what Pavlov did to some dogs.
When you believe a false thought you replicate the same format used in the placebo/nocebo effect. 
Before you accept/adopt these two tenets; I invite the critics to dispute, refute, pummel, pulverize both of them. If they don't hold up against the onslaught they are not worth adopting/believing.

[sakoz]

Some readers claim they don't understand what I write about. Here's how I would explain to children, as young as six years old. -(  "...and become as little children..." Matthew 18: 1-6)
Suppose you had a genie inside of you? (You do). He's hidden from view, but you experience his gifts to you. When you had a insight (a new original thought) you received it from "genie".
You only have to trust, because you can't see 'genie'. What comes from memory, is not coming from 'genie'; what comes from memory is already yours so it's not a gift from 'genie'.

[SWM]

what if genie says cut your wrists or kill some norwegian christians?

[sakoz]

jeez man!  "Genie" as the natural, inborn "drive" for survival, adaptation, fulfillment ( the best in us)  I had to point that out to you? You redefine it as .....? You will never trust it with that attitude, thereby cutting yourself off from "it". You make my point, there's widespread lack of recognition of our 'core' ( I won't call it spirit, some do).
If you can't contact/reconnect in yourself, at least help your clients recognize their greatest asset; but not likely, because therapists have to model it so that the clients can see it's 'for real'.
 "Physician heal thyself".

[SWM]

jeez man!  "Genie" as the natural, inborn "drive" for survival, adaptation, fulfillment ( the best in us)  I had to point that out to you? You redefine it as .....? You will never trust it with that attitude, thereby cutting yourself off from "it". You make my point, there's widespread lack of recognition of our 'core' ( I won't call it spirit, some do).
If you can't contact/reconnect in yourself, at least help your clients recognize their greatest asset; but not likely, because therapists have to model it so that the clients can see it's 'for real'.
 "Physician heal thyself".

this is an absolute mess. do you think people could engage in a meaningful conversation when you post shit like this? can you think about what you are saying and write it in sentences with punctuation, paragraphs and a logical order to the points you are trying to make.

[sakoz]

What are you reacting to?  You know your ABC of emotions. Your perturbed reactions (C) ratify your (B) belief.
 I gather you don't like 'what' I write nor 'how' I write it?
(See any errors that need correction?)

[sakoz]

Back to the starting topic: "Brownian Movement"cause occurs beyond observation. The inception and believing of new thoughts and accessing thoughts from memory also occur beyond observation.
What can we learn from the electronic experts that makes them so successful in interacting with what is unobservable?
Believing thoughts seem to occur simulateously/concurrently with the forming of new and retrieving thoughts from memory. The arrival of irrational/false thoughts leaves us  only one option; remedial/correction.  We need to get to the sourse/cause of "defects".
My theory (I derive from Aristotle and Korzybski) the 'is of identity'. The Law of the Is of Identity; is an equation. Consciously the equation is obvious, but our unconscious takes it literally.
And so as new thoughts are being formed or old ones being retrived from memory; believing occurs simultaneously/concurrently.

[SWM]

i am reacting (C) to your incoherent rambling (A).  i believe (B) that you communicate in disjointed and illogical question/statements using metaphors and analogies without a intelligible structure.

this belief is self ratifying as it is based on persistent observable data.

[sakoz]

SWM; your reaction C is not to A but to your B, elementary . Pavlovs dogs react to A, the sound of a bell, and C, salivation is their reaction C. Humans react to B.

[SWM]

SWM; your reaction C is not to A but to your B, elementary . Pavlovs dogs react to A, the sound of a bell, and C, salivation is their reaction C. Humans react to B.

excellent! you presented your argument in a coherent logical way. thank you for correcting me. although it was your (a) incoherent rambling which was responding to.

[sakoz]

SWM; ".although it was your (a) incoherent ramblings which was  responding to."  Really? You wrote that. Responding (c) to (a) my incoherent ramblings. Read my #8 again.
"incoherent rambling" is ALREADY your B.  ( Slippery slope for you?) ( your B, is like a Rorschach image you didn't recognize as yours  while looking at A.)

Your B, 'incoherent rambling' is being equated with my A as a equation, so it seems logical to react directly to your B in lieu of A. After all that's consensus 'norm', lol.
How come 'everybody' does it? It's built into the structure of how we use language. Simply by using language, your compelled to equate 'name' with 'referent', unless you recognize the 'erroneous' equating.
You exemplified the title of this thread. And you know the ABC of emotions. (But not in practice?)   You, like everyone else, 'believe' "is", simply by using language.
The word 'is' can be used to mean 'existence' and also 'equivalence/identical'.