Can't see the Forest for the Trees? (Shift to a higher perspective).

[sakoz]

Your automatically believing your thoughts before you know what they are. ( That's not a question but a declaration).
The forte of psychotherapy is beliefs. So how about understanding "believing" in lieu of the myrid, specific thoughts? ( The thoughts are the 'trees'; believing the 'forest' in the analogy).
Because we are conditioned 'to' and 'by' language; human conditioning is much more 'sophisticated' then Pavlov dreamed possible. We are conditioned (Pavlovian style) but we are also conditioned to reinforce our conditioning so primary conditioning is not extinguished (self-reinforcing).
The work of Benjamin Libet et al will help to understand what I have,been touting. Let me quote some of their work:-
" An act is initiated before we decide to perform it."
" When consciousness thinks it determines to act, the brain is already working on it."
" When we experience something consciously, we have already interpreted it."
" Consciousness portrays itself as the initiator, but it is not, events have already started by the time consciousness occurs."
" Can consciousness manage to stop the act before it's carried out?"
" Conciousness cannot initiate an action, but it can decide that it should not be carried out."
So; even though 'believing' is automatic, consciousness can veto the action from being carried out. We need not be automatons as Pavlovs dogs seemed to be when they heard Pavlovs bell.
We 'can' veto the believed thoughts that 'cause' emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress, etc. Of course, you know that, otherwise you would stop looking for 'relief'.
( This post may help to understand my prior posts for those who claimed they did not understand those earlier ones.)

[sakoz]

" You can fool all of the people some of the time."
" You can fool some of the people all of the time."
" But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."   (Abe Lincoln)
 What can we say about "Self-Deception"?  What does "believing" do to the believer?  Believing deceives the believer.
" Believing instantly conditions a thought to act as a cue for involuntary reactions." Unlike Pavlov's dogs, we 'make' our own cues "on the fly". So when we automatically believe thought, before we know what they are; we commit our involuntary to react irrespective of the content or whether the ensuing thought is true or false.
Some examples: Placebo Effect; The Nine3-Dot puzzle; and; " I thought the gun was empty". (Add a few examples of your own.)
Common effects of unrecognized self-deception are: Emotional Suffering, Dysfunctional Behavior, Mistakes, Stress.  These are invariably misdiagnosed as being externally caused, misperception of self-deception.
Self-Deception is wide spread, pernicious "malady". The "infectious agent'/carrier' is language. The irony is that it's both the cause and the cure.
We inadvertently incorporated "believing" into language structure by the way we use language. Epictetus recognized that by astute observation.
To the analogy of trees/'forest, let's add the interrogation room. From inside the room, with a one-way mirror, one cannot see out of it. but from the outside, one can see in.
A belief-system/frame of reference 'works' the same way, from 'inside' you can't see out, but from outside  we can see in. If your "in" your belief-system/frame of reference and reading this, you may not "see' what is being referred to. So be it, you been alerted.

[SWM]

nice to see that you are coming round to a more evidence based view of consciousness.

however this " Conciousness cannot initiate an action, but it can decide that it should not be carried out."
is an illusion. consciousness cannot initiate an action neither can it decide not to carry out an action. the decisions are already made by the central nervous system consciousness is only reflecting what has already taken place.

[sakoz]

I acknowledge that the sentence you quote is 'ambiguous', to say the least, ( perhaps even mysterious). That's Libet et al  conclusion, I'm not sure how they support that assertion.
I would rewrite it  as; "Consciousness cannot initiate an action, but because it 'acts like a light' 'It' makes it possible (for something else?) to veto the action the  central nervous system already made or about to make". This just as ambiguous /mysterious as what was wrote earlier? I may be 'grasping' but it does SEEM that the 'light of consciousness' makes it possible to 'affect' the central nervous system. I appeal to that old stand by;the placebo effect. When It is recognized (by consciousness) that the pill is "fake",innocuous, inert, that conscious knowledge is enough to  deter, stop the central nervous system from carring out the action. Help me with that. I do know "consciousness makes a difference". Is that why it evolved,  or is it just a uninvolved bystander watching a free show? When thoughts are transcended, they can be and are 'altered' and consciouness does play a role in that; I stand firmly on/by that statement.

( you write that I'm "coming around", just suppose for a moment that maybe  your "coming around".

[SWM]

When It is recognized (by consciousness) that the pill is "fake",innocuous, inert, that conscious knowledge is enough to  deter, stop the central nervous system from carring out the action. ... Help me with that.

in what way do you need help with that?

[sakoz]

SWM:  My apologies (apologia) to Benjamin Libet et al for my being temporarily dissuaded by your belief (SWM). "My Bad". I'm glad I have the resiliency to recover from mistakes.
I'm tempted to delete my #3 to your #2, I mistakenly deferred to your belief. I wrote #3 'off the top of my head' and turned off my computer. After a "second look" at your belief, here's my reply,
You wrote: "....is an illusion, consciousness cannot initiate an action neither can it decide not to carry out an action...". (Also;"consciousness is only reflecting what has already taken place." What is the purpose of "reflecting" and for whom?) The part ; "the decisions are already made by the central nervous system..." is correct. But the rest of your belief ,seems to me, to be ' a party line dogma' you adopted.
What's the difference between a unrecognized belief and a recognized one? The unrecognized one 'operates' covertly/subliminally, unencumbered, has free-reign, even if false.
A recognized belief, is 'in the light of consciousness'.  Again I point to the placebo effect; when a subject unwittingly believes a  fake/inert pill is medicine, his central nervous system 'swings' into action by initiating pain relief and healing. But when the subject becomes conscious of the false belief, no action follows or any action already in progress is halted.
If you won't accept that 'consciousness' made the difference, then you must admit that'it' 'played' some role in helping whatever did halt the central nervous system. I would be,interested in that "whatever" that did halt the action (with aid from consciousness).

Thinking requires resiliency. Because assumptions are tentative and often false, we need (and have) resiliency to recoup from our inevitable errors.
When we are 'bent' on avoiding/preventing mistakes, we make more; instead trust your innate resiliency.

What did I want help with? How consciousness curbs the central nervous system or if "something" else does (with the aid of consciousness) let's find a way to explain and understand what actually goes on.

[SWM]

The part ; "the decisions are already made by the central nervous system..." is correct.

you say this is correct but then you are forming some sort of argument against the same premise.

,seems to me, to be ' a party line dogma' you adopted.

what is the saying  "assume makes an ass of you and me"?

[sakoz]

I'm forming some sort of argument against the same premise?  Your able to quote me; would you please quote me so that I can understand what your referring to?
You wrote"...is an illusion. consciousness cannot initiate neither can it decide not to carry out an action". I should take your statement, pronouncement (opinion) at face value?
Is that statement "fact based"? It looks like  an assumption to me; ditto, I agree, "assume makes an ass of you and me", at least be both agree  our assumptions require "support" to be accepted by the other.
I wrote, "Because assumptions are tentative and often false,.....etc". I admit I'm willing to correct my assumptions if you point out their falsity. We correct course and move on.

[SWM]

there is plenty of empirical data to support my statement. you have been reading a paper by libet et al, if you care to you will find the evidence to support my statement in papers that reference libet. or papers related to neuroscience and decision making, neuroscience and language, neuroscience and cognition.

If you won't accept that 'consciousness' made the difference, then you must admit that'it' 'played' some role in helping whatever did halt the central nervous system.

you may believe that i must accept your belief but that is your image not mine. the central nervous system functions effectively without any conscious involvement.

What did I want help with? How consciousness curbs the central nervous system or if "something" else does (with the aid of consciousness) let's find a way to explain and understand what actually goes on.

i gave an answer to this when you were in your bogey man phase.

hint:
CNS is primary, consciousness or cognition is secondary to CNS.

I wrote #3 'off the top of my head' and turned off my computer. After a "second look" at your belief, here's my reply,

hint:

After a "second look"

Conciousness cannot initiate an action,

[sakoz]

SWM: Excuse me for not "getting" your #6 on first reading. It's very concise. I now did spot your meaning and then some.
Your quote of me; "The part; "the decisions are already made by the central nervous system....". is correct".
Now I quote you:- "you say this is correct but then you are forming some sort of argument against the same premise." I see your 'unstated assumption'; do you see it?
Your assuming that the 'premise' is irrevocable; that once the central nervous system makes a decision it's a "irresistable force". I don't believe that because that would make our central nervous system a "tyrant". Granted it has been 'in charge' for eons but even 'evolution changed that by evolving a "regulator", we just don't 'have the hang of it yet'. By "unwittingly believing", we inadvertently keep  our involuntary in charge as heretofore.

( Are you a licenced therapist or have I been taking that for granted?)

" hint: CNS is primary, consciousness or cognition is secondary to CNS". You insist on one-way and no feed-back possible?
A train is primary; the engineer/driver is secondary; but what an influence the driver has on the train.
I don't equate consciouness and cognitions; to me ; cognitions are content in consciousness.
Does CNS make the decision to experience emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress?, or is it reacting to 'beliefs"; then beliefs are cognitive "orders" for CNS to carry out.
It appears, to me, you never tried Bio-feedback device. If CNS decides to experience stress, we can get it to stop, using consciousness via the bio-feedback device.
Don't you help clients change beliefs that CNS reacts to , causing unpleasant results?

[SWM]

that once the central nervous system makes a decision it's a "irresistable force"

this is also true and backed by research. this does not mean that the CNS can not change its direction. the CNS can change direction it may take "another look" shift focus, change tracks etc. the illusion is that concsousness had some part to play but the consciousness is a passenger on the train an observer of the scenery not a driver the passenger may comment on the scenery but it cannot change the scenery nor the route or the speed of travel.