Can you (do you) acknowledge "making" perceptions? (two ways)

[sakoz]

Does this seem like a radical question to you? As radical as it once was to suggest the earth was round?
'Perceptions' are made two ways, naturally and artificially. Creatures with eyes have a nervous system etc. to make perceptions naturally.
Language is a second means of making perceptions, not all creatures have language like humans. Simply by 'believing' some thought-images are real, and you customize perceptions to suit you.
Of course you been doing so unwittingly/subliminally; no wonder you don't like,some of the results. You probably take this so much for granted you don't even believe this "radical" notion.
"Beware" of thought-created perceptions; they "can" be hazardous to your mental health.

..........Breeach Therapy.......... ( ass-backwards). I'm not discrediting therapy, I'm simply saying most are archaic, like blood-letting in early medical practice. I question the methodolgy.
Which is tinkering with "problematic" thoughts. Questioning, challenging, repairing, changing, replacing, etc. There's myrid such thoughts. What makes them "problematic"? Is there a common denominator? Yes, they are "believed". No matter how different from each other the different thoughts are, they are 'believed; and therein is the problem, as I see it.
We all know someone who is prejudiced but we are not (not with the same one). We know the prejudiced thought, it's in our 'head' as it is in theirs. But we don't react to or from it. Why? Becaue we don't "believe" it. We don't tinker with it nor try to get rid of it, etc. We simply do not believe it, rendering it harmless, to us.
( I came to this site, about February 2011 to learn and share about 'understanding believing' , (the process, not the content). I suggested collaboration, non forthcoming even to date, it seems I'm on my own; it's slower that way, it's now mid December.) Every reader 'believes'; what do 'you' know/understand about 'believing'?

[sakoz]

The "same" thought in two different heads does not have the same emotional effect/result. That indicates , to me, that thoughts per se are as inert as the pills used in placebo effects.
It's the "addition" of believing that is the "mover" in both 'situations'. The thought-images are variable, it's "believing" that's constant across the board for all people.
What will it take to recognize thought-images are as inert as placebo pills? Changing the images is no different than changing the color of the pills.

[sakoz]

For those readers who think "making perceptions" with laguage, is a ridiculous/absurd notion, remind me of those people who the first time they saw a two dimensional Stereogram and told it can be seen as 3-D would react with the same disbelief as to the idea of 'making perceptions' with 'thoughts'.
. There are some people who cannot see the 2 dimensional Stereogram in 3-D, they remain with the 2-D version.

[sakoz]

I have been writing about 'Reification' without using that word. Alfred North Whitehead defines the word, but I took liberties and slightly modified his use of the word. (see his definition).
"Reification: fallacy of misplaced concretness when mistaking a believed thought-image for a physical or 'concrete' reality."

(How come no one said; "Hey sakoz, why aren't you using the word "reification",  your writing about it?")

'Consensus Trance' is reinforced by language use. How else could such societal dysfunction be so widespread if not built into language?