How come we Believe what is not so? Faulty vision?

[sakoz]

What causes emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress? Do you think you know? What if you don't? Most people still believe those 'symptoms' are externally caused.
Why is sworn testimony cross examined? Don't witnesses take the oath seriously? Perjury can result in prison time and /or fine also. It is recognized by our courts and scientists that most people do not distinguish beliefs from facts. How can that be? Because we are UNAWARE OF USING BELIEFS AS PERCEPTIONS. Facts reveal when a belief does not match the facts. We then call such beliefs-, false, wrong, incorrect, or erroneous. Example; "I thought the gun was empty." Translated: " I was unaware of using my false belief as perception." We take perceptions as 'givens'. We take them for granted.
Lawyers and Scientists do not. After seeing the list of 'symptoms' caused by using beliefs as perceptions; it behooves us to understand and learn how lawyers and scientists "get to the facts".
They 'get through' the 'veil of beliefs".
Another example for your edification; is the Nine-Dot Puzzle. You look at nine dots and you also see/perceive a square because you covertly believe the dots make/are a square. You're using your belief (square) as a perception. What you believe is what you see, superimposed over the facts. More often your belief-image obscures facts completely, as when you look at a rope or hose and see only your image of snake from memory.
This,is as near as I can tell you; I'm not a lawyer or scientist; I cannot remove your 'veils of beliefs', your on your own, I tried. Is there a taboo about becoming aware of using beliefs as perceptions? The question is not to stop using beliefs as perceptions but to become aware of and recognize doing so. Before you say you don't do it, remember you do it covertly. We've been conditioned to do it by language; so if you use language, you use beliefs as perceptions. Admit it.
If you want proof that even psychiatrists (covertly) do it; search the web for the article; "Being Sane In Insane Places"

[SWM]

We've been conditioned to do it by language; so if you use language, you use beliefs as perceptions.

animals do not use language but they also react to false images, how would you explain that?

[sakoz]

SWM You did not read my replies in hard science post " Making Reality Subconscious" part two? My replies there , #8 and especially #9 are excellant answer to your question. I'm so proud of #9, I "toot my own horn". After you read #9 there , reply please.
For humans too, images are 'natural'; it's language that's artifact, artificial.

Shall I copy that paragraph from #9 here? It starts' "I will demonstrate that even animals react to their perceptions, instead of to the facts." (That's as scientific as you can hope to get.)
SWM, I'm surprised at your question; I know the conditioning is 'very deeply ingrained'; I expected you to be one of the first to "get" the above post.

Your right, animals don't use language; that's why they can't access images; their images are cued  by external cues. That's why they don't worry, nor feel anxious, or depressed.
With language we conjure up images and because we COVERTLY BELIEVE them (placebos) we scrare our selves, needlessly.
Humans 'mess' with animals, as shown by the duckling experiment, if experimenters had not 'messed' with the ducklings, their schemas would serve them well.

[SWM]

That's why they don't worry, nor feel anxious, or depressed.

this is bullshit.

this is some research http://biopsychiatry.com/animals.htm

[sakoz]

If it's your opinion that animals do worry, are anxious, and depressed they can ONLY be so if there are external cues for that, or man-made cues like used on the ducklings. You don't recognize the difference.
An elephant will mourn the loss of a mate but that's a fact ; they don't worry about it's demise while it's still alive. You disappoint me.

S.Earl Martin ; what's your take on this? See how dismisive SWM is about what's "outside his party line?" He "thinks inside his box".

[S. Earl Martin]

Yeah. I agree. Sakoz you just keep going on and on, but you don't go anywhere. All this stuff you state some of which is obviously true and some might be true is pointless. I do admit your knowledge of psychology and other subjects has improved and your sentence structure is better so what you are saying is clearer, but I still don't see a point to all these things you keep posting. It is like if I say " people think things that are effected by other things or have ideas based on misconceptions". Okay so what? How is all this valuble in anyway to help further the cause of humanity? I tried to give you some possible uses for the information and you rudely dismissed them. So rather than telling you that you are wasting our time. I decided to see if you would ever come up with an actual purpose. So what is the point? How can this information be used constructivly?

Animals do mourn when someone or something they care about is ill. I have seen dogs sit by the bed of someone who was sick until they either died or got better. My cat looked all over the house for my wife when she was in the hospital. When I would get home he would see me and look at the door waiting for her to come in. When she died I brought her ashes home and put them on a table in the living room. He jumped up on the table and rubbed the box. He cried a very mournful cry. He knew!!! 

[sakoz]

S.Earl Martin, animals react to REAL sickness, the dead, they do not imagine that such things WILL occur in the future, they react when  it ACTUALLY happens. They don't rehearse for what MIGHT happen. Humans worry about things that often DON'T happen and even if they do , there's the 'Serenity Prayer'. Isn't it needless suffering human can cause them selves, isn't there enough factual pain/suffering to go around, you like 'manufacturing ' yourself needless suffering, ok keep doing it.
Your "boxes" unescapable?

[S. Earl Martin]

You say needless I disagree. Many times in my life I have seen things that "could" happen and have warned people. Sometimes they listened sometimes they didn't. Sometimes they blamed me because I tried to warn them. This was not needless.

Now if you are refering to say 2012? If I am worried about what might happen? Or something I have very little control over? Then I agree it is pointless to worry about it. Now on the other hand I have had people call me paranoid because I am a survivalist. Or say you are worrying to much. Actually I am not worried at all. No matter what happens I am prepared. It is they that should be worried.

So your point is we shouldn't worry about things we can't change or control. Or worry about things needlessly may be more accurate?

[sakoz]

GOD, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.
Courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Sounds good to me.

[SWM]

@sakoz do you realize how much of what you say is contaminated with deletions, distortions and generalisations? for someone who is so passionate about helping people with their thinking you do a lot of filtering.

when you present an argument you quite often dont follow the laws of formal logic, you also dont appear to notice when there is a possible logical error. this is not the first time i have noticed this.

An elephant will mourn the loss of a mate but that's a fact ; they don't worry about it's demise while it's still alive. You disappoint me.

you have presented one example and from that one example you have made a generalization that animals dont worry about the future. (worry is a terrible word to use in this situation but you used so i will stick with it)

if a dog bury its bone in the garden is that a reaction to what is actually happening in the present moment? but there are no other dogs around? there will never be a shortage of food? is it possible that dog is reacting to a false images?

[SWM]

With language we conjure up images and because we COVERTLY BELIEVE them (placebos) we scrare our selves, needlessly.

this is very interesting. "with language we conjure up images". what conjures the language that conjures the images? if we did not have language  woudl that which conjured the language conjure the image with out the langauge?

would people who have a neurological disability in the centre that controls langauge be free from their distressing false images?

[S. Earl Martin]

Yes I like the serenity prayer. Although it is an ideal. We can try to do what it states, but we can only do so much. This is one of the points I have tried to make with you several times. We are human and we are fallible. Sometimes we worry to much. Sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes we do stupid things. It would be great if we didn't and someday when I am resurrected I will live in a place were mistakes don't happen. Where everything produces joy and happiness. Where if I want to know the answer to any question I can ask God directly and get a perfect answer. Where I will have no worries and my friends and family will live forever. But we aren't there yet and this world can never be like that no matter how far mankind advances technologically. Because most people haven't advanced morally. They are still selfish and mean. They only care about themselves and only act if they see they have something to gain. It is a tragedy that people suffer at all. Weather it is needless I think all suffering is needless. We have sufficant resources so that no one should be hungry. So that no one should have to live in the street. But because of greed we have a small group who have way to much and the rest of humanity has to fight over whats left.

[SWM]

@Earl hey earl do you manufacture much needless suffering for your self?

you like 'manufacturing ' yourself needless suffering, ok keep doing it.

[S. Earl Martin]

I see the point Sakoz was trying to make, but I am not sure I see a purpose. I believe Sakoz's intent is good, but I am not sure of his methodology. I think trying to interact on these Sakoz threads is actually manufacturing suffering for myself. LOL! Seriously it sticks in my head and I find myself going over and over it.

[SWM]

yeah i know what you mean.

the problem as i see it here is that the theory is sound and pretty much well established in modern cognitive and behavioural psychotherapies although sakoz version is guided by some minor forgivable cognitive bias of sakoz own. however some practical application to real life is seriously lacking.

it seems sakoz has rejected the established methods of cognitive intervention as a practical application of his theory in favour of repeating it like a mantra on a forum where no body seems interested in shifting their cognitive processes in this way. /

[S. Earl Martin]

Yeah I think that is pretty accurate. That is one of the problems I ran into with the D-Text. It has great potential, but getting people to actually apply it is a problem.
In Sakoz's case though it isn't so much at least with me that I am not interested in utilizing the information. It is I don't see a practical way of doing that or a point for even trying. Much of it I already know at least the parts I can understand. Other parts like the ones you pointed out just seem to make no sense. 

[sakoz]

We all go up and down mood levels, not determined by us. Our level of understanding determines how we regain our equilibrium and composure, our resilency, or we can wait until it rises on it's own just as it went down on it's own. While I was in a low mood, I had the urge to unsubscribe from this site; but I recognized being in a low mood. (Don't make major decisions while in a low mood, yet most people decide on divorse, separation, job change, suicide, etc. while in a low mood.)
S.Earl Martin, you mentioned something about my poor or misuse of logic. Guilty as charged. When I was learning language, I did not simulataneously (knowingly) study syntax, semantics, linguistics, logic. I use what's in the structure of the language I use. ( My bad for not studying those topics?)
Consider this;  thoughts come into awareness already formed ( but did you decide what those thoughts will be? If so, then the involuntary was your 'servant', in that case.)
Out of awareness, sentences/thoughts are formed using our vocabulary. Some thought, like cliches, etc. are already 'assembled' and stored in memory, and only need to be recalled/accessed for use, or cued by stimulus as a conditioned response. But often we need thoughts, not from memory, but newly formed from/with  our vocabulary, putting words into a sequence that does not exist in memory. If we could "step back behind the scenes"and see sentences/thoughts being formed, we would be able to choose which ones to use; instead of conditioning/habit "thinking'' for us so often. You say you already choose the thoughts you use? Then why do you choose to use thoughts that cause emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress? Or don't you believe that it's your thoughts that cause those symptoms? Was Epictetus wrong? Cognitive therapy is based on 'believed thoughts' cause emotions, behavior, etc. Is your unspoken/covert premise you believe is that external factors cue/cause those symptoms? That belief is still the consensus. My premise is that beliefs cause those symptoms. I know enough logic to know that people with different premises do not come to the same conclusions. No wonder you two (Earl & SWM) don't understand me, and you wont from the premises your using. Even if you only adopt mine temporarily for purposes of understanding , then give them up if they don't match the conclusions, etc. But that would require a open mind.

[sakoz]

SWM; I mentioned different premises above.  I studied RBT as formulated by Ellis and Maultsby, long time ago. The name has been changed to CBT, I'm not up-dated to any changes.
The ABC was then as follows: A- Event : What was perceived to have happened. B-Belief : What is believed about A. And C- Reaction (Emotion  and/or behavior. ( Agreed?)
I modified that version of ABC. (Without the permission of the keepers of the tradition). I 'pushed back the frontier'. In my version; A- Event, refers to scientific event, which is 'submicroscope, quantum level of vibrating energy.' My version of B is perception that results as eyes are open to the 'energy'. We believe what we see/perceive. As you can see, our perceptions are inside of us a result of nervous system, eyes, interacting with the energy, etc. So my version  of B- is "Belief-Perception". (Is that phrase used in CBT or did I coin a new phrase?) And C is in effect the same in my version as in traditional version. Even in original version B-Belief, beliefs are thoughts, and thoughts have concomitant images asscociated to thought, most thoughts are word/image 'combo', so reacting to B is reacting to the image portion of the belief. Occures covertly, and so images not mentioned because not detected.  So when you react to beliefs, the reaction is to the image 'component'. Hope you can see how I came up with; "WE USE BELIEFS AS PERCEPTIONS" (covertly/ subliminally therefore not easily detected.)

(Is anyone willing to admit they read the article suggested,? title; "On Being Sane In Insane Places". Any anonomous readers read it? It makes my point perfectly.)

[SWM]

i have said lots of times to you that CBT has come along way since Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck. not many people use the ABC model anymore.

[S. Earl Martin]

Sakoz: Much of what you are saying is your opinion.

"thoughts come into awareness already formed."
 This is your opinion. I disagree. I would say some thoughts. I believe that thoughts are a continuing process. Your discription is static, life is not static. What you believe is what you believe. Okay we get that. We believe what we believe. Why are you trying so hard to convince us to believe what you believe? It is not going to happen unless you can show us a reason to change our beliefs and you haven't done that. Most of what you say is your beliefs. It is not based on fact or even scientific observation for the most part. The only way I can see to accomplish your goal of convincing us to change our perceptions is to demonstrate a reason to. As I have stated before what is the practical application for all this? How could I use this to do anything worth while?

Now on the other hand. Just because people disagree with you isn't a reason to stop dealing with them. I have gone round and round with different people on this sight, but I realized even when they were rude it is just who they are. You appear to be intellegent, but you have been going on and on about this quit a while now. People are getting irritated by that. I am serious. You are discouraging people from participating because time and again no matter the subject you try and angle it toward your opinions. It makes it hard to interact when you are being a distraction.
DUDE give it a rest!   

[sakoz]

Martin: Where are you coming from? One step removed from glossolalia. Much of what I say is opinion? Are you implying  "out-law" opinion? That would curb language to 'pure description'.
What I say is static? If they were not; there would be no trace of them to-morrow. Like quick-silver, mercurial. If your name was not static, what would your name be to-morrow?
Life is not static, of course not, that's why we have language to 'freeze' the flow so we can remember to-morrow what we did to-day, and our own name, etc. You equate thought with life? You substitute your believed thoughts and relive experience via thoughts over and over, some experiences once was enough. You 'resurrect" 'relive' experience by remembering your thoughts.
I'm not trying to change anyone's  thoughts, that's not possible because "it'a an inside job" anyway. Believe what you want, if your thoughts work everytime time for you, your a happy man beyond measure; are you happy beyond measure? Most of what I say is my belief, you say,- it would help me here if you were familar with Jesus saying about a mustard seed. (Of course the belief has to be correct). And therein is the human dilemma, most problems are the result of incorrect false thoughts, but the power of belief is compelling even if the thoughts are false and cause pain/suffering. I am guilty for wanting people to cause less suffering for themselves by not recognizing believing false thoughts. I am very guilty of trying to ease emotional suffering. I'm trying to show how, not do it for you or anyone else, "Happiness is an inside job" and "Your only one thought away from happiness-'Oh ye of little faith.'  "Forgive them father for they know not what they do".
" Dude give it a rest!". You say? While people don't recognize what they innocently do by using their beliefs as perception? No way, give me another site similar to this one and I will gladly depart from the likes of you.

[SWM]

lots of questions for @Sakoz

are you achieving the results you hoped?

so far what have you achieved towards your goals? have many people been able to apply your ideas to their own suffering?

you have been here how long? saying the same thing an average 1.5 posts per day nearly 12 months where did it get you?

did you help the people that you wanted to help?

is it possible that you might have something wrong in your modus operandi?

there is nothing wrong with the principles you are trying to promote but something is not quite right, what do you think that might be?

hint:
do you react to your own mental images?
do you even know what mental images you employ or react to?

if you have a deficit in applying this to your self effectively how would somebody that is new to these concepts be able to apply this to themselves? why would they even want to begin?

hint:
prochaska and diclemente are you familiar with thier model of change?

i am familiar with the parable of the mustard seed but you are toiling to scatter your seed on stoney ground.

[S. Earl Martin]

Sakoz: You are not listening. I didn't say that there wasn't some truth to what you are saying. "Most problems are the result of incorrect false thoughts." That is your opinion. It has not nor could it be proved or disproved. But say it were true? How do you intend to correct these false thoughts? With belief? With faith? That makes no sense. Time goes by so quickly we think thought after thought. We can't freeze the flow. Maybe for a short time. Maybe, but if we think a wrong thought how are we supposed to know it was wrong unless we have something to compare it to? What mechinism are we supposed to use to correct it? That would be the practical application you would need to make this information relevant. You just keep pointing out the problem and I have acknowledged the problem exists, but you don't provide any solutions. Solutions would make what you are saying useful or relevant. 

[S. Earl Martin]

 hard science: Futility is a matter of opinion. Your question is irrelevant. I feel I am attempting to help Sakoz and that to me is relevant. How I chose to spend my time and what I accomplish or don't accomplish is for me to decide. I have no vain desire to make myself look good to anyone. I am who I am what others think of me is irrelevant. Are you being constructive? 

[Alexandre]

I have the answer to your question, or at least i believe i do. The reason why we believe what is not so is really simple. We have to have something we consider graspable and conviction comes thereof. Now of course i might believe this to be the truth, perhaps my vision is faulty, can't say and neither can you, because of the interpretable nature of reality. I've written a book called The rantings of a delusional mind, where i explore my mind thoroughly, or perhaps not thoroughly. You can find it on worthyofpublishing.

I think a lot comes down to necessity. You don't want to be in the place where uncertainty rules. Great post! This is one hell of a question, and i wish i could answer it, but the risk of my vision being faulty is great.

[sakoz]

WOW; since my last post (#21) there's 5 replies; all deserve replies in turn. ( To print this thread will be about 10 pages, but that's the way I get to the points  and not over look or omit any.)
Where to start? What order? Or start with those questions  that "grab me"? Looks "formidable", but this is what I wanted, to be asked questions rather than me spouting, like whistling in the wind. My answers will be what 'you' want to know, not what I been touting.

[S. Earl Martin]

hard science: Futility is a matter of opinion do you think otherwise? You didn't answer my question. Are you being constructive?

[S. Earl Martin]

You are saying I said things I did not say. Try being accurate in your assertions. I said I was trying to help him not improve him. I never used that term. You have no idea what you are talking about. If you spent any actual time reading these posts it would be blatantly obvious. Your statements are as ridicules as some of the ones Sakoz makes. If you are not trying to help then piss off!   

[S. Earl Martin]

Oh I see. Wow, since you are so knowledable. I mean the worlds leading authoity an all. Then you are just the one to help Sakoz resolve his dilemma. Good luck LOL!!!

[sakoz]

I'm about to post a bit about 'Wisdom".  I'm not about changing anyone, that would be presumptous even to try. My "mission" is to point you to your own Wisdom and find all the answers within.
For now, 'off the top of my head'. SWM, (#22-)do you really think I would tout something I did not know if it "works", without 'testing it myself'?
S.Earl Martin(#23), you too freely say; "It's your opinion" as if opinion was "nasty" or something . Opinions, assumptions, inference, conjucture, hypothesis, etc these are all similar enough for practical use to regard as close to alike. There's two categories of 'opinions', 'true' meaning they,match/fit facts and those that we call 'false' because they don't match/fit facts. You use  the word without distinguishing the two (true&false). Animals adapt to "what is", man can think abstractly and so can think. " This can be better/improved.' Abstract thinking makes invention, innovation possible.
All discoveries are "opinion"etc. but tested to make sure they fit the facts. It was believed that the earth was the centre of our solar system, a guy assumed/infered that the sun was;- and guess what? His 'opinion' proved to be correct.