I'm looking for a book on prayer as a placebo effect

[RisingSun]

I'm looking for a book or journal article discussing prayer and its effect on the psyche as a possible placebo effect. I recall seeing a book that had a section claiming that prayer can function as a placebo and produce beneficial effects on the mind, but now I can't seem to find the book. If you can point me to some published material on this topic I would be grateful. Thanks.

[sakoz]

I'm interested in the subject too. Anything believed can have a placebo or nocebo effect, depending on quality/content of the thought believed.
I've been 'touting' UNWITTINGLY BELIEVING some of our thought-images are real, is to replicate the placebo or nocebo effect inadvertantly.
You didn't say whether you want to use prayer as placebo or your interested in knowing how it works. If you want to use it as such, then pray, but don't find out 'how' it 'works', or it won't work for you.In traditional/classical placebo 'experiments' , once the subject is told and knows the inert/fake pill is 'not' really medicine, they no longer get results they got while they did not 'know'.
In the case of using prayer in lieu of inert pills; you pray to a diety: that implies 1. you BELIEVE there is a deity, 2. you BELIEVE that deity can grant or fulfill your supplication.
( Whether or not there is such a deity, we can leave for others to debate/prove, here I'm just concerned about the BELIEF; which is the active ingredient/factor.)
So who or what reacts to BELIEF? Obviously the nervous system of the "BELIEVER". That is very clear when the 'placebo' is a 'fake' pill. In the majority of cases , it's the nocebo effect experienced because people don't recognize when they are "believing" one of their own thought. In the  case of the pill and deity, there's the appearance of an outside cause, even though the 'real' cause is the BELIEF that's UNRECOGNIZED as such; as the 'catalyst'.

[sakoz]

Why are we prone/gullible to not recognizing our own BELIEVED thoughts? Most laymen still function/operate with/from pre-scientific orientation.
(In this context, I simplify 'Scientific Orientation' as "understanding there's submicroscopic level not visible to us but nonetheless is the cause of what we DO see, we see the effects of that level,)
Analogously, when we UNWITTINGLY BELIEVE a thought-image is real, we experience the effect as emotional suffering and/or dysfunctional behavior; not being Scientific Oriented, we look for OBSERVABLE cause, that is we look 'outside' ourselves and find 'pseduo' causes, "he/she/it pushed my buttons or made me mad or happy"- you know the drill, you did it enough times.

[sakoz]

There is a diagram I would like to include, but I'm not 'savvy' with computers, so I could not include it but will describe it. If someone can do it, it would be appreciated. (A picture is worth....).
At the left side of the page draw a wire cube, about one inch per side; at the right side of the page, draw another cube the same.
In the left cube, draw a side view of a eye, facing right. Between the two cubes draw another eye facing right. Each cube has a eye. The eye is the same eye,  and the cube is the same cube;
what is being depicted is the SHIFT OF PERSPECTIVE  from IN to OUT of the box. Think of box one while thinking of laymens pre-scientific orientation and think of perspective two as scientific orientation; this also applies to when you DON'T RECOGNIZE  believing a thought to when you DO  recognize believing a thought.

[sakoz]

I defined Scientific Orientation as: "understanding there's submicroscopic level not visible to us but nonetheless is the cause of what we DO see; we see the effects of that level."
In other words, Scientific Orientation is INFERENTIAL/THEORETICAL. Scientific Method is the practical testing/validating of such inferences/theories, etc. Can you apply that to your life?
You experience emotions. Emotions are effects or indicators of causes; what if those causes are not visible/observed or unrecognized when experiencing emotions? What do you infer is causing your emotions? Would you 'guess', he/she/it/situation/ event; you expect somethings that are observable to be the cause? Well you would be wrong.
UNRECOGNIZED/SUBLIMINAL/BELIEVED thought is (most likely) causing your emotional misery and dysfunctional behavior. You don't believe that? Ever hear of placebo/nocebo effect?
'Believed (but unrecognized thought) are the cause and cure your missing if your suffering emotionally. If you look outside yourself , you won't recognize when you do DO it; therein lays the 'problem', lack of recognition. Warning light on dashboard indicates 'problem' in the system. Emotional suffering also indicates a 'problem'; a believed thought ain't so.
I'm trying to point out (to some of you) what you don't know you don't know; and those that already know are not helping.
Can you differentiate "perceptions" that are 'belief caused' from those environmentally caused? Did you even know there's TWO sources of 'perceptions' (Unfortunately we use the same word to refer to both, thereby preventing recognition of two sources.
What does placebo/nocebo effects demonstrate?  Being RULED by a belief but NOT recognizing the belief as cause.

[HexHammer]

I'm interested in the subject too. Anything believed can have a placebo or nocebo effect, depending on quality/content of the thought believed.

You don't even have to belive, in some cases knowingly that a medication is placebo the mere consequense of a doctor administrating the placebo medication is enough to sway the subconciousness.

It's also observed with the Mirrorbox for phantom pain, where the patient well aware of the trickery soley sways the subconciousness, not the concious mind.

[voodoo scientist]

How is it that in three weeks, not one person stepped up to say that placebo effects have to do with pharmacological phenomena and can't be applied to psychological phenomena? There are no books or studies on prayer as a placebo effect because that narrative doesn't make any sense - it's not wrong or right, it's nonsense, like asking if there's been any studies on the temperature of the mind.

Prayer is a real behavior with real psychological phenomena that can be and is studied as a real thing in real science. You can find many studies on the real behavior, real psychological processes and real effects involved in prayer in many fields, including all of the behavioral and social sciences. However, if your angle is nothing more than "I want to show those dumb Christians/Muslims/New-Agers their religion is wrong with Science" I suspect you will find your results severely lacking.

[HexHammer]

How is it that in three weeks, not one person stepped up to say that placebo effects have to do with pharmacological phenomena and can't be applied to psychological phenomena? There are no books or studies on prayer as a placebo effect because that narrative doesn't make any sense - it's not wrong or right, it's nonsense, like asking if there's been any studies on the temperature of the mind.

..what?

[voodoo scientist]

How is it that in three weeks, not one person stepped up to say that placebo effects have to do with pharmacological phenomena and can't be applied to psychological phenomena? There are no books or studies on prayer as a placebo effect because that narrative doesn't make any sense - it's not wrong or right, it's nonsense, like asking if there's been any studies on the temperature of the mind.

..what?

The OP is looking for a book on prayer as a placebo effect. I'm informing them that such a book does not exist because it would be complete gibberish, and used the image of a book on the temperature of the mind to illustrate exactly how nonsensical the notion is. The exact meaning of the metaphor is that a prayer (a  psychological phenomenon) cannot be analyzed from a placebo perspective (because it's a pharmacological phenomenon), which is analogous to analyzing the temperature (a physical phenomenon) of the mind (a psychological phenomenon).

The particularly infuriating part is that you managed to coherently respond to the nonsense.

[HexHammer]

The OP is looking for a book on prayer as a placebo effect. I'm informing them that such a book does not exist because it would be complete gibberish, and used the image of a book on the temperature of the mind to illustrate exactly how nonsensical the notion is. The exact meaning of the metaphor is that a prayer (a  psychological phenomenon) cannot be analyzed from a placebo perspective (because it's a pharmacological phenomenon), which is analogous to analyzing the temperature (a physical phenomenon) of the mind (a psychological phenomenon).

The particularly infuriating part is that you managed to coherently respond to the nonsense.

I allowed myself some interpetation of what OP really asked, maybe he doesn't have the terms straight like myself, thus he may mean it was self suggestion, and even hysterical self suggestion.

[Zepher08]

Since you state that you do not want the discomfort from the image then it would seem understandable that you invent a way out of the discomfort. This process can be used for both the positive and negative. it is a way of coping with what is uncomfortable and unacceptable. What I see it pointing to is acceptance of things that are uncomfortable rather than having to escape them. This is not just going to be happening in a book story but includes physical conditions ... yours or other peoples.

[sakoz]

voodoo; may I point out that you point out a very common error. In your # 6 and #8 you correctly point out that 'placebo effects' are pharmacological phenomenon. The use of the word 'placebo' in contexts that do not involve pills is incorrect useage. The common denominator is "belief or believing". Thoughts can and are believed (in lieu of pills) are real. 'Beliving' is the constant, across the board, but WHAT is believed is the variable.
The Nine-Dot puzzle is a example of believing one's image of 'square' is real and superimposed on the dots and reacted to as if the image was as 'external' as the dots themselves.

Zepher08;  "...discomfort from the image..."  Yes, 'believing' images are real does cause discomforting reactions. The discomfort is not FROM the image but from 'believing' the image is real, that's the parallel of believing the pill causes pain relief or healing.

[RisingSun]

Thanks for pointing out the meaning of the word placebo. I used that word because, if my memory serves me correctly, the authors of the book, whom I believe were psychologists, used the word.

Since no one has any book suggestions for me, let me ask all of you: do you think prayer can improve a person's psychological state, make him less depressed, make him more emotionally stable, etc.? Assume that whatever the person asks for is not answered or granted by any spiritual power.

[HexHammer]

Thanks for pointing out the meaning of the word placebo. I used that word because, if my memory serves me correctly, the authors of the book, whom I believe were psychologists, used the word.

Since no one has any book suggestions for me, let me ask all of you: do you think prayer can improve a person's psychological state, make him less depressed, make him more emotionally stable, etc.? Assume that whatever the person asks for is not answered or granted by any spiritual power.

If tibetans monks can stay sane even after years isolation impriosment, then yes, prayers can indeed alter the state of mind.

[sakoz]

RisingSun; It's my observation that your final question #12 and your original question#1, you started this thread with, are in effect the same. Would you agree?
That would indicate two possibilities, 1. None of the replies answered your question, or 2. You 'missed'; did not recognize, the answer. ( Where's Waldo?)
This is very common here; and you make it very clear.  Of course, I favor my reply as having the answer you seek. (lol). Lets see if you can find (Waldo) the answer, follow please.
"If you BELIEVE X, your involuntary nervous system will react to your BELIEF ABOUT X." Does this answer seem esotheric; cryptic? You wonder "What's X ?" X is the variable,'believing' the constant. Simply by that I mean; every object on earth can fall (calling the objects X) gravity is the constant in each case.
So X can be placebo pills, X can be thought-images, X can be prayers, etc. There's  myrid possible X's, including mental images galore. Once any of them are BELIEVED real, the BELIEF activates, evokes reactions, (ABC model of emotions sums it up well).
So the answer to your question is "YES" IF you BELIEVE.  Even 'glossolalia' can be a X, IF YOU BELIEVE.
( you asked if prayer can effect the psyche, I limit my answer to that; and not the people that ask for material things and solutions to external 'problems', that's another story).
( Can/does 'believing' effect/affect the psyche? Yes,"believing effects/affects the BELIEVER)

[voodoo scientist]

Thanks for pointing out the meaning of the word placebo. I used that word because, if my memory serves me correctly, the authors of the book, whom I believe were psychologists, used the word.

Since no one has any book suggestions for me, let me ask all of you: do you think prayer can improve a person's psychological state, make him less depressed, make him more emotionally stable, etc.? Assume that whatever the person asks for is not answered or granted by any spiritual power.

That's a much better and much more meaningful question to ask. Studying the actual effects of prayer is obviously a controversial issue for both believers and nonbelievers, especially in the US (who, let's face it, still do most of the psychological research in the world). I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject beyond what I read in digests and pick up over the grapevine, but I'm at least aware of a fair amount of research on Buddhist prayer rituals and meditation. If you're looking for Abrahamic prayer studies, I think most of the research has been on the Jewish community, so you might want to direct your searches in that direction.

If you have any journal access, that would be your best bet for actual science on this. If you don't, it might be tricky - the level of politicization in the field seems very high, which usually means that the more popular-level books tend to be colored by the author's personal opinion, sometimes more so than by the data.

Personally, I think that prayer (and by extension faith) is an adaptive process for the majority of people, who don't experience many disruptive events significantly out of the ordinary, in achieving personal goals like stress management, forming strong relationships, feeling purposeful and in control, relieving bad conscience and a host of other benefits that are not always easy for nonbelievers to recreate as effectively in a secular system, though I should note I'm not holding either up as the one true type of belief system, since most religious belief systems have had considerably more development time than comparable secular belief systems. [Full disclosure: My belief system is close to religious naturalism, depending on how you choose to define that. I don't pray myself.]

[pert -5]

[Full disclosure: My belief system is close to religious naturalism, depending on how you choose to define that. I don't pray myself.]

Rock on brother.  Is the Wiki definition accurate?
"Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism.  ...Religious naturalism also attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics."

("The supernatural is anything above or beyond what one holds to be natural or exists outside natural law and the Observable universe.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernaturalism

[sakoz]

RisingSun; see Zepher08s #10 reply. "...you do not want the discomfort from the image...." and "...acceptance of things that are uncomfortable rather than having  escape them."
Let me emphasize two of his words, FROM and THINGS. He does not subtly but overtly state that 'discomfort'(emotions) are caused by other than BELIEFS. There are two sources of discomfort (emotions in particular). So he is 'partly' correct. Touching a hot stove, sunburn, toothache, tight shoes, etc. etc. cause 'discomfort; but so do 'unrecognized beliefs' .
The common example is the placebo effect. The pill is fake, so any results, like pain relief or healing  are NOT caused by the inert pills but from the BELIEF that the pills are medicine.
It's not easy to recognize which source is causing 'discomfort. ( The following I intended to post elsewhere, but it 'fits' here).
Can you knowingly deceive yourself? We all are very adept at unknowingly deceiving ourselves. What do you think is occurring during emotional suffering and dysfunctional behavior?
The common deception of 'unwittingly believing some of our images are real'; that deception is masterfully covered up by believing that he/she/it/ them/ situation/event/environment is causing our emotions. A very ingenious 'ruse'. Do you believe me? Of course not because that would "blow your cover up story"; and you might stop doing it if you don't have a 'cover ploy'.
When we believe our image is real it "becomes" sensory data, and reacted to as if it were sensory input from environment.
"This perception is only a belief." The words 'perception' and 'belief' are in the same sentence, but the' experential referents' cannot be in awareness at the same time, they are incompatible. They cannot coexist in awareness simultaneously; recognized/revealed deceptions cannot be REBELIEVED while knowing they are 'thoughts'.

[voodoo scientist]

Rock on brother.  Is the Wiki definition accurate?
"Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism.  ...Religious naturalism also attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics."

("The supernatural is anything above or beyond what one holds to be natural or exists outside natural law and the Observable universe.")

It's largely accurate. Additional details are really not important within the context of providing full disclosure of my stance on prayer, though you're welcome to PM me or point to another thread where it might be.

I just realized that sakoz is the innocent guy with every good intention who picked up the book of dark psychological magic, but went mad when he gazed into the abyss without an instructor. Now he can neither make sense nor understand why he isn't making sense, tragicomically cursed to walk the land of the internet as a mad tinfoil-hat prophet, screaming at strangers from digital soapboxes as he goes.

Finally, my unified theory of sakoz is consistent with observation - make room in Stockholm!

[sakoz]

voodoo;I find interesting what comes out of your thought system. Your 'realization' in #18 is your reaction to what I wrote. In my #14; I wrote; "So X can be placebo pills, X can be thought-images, X can be prayer, etc. Etc. indicates what I wrote is X and your #18 is 'your' reaction to your BELIEF ABOUT what I wrote. Can you objectively 'see' that?(ABC model is correct).
When we don't transcend our own reactions then they seem (to us) to be the 'only' possible reaction, even if conditioned/habit. How likely is it that 'all' the readers react like you to what I write?
Once you believe a thought, you do not seek an alternative one.Your belief appears real and so accepted as such and reacted to. That's the 'power of believing'. (psychological alchemy? transmutation?)
Do you understand what I mean "to transcend your thoughts"? Conversely, where are you prior to or if you can't transcend them?
Do you recognize "thought-created reality"?  (Not when/while your IN it.) This is the crux of what I write about."Thought-created reality"; from INSIDE it looks/feels real. From OUTSIDE you can see what it's 'made' of; 'thoughts". The 'shift of perspective' makes a difference.

[sakoz]

A - sensory input
B - thought about A
C - reactions to B
                           Think about tasting lemon juice till you have to swallow. Notice NO sensory input A; thought ALONE B is sufficient to cause sensory reaction  at C.
Hallucination can cause/'mobilize' our senses/involuntary to react AS IF to reality. Isn't that something we ought to question and investigate?
It's one thing to emotionally react to night mares while sleeping, but to carry that into  the waking state is OK ?  By what standards?
It's so taken for granted, that when I point it out, voodoo calls ME mad (insane) really? He sanctions continuing to reacting to HALLUCINATIONS (or waking night-mares').
That's what causes emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior. Isn't it enough it disrupts our sleep, why carry it over into waking state and disrupt our well being?
voodoo why pick on the messenger? I'm not making this 'stuff' up,  it's mass produced in the populace.

[sakoz]

Is "thinking" a intrapsychic force? Ever think of thinking as a resource analogous to electricity?  We use both. Some thoughts are a asset and some a liability.
"Thought alone" can activate/mobilize your swallowing reflex without 'supporting facts' ( no actual lemon used). Your not impressed? What else can "thought alone"do? Cause emotion?
Is it possible to be UNAWARE of thought that causes depression, anxiety, even panic attacks? When a person says; " I thought the gun was empty." Were they 'aware' of that thought AT THE TIME  of pulling the trigger or did they RECOGNIZE  the thought AFTER  THE FACT  of reacting to it?

The 'issue' is (as I see it) "Can subliminal thought activate/mobilize our involuntary as well as  conscious thoughts do?"
Will you ignore this 'issue' and accept liability for  your UNRECOGNIZED thoughts and react to them, even if some not 'true'?
( If this is a "pseudo issue" {as voodoo indicates} please point it out, so I will then "drop" it,)

[S. Earl Martin]

Sakoz: The problem I see with your posts is this. Yes subliminal thoughts can make us react involuntarily. Unconscious beliefs can make us do things that can be harmful. The question is how can we bring these thoughts or whatever into our conscious before the harm is done? If they are subconscious we would have to have some trigger or motivation to become conscious of them. You can't just will things into your conscious?

An example: I have at times told someone a story about something that happened in my past. At the time I told them the story, the memory was crystal clear. Later they ask about it and I can't recall the details. They think I made up the story. I can try and try to remember the details, but they show up when they show up. It is the same with something in our subconscious. We can try and bring something into our conscious, but there has to be a trigger to make it happen. Many times the trigger would be the bad concequences you speak of. So we only become aware after the fact. If we become aware at all. 

[sakoz]

S.Earl Martin: I can't copy your 1st paragraph here (don't know how) so I will refer to it. Your the first person to say ;in effect; "sakoz you outline the 'problem', when are you going to touch on the solution?"  Here's a new concept. Consider emotions as the readings of a metal detector. With the metal detector you don't know if 'reading' is of scrap or precious metal, but with emotions you can tell by the quality of the emotions the quality of the (subliminal) thoughts. Let's switch metaphors to make a point. A thermostat does not 'know' how a furnace works (excuse the anthropomorphism) but it can influence the furnace to produce output. You may find my metaphors 'stretch' your credulity; but just knowing the quality of thought (below surface) via emotions is enough to change the quality of thought being produced ( primitive people are still in touch with the process,) why aren't we no longer using our innate process? Is it still there? Of course.
If you want to read the metal below the surface but there's scrap metal strewn about the surface you don't get to read the metal below the surface. Remove the scrap metal on  the surface; likewise clear your mind of 'interfering' thoughts.
Just as our skin heals cuts, etc. we have a "psychological" healing process too , only our psychological healing can be blocked/overriden, unfortunately.
Did you ever hear of such a thing? Not likely, it's not yet widely recognized (or rerecognized). Two people can be raised by "deplorable' parents and in 'deplorable' conditions; the one has the resilency to overcome 'the past' the,other never does or might with extensive therapy. The one accessed "natural healing" already in us.

[HexHammer]

Rock on brother.  Is the Wiki definition accurate?
"Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism.  ...Religious naturalism also attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics."

("The supernatural is anything above or beyond what one holds to be natural or exists outside natural law and the Observable universe.")

It's largely accurate. Additional details are really not important within the context of providing full disclosure of my stance on prayer, though you're welcome to PM me or point to another thread where it might be.

I just realized that sakoz is the innocent guy with every good intention who picked up the book of dark psychological magic, but went mad when he gazed into the abyss without an instructor. Now he can neither make sense nor understand why he isn't making sense, tragicomically cursed to walk the land of the internet as a mad tinfoil-hat prophet, screaming at strangers from digital soapboxes as he goes.

Finally, my unified theory of sakoz is consistent with observation - make room in Stockholm!

I don't understand the nature of your behaviour, you only come here to critisize, never really offer any problemsolving to the OP.

[voodoo scientist]

When someone makes a nonsensical point, the correct thing to do is criticize. Everyone who entertained and encouraged this idea of 'prayer as placebo' were wasting not only their own time, but also deceptively and unfairly wasting the OP's time by deliberately providing distorted feedback. Even if that feedback distortion may have been motivated by a desire to not hurt the OP's feelings, not to discourage intellectual curiosity or some other goal that on the surface seems impeccable.

[sakoz]

Did you detect (in #23) I implied primitive peoples subliminal thoughts are of a better quality than are civilized peoples? There are two sources of thought. Lets call them 1. Evolutionary and 2.Learned.  As toddlers, we learned language. Notice that at that age it was virtually effortless, we also learned to walk without instructions. Then we go to school and learn the alphabet (we could already talk) math, geography, etc. School learning takes effort, memorization. 'Learning' language might be more accurately called 'adapting to language'. We are born into two environments. One physical the other linguistic; we adapt to both. Learning language is 'evolutionary adaptation to language'. That's why it seems so effortless , it's not us doing it by ourselves but 'adaptation process' working through us. The evolution of instincts was not enough because of new situations for which there were no instincts premade.(back then) What we call evolution "provided" what we now call 'thoughts' ( or a brain that produces thoughts) which are more versatile, flexible, adaptive than instincts alone. I'm saying primitive people did not lose touch with "evolutionary source of thoughts". Our thought system is in memory, stored information,conditioned, habits of thinking. The T.V. show Jeopardy, shows how impressive the amount of info some people have in storage. But again, we can't depend on that alone; just as instincts alone were not enough. "Balance' is required. Those among us who 'get' flashes of insight from 'evolutionary source'  thoughts, we call 'genius'. Simply because serendipitously a insight managed to 'slip' past their stored info. For primitive people that's natural occurance. Of course they don't have our technology and stored info, that's why balance is required. We seem to be 'out of touch' with our resource; but we only blocked/overriden it. "It's still there."

[sakoz]

voodoo, You said a reply is not necessary (I could not reply in the area you sent me your message) I do want to sincerely thank you for your message. Whether I can or will act on it, I'm not sure.You said you won't read any more of what I post, so you may not see this. If you do please 'indulge' me and read my latest post and remark on it, if your willing.

[sakoz]

Thanks to voodoo scientist and S.Earl Martin; both point out how difficult it is to understand what I 'tout'  Does 'any' reader understand what I wrote?
Many peoples first encounter/experience of a holographic image was when they saw the movie, "Star Wars". The princes appeared as a holographic image (about a foot high).
I was so impressed, I wanted to see a holographic image in real as soon as I could. Later I saw one of a apple. It looked 'so real', even though I knew what it was I tried to touch it and my hand passed right through it, like it would through a rainbow if we could get that close to one.  Here's my main message; When we BELIEVE one of our thought-images are real, our nervous system, in effect, 'makes/creates' a holographic image of our image that looks as real as reality, our image is untouchable, but indistinquishable from reality. We do NOT volitionally make our version. We do not recognize or know our nervous system 'made' it by BELIEVING . Another part of our nervous system reacts to it.
We don't question our perceptions, if we can't trust our perceptions, what can we be certain of? Would the 'bottom of our reality drop out' if our perceptions are only relative?

I wrote that most peoples first encounter with a holographic image was when seeing the movie; not so ; their first encounter was when, as a child, they BELIEVED their image of 'boogyman' was real and reacted with fear, many more encounters with images before they got to see that movie.

Just as we react  with fear to a rubber snake, we react to our BELIEVED images also. RECOGNITION is the key/solution.

[S. Earl Martin]

Sorry still don't understand where you are going with this. What is the point? We are imperfect beings. We make mistakes. Our understanding is limited. We sometimes believe things we want to believe even if the truth is stairing us in the face. Primitive people do have understandings of things we don't and vice versa. Neither one is intrensically superiour. If I was in their world or if they were in mine it would change.

So if you saw a hologram or a movie or whatever and thought it was real and reacted to it. So what? Life is a learning experience. We can chose to reavaluate our beliefs or perceptions if we chose. Somethings we cannot change. Some we can. You keep giving examples and more examples, but you are not making clear what your point is? What is the significance of what you are saying? It is time to bring it all home and say this is how this information can be used. This is the point and this is how we can use this in a practical form? Not just conjecture in the what if.

I am not trying to be negative, but you have stated that people are not responding to your posts. I have asked you to respond to statements and examples and you did not. I am trying to help you formulate your information. There is relevance to what you are saying I think? You just need to make a point of relevance here.