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

[sakoz]

Earl; O.K. the short of it. You wrote; "We can choose to reevaluate our beliefs or perceptions if we choose." Really? How do you do that to the ones you DON't RECOGNIZE ? I'm concerned with the ones that are active but we don't recognize them. You have to recognize them in order to change them; sometimes just RECOGNIZING them is enough to change them. When you recognize a rubber snake is artifical, you don't have to do anything more, see how easy some 'change' can be.? Sometimes something is so obvious its overlooked.

[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?

This is an example I gave in # 22. Memory is different than subconcious. I can try to remember things from the past with varying success. If something is in my subconscious. I am not aware of it at all. Therefore I can not bring it into my conscious because I don't even know it exists. It would take some motivational factor to make me aware of its existance. An event or revelation that makes me aware.

[sakoz]

S. Earl Martin; You did not "write me off"; thanks. Hang in there, you will be surprised but I can't say when or how long it will take. ( You will recognize what's already in you).
What you say about sublminal thought and unconscious belief, we agree. Are you implying unconscious beliefs are 'deeper'  than subliminal thoughts? (good point).
"If something is in my subconscious, I'm not aware of it at all. Therefore I can not bring it into my conscious because I don't even know it exists."
Your not aware of it, can't bring it into awareness. What 'are' you aware of? It's EFFECTS. Probing/tracing back from effects, we INFER a belief below awareness; invisible to us.
Does that remind you of "Brownian Movement"; Quantum level ?     Electronic Technology is based on influencing a level we only infer exists. Is it possible to influence subliminal thoughts?
Can you imagine something that you used to react to unpleasantly and now you don't? and don't recognize how that happened? The causal thought changed. That demonstrates thoughts below the 'surface' can be changed "without"  bringing them into awareness, just as atomic level is /can be changed/influenced without being observed.

[S. Earl Martin]

In order to be aware of the influence that occurs in a subliminal thought it would have to no longer be subliminal. Yes something could influence it but we would not be aware of it. We are still going around in circles. I still want to know the relevance of what you are saying. How is there a practical application.
It still comes down to:
What you know.
What you think you know.
What you don't know.
What you can't know.

[sakoz]

Earl, do you 'skim read'? Please read my last sentence again.  I also wrote you will be surprised; how or by what? (fair question).
We are born with innate resources, one of which 'seems'-to be- dormant; hibernating, 'out-of-sight'. (incidently I have nothing to give you but I 'point to' what you already have.)(unrecognized).A analogy (for unrecognized) is available: the stereoscopic photo*. A two dimensional photo, you stare at, and SUDDENLY you see 3-D. You wonder how come you didn't see it, recognize it sooner?
( If your not familar with those stereoscopic photos, please find one and experience the 3-D for yourself.)

* If we both look at the stereoscopic photo at the same time, and 'only you' see the 3-D 'aspect'; how well can we communicate about it or rather 'what'we see?) Would you call that "going in circles?(hamster wheel?)

There's also "frames of reference". If I don't see the 3-D, I'm IN the first order frame of reference; you 'do' see the 3-D, your IN a second order frame of reference. that subsumes the first and you have access from a broader "big picture' perspective. I offered a site about "The Powers of Ten" than demonsrtated that in the external realm, such "shifts" are possible in the 'inner' realm. Levels of magnification.

[S. Earl Martin]

First of all I do not "skim read". I have told you repeatedly that I have read what you wrote. In my opinion most of it is gibberish. It either makes no sense or it is stateing the obvious. You just keep saying the same things over and over. You are not even attempting to address my questions or demonstrate a practical application for your statements. I have acknowledged that thoughts can be changed on many levels. That in some cases we may not be aware of it. Are you reading my posts or just skimming them?  I have responded to all your assertions that I was able to understand, but I am seriously thinking you are just posting this so we will pay attention to you. If you actually showed how this information was relevant the conversation would conclude and you would not be attracting attention. Either demonstrate some relevant attribute or stop wasting my time. 

[sakoz]

Earl; If you don't experience the realization/insight first hand, you will NEVER understand. You missed my bit about the analogy of the 2-D photo that suddenly you see 3-D.? I used that 3-D perspective as analogous to the perspective you must be at to understand what I refer to. I apologize to all the readers for my 'big mistake' of expecting you to understand from your first order frame of reference, what can only be understood from the higher second order frame of reference.
Earl, I don't apolgize for your frustration, you cause that by your belief. As to wasting your time? Did I 'force' you to read? You see who posts every post. Pick and choose. (lol)

Going by the number,of readers (over 500) did not even one have the 'requisite' insight? 'Back to the drawing board'.

[pert -5]

sakoz, I believe in you.    Don't give up man.

[sakoz]

pert-5; Thank you.  My 'delivery'may be inadequate but my message is too important to "quibble" about. My 'delievery' may require "reading between the lines".

We see reports of road-rage. Punching walls. Breaking things. The more extreme irrational behavior we're all capable of. We stay on the low end of that spectrum. What do we call that 'part' of us?
"Thought-system"? Conditioned habits? etc. We've seen robotic vacuum cleaners. If one bumps into your shin and it hurts, you might kick it across the room or recognize it's a machine. You reaction would depend on your "internal robotic conditioning/learned habits".
When 'critics' 'sound off here', I know it's not their 'real' self but rather their "robotic learned conditioning". I'm trying to point out "they" are more than that, in fact they 'have/are' more than they have experienced yet. They have not yet experienced that 'higher, empowered/empowering self.

[S. Earl Martin]

Sakoz: I didn't "miss" your 2-D vs 3-D anology. I have read it and responded to it asking for clarification. Which you didn't give. I have acknowledged that the information you are eluding to has merit. But you are not responding to my questions and it is very frustrating. You just keep stateing the samethings over and over.

A vary basic example of what is happening. It is not meant as a literal example, but an anology.

You are saying: I walked to the door. I was at the door. The door was there. I approached the door. We need to know more. What is the point? What is the purpose? How can this information be used in a relevant way? As you are stateing it, it is true information, but it is useless in its present form. I think waht you are attempting to say in the 2-D 3-D is the aha moment. A point where you "get it". I would like to "get it", but you are not making your point clear.

I will let you in on something. In my last post I was using negative reinforcement. Motivational factors are stimulated by both positive and negative reinforcement. I had tried positive with very little success, so I switched to negative. Still you are not responding to my questions. Everyone uses P. and N. reinforcement, but they are not aware of it. Becoming aware of it in a way is an example of what you are refering to. The aha?

[sakoz]

Yes, the AHA. Sorry about my 'limitations'. Let me add this, I composed this morning.
"What happens when we "get" the punch line of a joke?" There's a shift, jump to a new context, new perspective, a aha. Such shifts, jumps, occur not only with jokes. But in our "understanding".
It's 'experiencing' thought', we call such experience 'aha', 'insight'. We have the potential to experience thought. Unlike the aha of jokes, notice how few the aha of serious thoughts occur?
What happens when you "don't" get a joke? No aha, no shift, no jump to a higher meta perspective. Aesop told a fable about a fox who could 'not' get the grapes. Do you suppose a aha, shift, jump, insight is required to understand what I 'allude' to? Then the 'burden' of 'causing' such 'shift' is not all on me. Just as some people don't 'get' the punch line of a joke is not the 'responsiblity' of the teller.

How does a tacit premise change? Example; "You make me mad." definitely indicates/reveals the believed premise that environment/situations etc. in short that emotions are externally caused.
If I say 'beliefs' cause emotions, that's diametrically opposite of what you already believe. Which belief are you going to 'favor'; 'sanction?' (not mine)
Did you indicate we can't go prior to the appearance of specific thoughts? ( I can't find your comment to that effect off hand). 'Thinking' is a process before specific thoughts appear.
You think we're not 'privy' to influencing that level? (Suppose we could, see the empowerment that would make possible?) We learned to influence/regulate our bowel and bladder 'output'; how about brain output?

[S. Earl Martin]

"If I say 'beliefs' cause emotions, that's diametrically opposite of what you already believe."

Actually I believe we have a choice to allow whatever emotion effect us we choose. No one can " make me mad". I choose to become mad or angry. No one can force me to become angry. Now as far as someone making me happy or to laugh. It is debatable weather some emotions are involuntary. Like depression causing sadness. The person can try to not be sad, but sometimes it doesn't work. So how emotions are generated is in it self debatable. I have learned to control my emotions. Because I am aware of them by using the information I have put in the D-Text. I see my whole interaction as a carefully calculated equation. But I digress.

Lets go over this again. Preconceived beliefs. That we are unaware of because they are in our subconscious. Or subconscious thoughts. Are causing us to react to situations and feel negative emotions we can't explain. Or cause negative concequences. So we are looking for some mechinism to make us aware of them so we can alter them and not feel the negative emotions. Etc. Is this close to what you were saying?

This could be achieved, I believe by attempting to alter our nature or our belief structure thru conscious effort. Possibly thru meditation, self examination or possibly counsling.
I posted the thinking about, about thinking, about thinking example. Why do I think this? Why do I think I think this? Why do I think, I think, I think this? Think can be substituted with believe. This also could help with awareness of the subconscious. Thinking to much about our mannerisms can effect our self confidence.

Look at the 2nd paragraph and tell me if that is close to what you are trying to say? If not edit it so it is. Try not to use examples. Use plane language if possible. Many of your examples are vauge to me and seem to be contradictory in some cases. This why I am having trouble understanding you. It is not for lack of trying believe me.

[sakoz]

Yes to your 2nd paragraph, with the exception of not necessarily "making" us aware of them, if there's a way to influencing them at their level. (I refer to bio-feedback as a means of influencing involuntary 'processes' at their own level.)
You ask me not to use examples; but that's 'my way'. Let me give a example that shows what you may be missing. If I ask you to think of your brain, a image 'comes to mind'.
But 'that' image is NOT of 'your' brain; it is a generic image of what human brains look like. Your image is your assumption that your brain looks like a 'average' brain would look like.
Do you 'see' how easy it is for 'most' people to mistakenly believe their image is of their brain? When you point it out everyone sees that that image is not of their brain, they agree it's 'generic image'. But in effect, we believe virtually all our images are real as a orientation and our involuntary is complelled to react to perceptions or 'custom made' perceptions 'made by' believing.
This is not as trivial as it may seem at first glance. We see it in others and experience it ourselves.

Looking at a 2-D photo and 'suddenly' see 3-D is like aha/insight. For a person to whom the 3-D does not appear, are disappointed because they accept that there is more there than they see.
You don't understand me, but you "intuitively" recognize there is something I allude to. ( Get a strereoscopic photo and notice you can't 'will' the 3-D to appear, you let/allow it to come spontaneously.)

[S. Earl Martin]

Okay! To use your brain example. If what my brain actually looks like and how I picture it would make no difference in most cases, but say I think I have a brain tumor? So I am haveing headaches and dizzyness etc. I think maybe I have a brain tumor? I try and picture the tumor. I couldn't know I had a tumor or know what it looked like. So I have an MRI or a PET scan done. It shows a tumor. I still could only picture the tumor to an extent. I would have to imagine what I thought it looked like. No matter how clear the image it would not be an actual 3-D image. The same would hold true about if I was just imagining what my brain looked like. I could not actually know. I have aluded to our phyical and mental limitations and how we are imperfect beings. As we learn we can get clearer images and better detail in our lives, but we will always have things we know, we think we know, don't know or can't know. What you are refering to is subject to our limitations and can only be controlled and influenced to a degree.

As far as influencing thoughts or beliefs on the subscious level? Without the person being aware of it would be mind control. Planting subliminal thoughts has been and is still being done. It is making what is refered to as " Manchurian Candidates". Where people are programed to do things without being aware they did it or why. Personally I believe all changes should be above board. With the person receiving whatever changes or input being aware of it. Also hypnosis can be used to do this if the subject is able to be hypnotised. Many stage acts where people are supposed to be hypnotised are actually staged. Someone is taken from the audience and hypnotised to act like a chicken or whatever. They are a plant and it is rigged. However there are people who are subjective enough to suggestion that they can be hypnotised. On these people it might work. The problem would be you would have to be aware of the information to change and if they are not aware of it how could someone else know?