Perceptual Assumptions and Language Assumptions (as evaluations)

[sakoz]

As children learning language, we learn that everthing observed, can be named (even if we use a category as a name).( We are mistakenly told everthing HAS a name, as if innate rather than 'bestowed'.
So we grow up knowing we start with perception then name/describe, then to inferences, assumptions, judgements, expectation, theory. Then scientists 'plug' theory back into perception/observation to see if they 'fit'. From naming/categorizing to theory is verbal process or realm.
So I'm reading a book by a neuroscientist, and something he wrote 'stirs' in me. After sleeping on it, I experience a insight (hopfully you will too). He wrote we are the beneficiaries/ recipients of automatic assumptions WITHOUT VERBIAGE. That did not fit my model of abstracting from perception to theory; round robin. "Assumptions without verbiage" could only mean 'images' per se.
How did I miss that vital information? I myself have been using at least two examples that makes "perceptual assumptions" very clear. (but did not call them that).
1. We look at a piece of rope and see a snake. 2. We look at the nine-dot puzzle and see a square. Clearly,  both images (snake&square) are "perceptual assumptions", even though both were wrong in context. We all take perceptions for granted. So here's a second source of 'perceptions'; we don't recognized as 'custom made'; and they are REACTED to as if they were  'regular' perceptions of/from environment. Reacting to false, pseudo 'perceptions' can't be optimal behavior. Especially if not recognized for what they are. Once recognized, they are not reacted to.
Is the automatic coming of unsolicited 'perceptual assumptions' part of 'your' model of how you function? ( You might do well to recognize and include it).
When you next experience emotional suffering and/or dysfunctional behavior they may not be caused by he/she/it/situation/event but by brain induced perceptual assumptions/evaluations. Will you recognize which?
We're all familar with the phrase, "unwittingly believing ". Let's get as familar with, "unwittingly perceiving".

[voodoo scientist]

If nothing else, your ability to repack the same message in different words over and over and over for months, with seemingly endless possible variations, is highly impressive (even if the message makes no sense).

[S. Earl Martin]

Useing your snake example. The reason we would see the rope as a snake. Is I would think after generations of people fearing and being taught to fear snakes. Anything that looks like a snake triggers a response. Assumptions without verbiage in this case would apply if the person was copying the actions of someone else. Say the mother was leading a small child and she reacted to a real snake. The child would then mimic the reaction of the mother. Now say the mother reacted to a piece of rope instead by accident? Would the child be afraid of rope? Reacting to a false perception? The child is to young to understand why the mother reacted. It is possibe that the child might carry this fear with them into adult hood if they don't resolve why they fear pieces of rope. This would be unwittingly preceiving? 

To be frank though. I realize that we all have false perceptions. And they can lead to errors. We are imperfect beings. I am not quite sure why you are so obsessed with this. It has taken me much time to even grasp what you are getting at. Are you attempting to find a solution to this problem? What is your goal in this? If you are trying to use this as a model? My suggestion would be make a flow chart. Then determine what you hope to achieve. This way you have a clearly defined goal. Also other people would be able to understand your purpose and meaning better. Good Luck!

[sakoz]

Thanks for replies.
Voodoo scientist, in your statement, "(even if the message makes no sense)". You left out two words. Please add "to me". That way your only expressing one opinion rather than being spokesman for all the readers. ( Maybe the reason I repeat is that you still don't 'get it'? Could that possibly be true?)
 S. Earl Martin; you wrote;" Using your snake example. The reason we would see the rope as snake." And you launch into the content of my example instead of 'what' the example points out; which was; "Very often we don't recognize our assumptions (what ever the content, which is variable) and unwittingly believe are real, and so react to them, and experience consequences we would not otherwise experience except for our own 'mistake'.
Very often "accidental" shootings are reported. often the 'shooter' says;"I thought the gun was empty!" Such behavior was based on 'believed thought'; so are such 'accidents' avoidable or immutable?

Let me condence/reduce my message to it's simplist terms: " When we don't recognize believing our assumptions, we replicate the placebo/nocebo effect on our self. Using our own images instead of external cues like inert/fake pills.' ( voodoo scientist does that 'make sense' to you?)

If you two represent all the readers, then I'm "spinning my wheels"; had best stop posting that subject.

[S. Earl Martin]

Due to the limitations of human perception accidents are inevitable. However most accidents are caused by ignorance. If someone was educated in proper use and handleing of a firarm. They would know how to operate it and handle it safely. This in of itself doesn't guarentee accidents won't happen. I am very familar with weapons, but the other day I was handleing a pistol and it had oil on it and my hands were sweaty. When I went to move the hammer forward. It slipped out from under my thumb and the weapon discharged. The difference is I knew to point the weapon in a safe direction and the round did no damage.

I am trying to help you with your quest. So here is a suggestion. As your information stands it is difficult to understand what your point is. Not only for Voo Doo but for myself as well. So lets look at this from a scientific perspective. There are steps that are taken in investigateing something.
1 Form a prepositon or a hypothesis. What excatly are you saying or thinking in a concise form.

2Aquire supporting information.

3 Have a goal as to what this hypothesis is supposed to accomplish.

A flow chart would help a lot in explaining what you are saying and the purpose of the information.

A+B= C

A Hypothesis
B Supporting information
C Can be used to ?

As it stands your information looks like this

Bus stop Schoolbus children Bang smoke fire truck.

Looking at the information we can make an assumption that an accident happened at a school bus stop. Maybe?
 
It needs more order and structure to be understood. If I came up to you and just said what was written it would seem like nonsense. This is why other people are having trouble understanding you. You obviously are passionite about this and I hope you succeed.

After rereading your response I have a question? So we reacted to misinformation or false beliefs  and experience different consequences. This is similar to the placebo effect in some ways. That is true, but what is your point? Once the action is done we might not even realize it happened. If you are trying to deduce a way to prevent this, education and investigation is the best way. We are still limited by our own abilities and it could never be eliminated completely.

[sakoz]

Very impressive reply (to me).
Let me try another explaination of what I'm trying to convey. Pavlov conditioned dogs to involuntarily react to the sound of a bell as they did to food. We involuntarily react to some of our own 'believed images' as if they were real, that is as if they were more than mere images. The dogs did not have the wherewithal to recognize that the sound was not food. We DO know our images are not the real referents they 'represent', yet we often involuntarily react to them as if we had no clue that they are merely images, as if we were as 'dim witted' as the dogs( when we copy their behavior).
We all can exercise "veto power" over urges and desires. It's my contention we can learn to differentiate perceptions from/of environment and perceptions that are 'believed-thought-images".

[S. Earl Martin]

Yes experience would allow the differentiation between true and false images. Even the dogs stopped responding when no food was offered as a reward. I don't have to touch the stove everytime to learn it is hot. The key would be if we recognize our thought images or beliefs are in error. It is motivational factors. If we think our assertions are correct we have no motivation to change them. If we learn we are in error it is natural in most cases to modify our beliefs. But people can be in denial. They have the ability to believe whatever they want. I still don't see the point you are trying to make? What is the goal in your assertions? Sorry

[sakoz]

O.K. I concede, your both right. I have been ignoring the fact that not one, I emphasize NOT ONE reader indicated they found one iota of benefit in anything I posted. I admit that's pretty "dense" of me. Reminds me of the old saying; "Too soon we get old, too late we get smart."

[S. Earl Martin]

I don't mean to rain on your parade. I would say keep thinking about the information. I am serious about making a flow chart. That way you can determine the cause and effect of what you are thinking. You may come upon some deep information. Or a useful process. The information is relivant. You just need to figure out how to apply it? Can it be used to give people insight? I have been working on the D-Text for about 35 years and it still needs work. Good Luck

[sakoz]

In#7 above; what I concede to was, I can't induce insight,realization,aha in others with information. Insight, Realization, Aha 'occurs' from WITHIN and cannot be imparted from without.( by another person).
Not one reader 'experienced' "insight" as a result of reading what I wrote, no matter how many ways and times I offered that information.

How to 'induce'/'replicate' insight in others might be a new topic of a new thread? If that subject is "off-limits" or 'untouchable'. Would enigma, pert-5, zepher08, SWM, S. Earl Martin, voodoo, pljames.
Please explain why? ( or did I by saying it "occurs from within"?). ( "untouchable' 'off limits' in the sense of being too mysterious.)

[S. Earl Martin]

Hmmm actually you said " one iota of benefit". I don't agree that insight has to come from within. It can come from within, but it also can come from something someone else says or does. Or just from observation. On this sight I have posed questions and had people offer information that gave me insight to what I was seeking. I and I would think others in their own way are attempting to do the same thing in your case. To suggest courses of action that could help you or to give you insight. I would suggest that you consider the suggestions offered and see where they lead. The topic you have been alluding to is an important one. Misinformation or false beliefs can cause a great deal of harm or lost productivity. If you can find a practical method of applying the information to reduce errors it would be a good thing. From a practical standpoint. I believe you are just at the beginning of the research.

An example of insight coming from without would be Issac Newton seeing the apple fall and realizeing it always fell down. That something must be pulling it down. ( The apple did not hit him on the head that is a myth). Research is needed in any belief to determine it's merit. You could induce aha in others with information. If you had the correct information and it was properly presented. Like I said. I have been working on the D-Text for over 35 years. I was in the same boat as you when I first started formulating it. Even now I have run into resistance from people who are classically trained because it isn't what they were taught in school. Also I have had people plagiarize it and change a few minor things and claim it as their own. I have seen trainings taught by people who I discussed it with. I showed them just one or two pages. They took them and are using the information to teach courses. Personally I didn't write it for money. I wrote it to try and help people understand themselves and others. It does irritate me that I am not getting credit, but that is just pride effecting my ego. Don't give up, but I would suggest you limit your discussion about this to maybe a few threads. The choice is yours.

As far as a subject for a topic. I don't know weather any subject is "off limits" per say. You might ask SWM? Again your sentence composition is unclear here.

[voodoo scientist]

In#7 above; what I concede to was, I can't induce insight,realization,aha in others with information. Insight, Realization, Aha 'occurs' from WITHIN and cannot be imparted from without.( by another person).
Not one reader 'experienced' "insight" as a result of reading what I wrote, no matter how many ways and times I offered that information.

How to 'induce'/'replicate' insight in others might be a new topic of a new thread? If that subject is "off-limits" or 'untouchable'. Would enigma, pert-5, zepher08, SWM, S. Earl Martin, voodoo, pljames.
Please explain why? ( or did I by saying it "occurs from within"?). ( "untouchable' 'off limits' in the sense of being too mysterious.)

Persuasion is a topic near and dear to me, but before you change threads, perhaps you should take a step back and consider what you are really trying to instill in people. Is it an idea? Perhaps, but if so, you've so far shown very little progress in making it palatable. I believe you're instead trying to instill a particular feeling in people by recreating the mindset you had when you had this realization, and that's the trickiest trick of them all.

I would recommend this: Set yourself the challenge of explaining your idea in standard psychology terminology rather than using words that only have specific meaning to yourself, like 'thought-images.' This will force you to be explicit about the 'idea part' in your own head, while the 'feeling part' will be incompatible, essentially filtering it out of your mental construct.

Make no mistake: I am genuinely interested in what your idea is and am always eager for a fruitful discussion. What I am not interested in is reverse engineering your personal language because yo won't adopt or even try to approximate standard terminology. With a few basic textbooks from Amazon, you could have learned to properly express your idea in the months you've been regurgitating the same thing over and over. Noone's saying you have to get a degree before your ideas will be heard (well, some scientists probably are, but nevermind them), but on the other hand, noone but you knows what exactly a thought-image is, and noone probably ever will - if you catch my drift.

Edit: You don't even have to stop trying to explain your ideas - just start replacing your personal made-up words with well-defined terms little by little as you go. I think you'll soon start to notice that people will give more fruitful replies that will help develop your idea further on ce they know more exactly what you mean with the words you post. Some will be positive and help you explore the possibilities of your idea, while some will be negative and help explore the boundaries of your idea - and in the end, isn't a fruitful win-win discussion much more rewarding than simply convincing someone that your position is right as-is?

[S. Earl Martin]

Excellent observation Voo Doo! 

[sakoz]

S.Earl Martin, I like your reply #10, I find it informative.I would like to address everything you 'bring up', that might be lengthty(may require two replies).
You don't agree that insight has to come from within, that it can come from something someone else says or does, or just from observation. What you wrote seems innocuos but I will make "a big deal" about it, because it perpetuates a false belief of the magnitude of flat/round earth. Do you know the ABC model of cognitive psychology? Your comments  don't indicate you believe nor practice it,( I 'slip up' all too often also). Epicteus said;"It's not the facts that disturb us but our thoughts about them." Albert Ellis 'elaborated' that into Cognitive Psychology, etc.
Your example of insight coming from without;Issac Newton recognizing gravity. On that auspicious occassion, he saw a apple fall, etc. That 'Event A' did not do anything to his brain/mind, but it was the occassion for Issac to do something with his brain/mind that resulted in his recognizing gravity. In persuing "Event A" (genericly). " A tree falls in the forest, is there sound?" Vibrations are set in motion, which travel in waves, if there's no ears or other recording devices, there is no 'sound', the waves pass. Now lets consider a jet plane causing vibrating waves. The plane is gone before the vibrations reach your ears, heard as 'sound' (no ears, no sound). Apples fell, but until Issac showed up, gravity was not recognized as a principle.
Did you ever consider a mirror as a 'recording device'? (of photons of light). The object being reflected does NOT DO anything to the mirror, the mirror does the 'reflecting'(brain/mind wise.)
'Insights' come in the form of or manifest as 'thought'. 'Thought' comes from brain/mind, not from 'Events, if events did 'cause' insights, with such myrid of events, why so few insights?
I'm curious about your D-Text, where can I see a copy? You write my sentence composition is unclear. That brings me to voodoos fine reply. I do not have any academic credentials, no college, not even a high school diploma. I'm out of my 'league' education wise here. On November 1st I will be 83 . It's not likely I will study sentence composition, I'll make due with what i already have, plus  access to original thoughts.
Epictetus 'insight' has not yet 'filtered into, nor imprinted into mass consciousness.
Several times I thought of unsubscribing from this site because I was not conveying what I intended, but after I post, I read it like any other reader and 'get mini-insights'  about what to write next; I obseved the 'evolution' of my thinking right here, this is as good as journaling, for me. Thank you all for your patience.

[sakoz]

voodoo, I appreciate your reply. I can't resist  a bit of humor. People saw apples fall and other evidence of 'gravity' without formally naming it as such.
You and all the other readers have been seeing your "thought-images" ever since you learned language. "Think of a image". Your thought accessed,elicited your image. Thought and images are combos. All your life you been seeing your 'thought-images,' like people seeing apples fall before Newton showed up. I , a 'upstart' naming  'thought-image'?  The audacity of me?
Hey Webster, get this new made-up word in your dictionary.

[voodoo scientist]

It's not about being audacious or not, but about being understood. Newton was well educated in the formal physics of his time - like every great man before him, he was standing on the shoulders of giants. Though I understand that you meant to use the reference as a dismissal, emulating Newton's development of his grand theory is ultimately vastly more ambitious than simply learning a bit of psychology terminology (you would almost certainly need to obtain a degree to do so), but it would also certainly be more rewarding.

I can assure you that whatever it is you mean, a term has already been coined for it in either psychology or philosophy. If you would just take the time to learn the term or at least a way to describe it, we could all work from the same basis. That's why formal terminology was invented.

[S. Earl Martin]

As far as insight coming from within it would depend on how you define insight. If you take the in in insight as internal or if you think of insight as more akin to inspiration. I think of insight as discovery of something. Weather it is internal or on a larger scale.
An example would be I have a watch. I think how does this work. I take it apart and see how it works. Then I realize I could use the same mechinism to build a different machine. The watch mechinism gave me insight as to how I could build the other machine. Without the knowledge I gained I didn't know how to build the other machine. Yes the thoughts were in my head and so the insight in a way was in my head but my motivation was derived from observation of an external process.

As far as the D-Text goes. It is a text that is attempting to put reality in formulas. When I first started working on it it was about 50-100 pages. I have condensed it down to about 15 pages by taking the information and making it as basic as possible. There are section on General knowledge and how we can be as sure of our information as possible. Others on manerisms and peoples reactions. Motivational and demovational factors. Goals. All condensed down to basic formulas. So whatever situation you are in can be plugged in and measured. I have let very few people read the whole thing. I have been pleased with the reactions of some people when they read it. I have had people not want to give it back. I allowed them to take notes from it. Several people told me it changed their lives and gave them a way to focus and a sense of direction.

So thought - images. Lets see. If I am seeing a thought-image? Discribe one to me? Is it like I am remembering where I left my keys and I am envisioning them on the table, but when I get there they aren't there? So I remember they are on the desk and I picture them on the desk and they are there? So the picture of the image on the table was the false thought-image you have been talking about? Sorry about the spelling errors its late and I am to tired to figure it out so I am just going to get it close.   

[sakoz]

S.Earl Martin; voodoo scientist; I want to- point out a observation. In a 'gentle' way, I do not want to antagonize nor critize you.
I used the example of,"Looking at a piece of rope and seeing a snake". I used that merely as a METAPHOR.  A metaphor for what? What's being 'pointed' to?
RELIVING THE PAST IN THE PRESENT.  Earl you focused completly on metaphor itself (your #3). (looking at the finger instead of what was being pointed to).
voodoo, you wrote I 'regurgitate'. Reliving/reexperiencing the past in the present is "reguritating" the past. Let me hasten to add using the past as COMPARISON is very important, but reliving/reexperiencing the past is not necessary.
Isn't it obvious when you OVERLAY/SUPERIMPOSE  a image from memory/past and REACTING to the image instead of current perception your repeating the past reaction?
You both give me advice on how to improve my presentation. ( To make up for your lack of understanding? For your not 'shifting' from one frame to another? Or 'shifting level of abstraction?)

Earl; aren't 'insights' thoughts? ( a special kind of thought but thought nonetheless, as I see it).
Thought-image, you ask? Think of your mother, do you 'see' a image in your 'mind's eye'. You used a thought to access/summon that image from memory into awareness.

Have you considered copy-righting your D-text?

[S. Earl Martin]

Insights can be thoughts. But they don't have to be exclusivly thoughts. The way you are defineing them they would be thoughts. So what you are discribeing is what I would call a residual memory. Not necessarily a memory, but a composite image of something. When you experience a similar thing you react to the composite image in a way that is predetermined by experience. In stead of the actual thing you are experienceing now? This could be a form of prejudice in a way?

An example would be this. A number of people I experienced from a particular country were rude to me. Over and over again I experienced the same reaction. So when I experienced someone from the same country that was kind and thoughtful I was suprised. If I had kept the same " thought-image" that all people from this country were rude I would have reacted accordingly. I might have been rude to them expecting them to be rude to me. (This is a hypothetical example. I try to never be rude.) Is this close to what you are saying?

I am seriously trying to understand your meaning. The example I gave was a sincere attempt to do that. You have to understand what you are saying is like a foreigen language to me. I am doing the best I can to understand you.

[sakoz]

S.Earl Martin; "You have to understand what your are saying is like a foreign language to me." Thanks for your patience of "hanging in there."
I'll start with my basic, fundamental, indisputable fact  as premise. "All creatures are involuntarily responsive/reactive to perceptions." (crucial for survival and adaptation).
In humans, the same "mechanism" that reacts to perceptions, also reacts to 'beliefs' as if they were equivalent to perceptions.( I use involuntary and amygdala interchangeably).
Do you believe 'beliefs' are on a par with perceptions TO our involuntary nervous system? If you don't we best not proceed. If you do accept the "equation"; at what level?
If you do believe, that  'knowing' does not affect the 'mechanism' that does the reacting because it's hard-wired to react to perceptions. See the conundrum? Something you 'know' has no effect or influence on that 'hard-wired program'. We can't 'tamper' with that even if we wanted to. If we intend to make any change, it must be done "up-stream".
 (Let's contemplate this awhile before proceeding, to make sure we're in agreement.) ( It's still the consensus that he/she/it/situation/event CAUSE emotions and/or behavior.)

"In humans, the same "mechanism" that reacts to perceptions, also reacts to 'beliefs' as if they were equivalent to perceptions." This is not the consensus. If our premises don't match, can  our conclusions? Or will the 'conclusions appear 'foreign'?

[S. Earl Martin]

I agree that perceptions and beliefs are basically the same. Each individual situation would allow for specific interpretation, but on the whole they are the same.
Now you make the statement "Something you know If you do believe, that  'knowing' does not affect the 'mechanism' that does the reacting because it's hard-wired to react to perceptions. See the conundrum? Something you 'know' has no effect or influence on that 'hard-wired program'. We can't 'tamper' with that even if we wanted to. If we intend to make any change, it must be done "up-stream".
I take something you know as something I know for an absolute fact. Otherwise it is something I think I know. Or something I don't know. Or something I can't know. I agree that for the most part if I believe I know something it takes a lot to change that perception. Must be done up stream is an example of where you start speaking a foreign language.

I gave an example in the second paragraph of #18. I thought this was close to what you were saying. It is the best I can do to try and understand what you are trying to say. Was it close?
If I thought I knew that all people from the particular country were rude and acted on that assumption That would be the hard wireing you speak of? If I had not placed that information in the I know pile and had placed it in the I think I know pile ? I would still have an open mind to the possibility that some people might not be rude? I think the basis for what you are talking about stems from prejudice and closed mindedness. If this is the case. Mediation techniques specifically positions and intersets would be a useful tool in resolveing this. ( Note I don't mean you are prejudice but that the person who is unwilling to change is.)   

[sakoz]

Earl; My #19, 2nd paragraph. "If our premises don't match, can our conclusions? Or will the conclusions appear 'foreign'?
We can start with the same 'neutral' facts and rapidly disagree and misunderstand each other. (at the verbal level). I have not formally studied logic, but I know about syllogisms.
In daily conversations, premises are rarely stated, and remain tacit. So most likely the conclusions differ also. (Some conclusions may seem 'foreign' in such situations.)
Would you agree that most people still believe that emotions are externally caused/triggered? (stimulus-response, innate and those learned or conditioned). Typical examples are fear of snakes and fear of public speaking. How do we account for owners of pet snakes and stand up comedians and orators? Hot stoves burn everyone, no exceptions. Snakes and public speaking do not affect all in the same way. Learning and/or conditioning is involved. (Toddlers will play with small garden snakes UNTIL taught to fear them.)
Earl what do you 'tacitly' believe; that emotions are externally caused or internally as shown by the ABC model of emotions?

"Must be done up stream is a example of where you start speaking a foreign language."  We're 'hard-wired' to involuntarily react to perceptions; that's a given.
What if 'up stream' thoughts could be 'culled' and select which ones to believe. 'Down stream' it's guaranteed they will be reacted to whether selected or random; true or false.
As a child were you ever at a echo point, where you hollered "hello", and you mistook your echo as someone returning your salutation? I 'coined' this;
"Believing is to thought what echo is to voice." It's my observation (and Epictetus and Albert Ellis et al.) That most people do not recognize when they 'mistakenly' believe some of their thoughts are real; and I mean 'literally' react to their 'thought-images' exactly as a child mistakes his/her echo for 'real'; as if another person responding. I'm not sure I can make this more clear.

[sakoz]

Hypothetically, if a ancient alchemist could communicate with a modern quantum physicist, how much would the alchemist understand without prior recognition and understanding of Quantum Level?
When we regard thoughts as 'entities', that's analogous to the alchemist starting at the gross/macro level of metal/matter. Both thought and matter have origins.
Specific thoughts originate/fabricated in/by thinking PROCESS. Thoughts are effects of a process. So we can ask; "What are thoughts 'made' of and how?"
Just as quantum 'energy' is unseen, so is the formation/fabrication of thoughts unseeable. Both processes are infered. On the basis of inferring the submicroscopic level of quantum, we see how much that understanding changes our world. Could the understanding of the origin of each thought 'produce' changes in our mental health and well being?
When a person says;" You make me mad." They have no clue where thoughts originate that trigger their emotion of anger.

[sakoz]

How 'real' is the "observer effect"? A simple example would (again) be the placebo effect, ( I get a lot of 'mileage' from that example.)
The subject does NOT recognize 'believing' a inert/fake pill is medicine. Not recognizing their 'belief'(thought), it is not known or recognized, that is 'not observed', hence not effected.
Tell the subject that the pill is inert/fake, and they immediately recognize they only 'believed' their thought; which is now being "observed" and changed in that it does not have the same  involuntary effect.
Suppose, even though we may not realize 'what' is being thought before the thought 'surfaces' into awareness; just knowing thinking is going on, is that enough to change thinking?
That would amount to SUBCEPTION OBSERVER EFFECT. ( I am getting results I can't explain any other way; for example, something I used to experience as 'disturbing', no longer does since recognizing the ROLE of believed thoughts. ( there are other ways to get same results, therapy for example; but do-it-yourself is innnate, analogous to physical healing.)
Bio feedback is used to relax, how? by 'thinking' (once learned, the device is no longer needed.) Even brain cells have been effected via bio feed back. How can just 'thinking' effect the thinking process?  'Subception Observer Effect' seems to have some 'credence'.
I don't have any bio feed back device, does any reader with bio feed back device care to test "Subception Observer Effect"?  Device not necessary but helpful.