Why Do We Believe/Trust Scientists ?

[sakoz]

Biologists tell us we are made of trillions of cells, molecules, atoms, etc. Physicists tell us 'matter' is made of molecules, atoms, etc. Why do we believe them without being 'specialists' ourselves?
We believe them because of the RESULTS they produce, even though we don't understand "how" they do it.
We laymen are 'mass producing' emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior; do we understand what 'we'  are doing to get 'those' RESULTS ?
S. Earl Martin (I hope you read this) said he did not understand what I was trying to say or 'pointing' to. I 'point to' our innate resources. Our deepest resources are the cells, molecules, atoms, etc.we are made of. How can we contact/access and utilize that level? We already believe they exist, conversely, we exit because of them. We have to access that level in order to influence, utilize it. That level is susceptible to the "observer effect", ( see the double-slit experiment). We can experience a "felt-sense" of that level. A example of a felt-sense is when you know you know a name but can't say it, it is subliminal, not in awareness. You don't infer you know the name, you 'sense' it. You sense it as if it were proprioceptive.
Those who have used a bio-feedback device, experienced, first hand, influencing subliminal, involuntary 'process"; namely, relieving stress, and the beliefs causing the stress.
Scientists have their microscopes and telescopes, we laymen can use bio-feed back devices to improve our 'felt-sense' faculty, if required.
E=mc2 means energy into matter. We can 'think' energy INTO 'thoughts'. But not while preoccupied with preexisting thoughts from memory or preoccupied with synthesizing thoughts from memory rather than creating original thoughts from energy. When you experience original thoughts(aha,insight) does any of those 'kinds' of thought cause you grief or are they rather the best 'quality'  you ever experience? (Let us know if you experienced a 'bad' aha insight).
Specific thoughts come from a deeper process of thinking. Why are we bound and determined to "salvage" defective/false thoughts? The energy from which we 'make' original thoughts is unlimited.  Therapists teach repairing and recycling used thoughts, that didn't work. That would be admirable if there were only finite amount of energy; but there is infinite energy.
"Conspicuous Consumption" is permissable with infinte energy available. We could improve our lot with more original thoughts.

[S. Earl Martin]

The title of this could just as well be"Why do we believe anything?" We have no choice. Even though the majority of our beliefs are based on things we only think we know or on purely emotions. We have to function.

We can only access certain things in our life. We can't access our cells or our vital organs in a real sense. I can feel my heart beat, but I can't cut my chest open and access it. The majority of what we do, feel  and believe is taken on faith. We have very little power to change it.

As far as believeing scientists or anyone else who claims to know? Again that is a choice based on faith.
At the smallest level all things are oscillateing bits of energy. Each thing oscillates at a specific frequency. If we could find a way to alter that frequency we could change things on the molecular level. Even change matter to energy and back. Or transform one kind of matter or energy to another.

What you are proposeing would be great if it where possible, but it is not possible as we are today. We can influence things only to a small degree. The people who comment here are very intellegent and if they can't think of a way to accomplish what you are proposeing? I don't see any way to do it. Earl 

[sakoz]

Earl; I was about to add the following to my above post, it's relevant to your reply. We can't access our cells? Some people believe the 'combined/united/consolidated' brain cells is the source of 'consciousness'. I don't happen to believe that. There's radio waves in the air, but without a radio to 'pick em up', we can't know there here. (The following is what I was about to post.)
What do you DO when you worry;- ruminate? ( When you re-think thoughts from memory, you ruminate, {cud-chewing}.  regurgitate.)
Attend to; focus on; WHERE your thoughts  come from. Ask yourself; "I wonder 'what' my next thought will,be?" You acknowledge that level of 'process'. That's your version of 'Brownian Movement' (thought-recognition) and you know what that did for electronic technology development.
Don't be under the 'spell' of beliefs, (placebo effect, voodoo, psychosomatics, hypochondria, mistakes, just to name a few) rather (you) 'call the shots'. our brain is a virtual 'cornucopia'  of thoughts. Meditate to see the 'flow'.
In the womb, the fertilized cell "knows" what to do, I call that 'knowing' the wisdom of the cells; some might call it a 'blind, mechanical process', but it's still a display of 'wisdom'. That wisdom is not lost, when we cut skin, the cells 'know' what to do to heal. We can still rely on that wisdom You don't believe 'we' can access that level of wisdom?
The combined/consolidated 'wisdom' of our cells might just be the psychological healing and change agent in mental health and well being. (My work is 'cut out' for me trying to prove and convince you ..)

What do you notice when you ask; "What's my next thought going to be?" There's a pause/delay. That demonstrates that you 'can' influence that level, even if only to interrupt, it's a 'wedge'.
Try to extend the delay, to get the 'feel' of influencing that level.

P.S. Aren't you 'pushing' faith? Scientists are producing 'observable results', no faith required. "we have no choice about believing?" Democrat and Republican. Some have changed parties,  by choice?

[S. Earl Martin]

No I am not pushing faith. The majority of information is not known. It is what we believe. Most of science is theoretical. Even when things are proven to be fact they very seldom answer any questions. They just lead to new questions. So wheather it is science or religion or whatever a certain amount of faith in the process is required. Don't assume that faith is strictly a religious thing. I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I do not know it will happen. The majority of things we act on are not sure things. We just chose to believe them because we have very little choice.

Do you know those close to you won't betray you? No! You choose to believe they won't because you have faith they won't. Do you know an earthquake won't destroy all you hold dear? No! You act as though it won't because you have faith it won't. Our whole existance is based on faith. Think about how many things in your life that you can say I know that as a fact. Not because you want to believe it, but that it is an undeniable fact. Most of the things I know as fact are in nature. The sky appears blue or red. It really isn't by the way it is an optical illusion. Caused by the bending of light. It is really black. So even then we cannot be sure what we know is what we know.   

[sakoz]

"Darn", I was about to post, I pressed 'post' and got a message in red," there's a new post, want to consider it before posting? Darn, I lost what I had ready. Is it retrievable?

You have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow? Are you sure it's not your assumption you have faith in that it's correct?
I believe the earth will continue to rotate and the sun will be visible from the new position.

[S. Earl Martin]

Don't try to get cute with me. You know what I mean. I am well aware of the rotation of the planets, but even that is taken on faith because I have no way of actually measuring it. I can not travel into space and observe it. And even if I could once back on earth I have no actual proof that it is still happening.

[sakoz]

Earl, yes, I know what you mean IN THIS CONTEXT;  doesn't it occur to you that in OTHER CONTEXT I may not know what 'you' mean and readers have to take those words  at FACE VALUE , or rather what we readers mean by those same words? That's the 'stuff' disagreements are about.


Any administrator reading this? Can you tell me if my post I mention in # 4 is retrievable?

[pert -5]

Earl, yes, I know what you mean IN THIS CONTEXT;  doesn't it occur to you that in OTHER CONTEXT I may not know what 'you' mean and readers have to take those words  at FACE VALUE , or rather what we readers mean by those same words? That's the 'stuff' disagreements are about.

I see by the capitalization that they've put you back on the blue pill sakoz.  Those damn scientists are always trying to get away with a laugh.  j/k

[sakoz]

pert-5; " Good stuff" that Bhagavad Gita.

"When in Rome do like the Romanians".   Use parables.
If there's a spectrum/continuum, low on the left, high on the right, I'm not sure if I'm in the middle yet. It's would be presumptous of me to think I was writing for 'advanced' readers at the far right, who talk of "Enlightenment". My goal is more modest, I write for my equals about how to avoid 'needless' emotional suffering, self-induced.

[pert -5]

pert-5; " Good stuff" that Bhagavad Gita.

That made me laugh.  Thanks man! 

[sakoz]

  Earl you wrote; "The people who comment here very intelligent and if they can't think of a way.......etc." That reminds me of the US Patent Office in the 1920's.
Did you know they considered closing down because they believed there was nothing more to invent? Believing the earth was flat was not last impractical belief. The tradition still flourishes.
I mentioned "knowing you know" a name but can't access it into awareness. Now I mention the opposite; "denial", the version of having a memory you do 'not' want to enter awareness because you experience emotional suffering when it does. In both cases "subception" is used.  What do you initiate when you ask; "What is my next thought going to be?"
'Subception, subliminal search.' A non-verbal, physiological 'process'. I have to use words to describe the process. When you become 'familar' with it, you will be able to do the following.
Yesterday, someone made a remark to me in a angry tone of voice. I, via subception, intuitively detected a subliminal thought about to 'surface' into my awareness, I also intuitively detected that that thought would not be prudent to use, and so I had the option of rejecting/dismissing it and opt for a different thought ; " without knowing what the specific  thoughts were". untill the alternative thought 'arrived' in my awareness. Our 'body knows' what to do.Indigenous peoples rely on body-knowing much more than on intellectual knowing. We 'override' our body-knowing in favor of intellectual knowing ( to our chagrin, we don't balance).
Some "flak' was directed at me, here at this site, during the past eight months. Notice I replied in a civil manner rather than with a 'conditioned reflex', knee-jerk retort in kind.
Subception is the means of "Previewing"  any thought; previewing'before' commitment/believing. Unlike Pavlovs dogs, we 'can' choose not to let conditioning be in charge.
What's 'your' next thought going to be?

[pert -5]

It's would be presumptous of me to think I was writing for 'advanced' readers at the far right, who talk of "Enlightenment".

Very presumptuous indeed.  What are you getting at sakoz?

[sakoz]

I thought I wrote in plain english; what don't you understand? I said I'm not writing for 'advanced' readers, but for those at my level, what's wrong with that?

[pert -5]

I thought I wrote in plain english; what don't you understand? I said I'm not writing for 'advanced' readers, but for those at my level, what's wrong with that?

I don't understand your use of the word "enlightenment".

http://psychology-forum.com/general-psychology-forum/spiritual-enlightenment-what-is-it/

http://psychology-forum.com/general-psychology-forum/spiritual-enlightenment-what-is-it/

http://psychology-forum.com/general-psychology-forum/spiritual-enlightenment-what-is-it/

[S. Earl Martin]

Sakoz: You are still going around in circles. Yes I am familar that the patent office was proposed to be closed, because some people thought that everything that could be invented or patented had been.
1. The process you describe first about chooseing a different thought er go action is a result of fore thought. one of the technecs I mentioned earlier.

2. This body-knowing you refer to is a very dangerous thing. It can lead to delusion and superstition. How many police officers arrested someone because of their Police instinct? Only to find out that the person was innocent. I take that as about as reliable as reading tea leaves. Or demm bones.

Also weather you replied in a civil manner is debatable. It suffices to say we are at an impass. Your belief that we can experience a thought before it actually arrives in our consciousness or an emotion the same to me is crap. That is like saying you arrive at a destination before you arrive at your destination. Maybe in the future we might be able to develop technology that can do what you are suggesting, but it doesn't exist now. The only methodology I know of I have already discussed. If you are so determined that this is possible stop saying it is so and prove it to me. 

[sakoz]

pert-5; You don't understand my use of the word 'enlightenment'?  Short version; Buddha sat under a bodie tree and experienced 'enlightenment'. Is that acceptable?
 

[pert -5]

pert-5; You don't understand my use of the word 'enlightenment'?  Short version; Buddha sat under a bodie tree and experienced 'enlightenment'. Is that acceptable?

Whatever sakoz.  You know what you were talking about.

[sakoz]

pert-5; are you kidding with me?

[pert -5]

pert-5; are you kidding with me?

Yeah, I'm makin' in my pants over here.  Haha.  Carry on.

[voodoo scientist]

People trust scientists to be right because all the alternatives are worse. The negative effects of this are somewhat mitigated by the fact that scientists never trust other scientists to be right. In a sense, science is the profession of disbelieving - it is not a scientist's job to demonstrate what is probably true, but to demonstrate what is probably false.

[S. Earl Martin]

Good answer Voo Doo. You have a way of cutting to the chase so to speak. I agree it usually impossible to prove a positive, but it sometimes possible to prove a negative.

So Sakoz I am still waiting for you to revise my definition of what you have been saying. You critisized it and I asked you to revise it in a way you felt was more appropriate. This could facilitate a better understanding of what you mean. Because to a large degree I am only getting part of it. Your examples you keep giving don't add up in my book.

[voodoo scientist]

New theory of sakoz: he's an AI in a secret Pentagon lab designed for population control. He operates by cleverly engaging well-meaning citizens in debate of nonsense masqueraded as meaningful information - by carrying all the usual identifying marks of someone on the path to getting a clue, he burns his victims out on further discussion and leaves them with a general sense of futility about human communication.

It's absolutely brilliant, the most sophisticated and ingenious system of oppression the elite has ever devised! Typically dangerously beyond the control of simpler devices like credit and propaganda, sakoz targets and exploits directly the humanity in concerned and knowledgeable citizens that so often marks the beginning of economically inconvenient popular uprising.

[S. Earl Martin]

LOL! LOL! LOL! Actually I have given what he is saying a lot of thought. To much maybe, but if what he is proposing was possible? It could be a step in eliminateing or correcting human error. The problem is, I believe it is beyond human abilites. You can't know what you are going to do or think before you do it or think it on a subconscious level. The action has to be formed at least as a possibility before you can act on it. This requires conscious thought. In order to accomplish what I believe he is suggesting? It would require the ability to break time at will. Breaking time is possible with great effort, but I do not believe we could influence time only precieve it. I have discussed on other threads, thru meditation, my consciousness has left my body and I saw things that occured in the future. Not things that I logically predicted would happen, but things I had no way of knowing would happen. It was very difficult and time consuming. Although if this process could be controlled or some brain stimulation could be used to make it more controlled it would be possible.

In shamanistic circles Sakoz is a petty tyrant. It is someone who challenges you weather purposly or without even realizing it. To test your beliefs or to get you to stray outside the person you believe you are. I try to be patient and act of love. But in this exchange I have lost patience and acted as someone who is not my normal self. Some others here have noticed. This was a test to see if I really am who I say I am. Life is very interesting. 

[sakoz]

Wow, such reactions to your own beliefs, thanks for exemplifying my point, but such complicated examples are not necessary; there's many simpler ones that illustrate.
Let me simplify my point. If you did the Nine-Dot puzzle, you understand my point as well as I do. During your attempt to solve the puzzle, you look at nine dots and simultaneously see your assumption of 'square"  (your schema) and you 'mistakenly' believe 'your' image is part of the dots. You did not recognize 'superimposing'.(superimposing is a given; 'recognition' is not.)
This common error  can be explained to six year old children. My, how complicated you two make it. How befuddling you make something so simple.
As you reread what you wrote, can you recognize your "superimpositions"?  What you wrote is not about me but about your own unrecognized beliefs.

Earl, your still waiting for me to revise your definition of what I have been writing about.  I wrote in my #12 at 'From Perception Back To thought';"You added your conclusion to the otherwise accurate summary of...". Shall I capitalize the word ACCURATE so you don't slur over it again? Reread your own summary  back there.
You added your own last four words, those four words are not mine, but your additions. Do you miss seeing 'adding/superimposing' the image of 'square' in the Nine-Dot puzzle? If you don't see the point of the puzzle than I have compassion for you, and voodoo too. My message is about "thought/image recognition". Which amounts to self-deception when not recognized.

[S. Earl Martin]

Sakoz you keep giving examples that to me do not apply to what you are saying sorry. I do not know what a 9 dot puzzle is. That is why I asked you to modify the definition to clarify what you are talking about. I seriously think you are just doing what you can do to streatch this out as long as possible. Because you just want attention. That you realized what was being said a long time ago, but don't want the attention it brings to you to end so you just keep going on and on. So if this isn't the case? Take the summary and use it to explain your point. All these abstract examples do not help. I need to discuss the nuts and bolts of your premise. So we can end this.

[sakoz]

voodoo, you 'sly one' , I suspect your testing me to see if I "practice what I preach". by not reacting like Pavlovs dog with a conditioned reaction to your ' #21.
Earl said there's some very intelligent readers who comment here. You almost 'pulled it off' and have some readers believe you believe what you wrote, but you went 'overboard' lol.

Earl you don't know what the Nine-Dot puzzle is? and you did not look it up on line? Geez man. Look it up but don't look at the answer till you try it. If you do see the answer 'before' you try it, then have someone else , who's not familar with the puzzle try it in your presence and you watch what they do, have them try at least 4 or 5 attempts, this will end your 'befuddlement".
( I'm surprised you didn't mention this sooner, no wonder your 'in the dark'.)

[HeyItsRyan]

voodoo, you 'sly one' , I suspect your testing me to see if I "practice what I preach". by not reacting like Pavlovs dog with a conditioned reaction to your ' #21.
Earl said there's some very intelligent readers who comment here. You almost 'pulled it off' and have some readers believe you believe what you wrote, but you went 'overboard' lol.

Earl you don't know what the Nine-Dot puzzle is? and you did not look it up on line? Geez man. Look it up but don't look at the answer till you try it. If you do see the answer 'before' you try it, then have someone else , who's not familar with the puzzle try it in your presence and you watch what they do, have them try at least 4 or 5 attempts, this will end your 'befuddlement".
( I'm surprised you didn't mention this sooner, no wonder your 'in the dark'.)

sakoz:

I looked at the nine-dots puzzle online, and my instructions told me to "draw 9 dots on a piece of paper and try to connect all the dots using only 4 lines."

My first guess at this puzzle was, "If I'm the one drawing the dots, then why not simply make the dots form a square using 4 dots, and then overlap those 4 dots with the remaining 5?"

That's "thinking outside the box" isn't it? And even if I did it like that, I'd still be technically following the directions to the letter.

Just saying.

[sakoz]

HeyItsRyan:   .   .   .
                     .   .  .
                     .   .   .      You see 9 dots? You see a square? You see four small 'squares"? ( excuse the misalignment).
                                    The larger 'square' and the four smaller ones, are your images/schema you superimpose on 9 dots. I bet you swear the 'squares' are outside your head.
                                     Classic RORSCHACH?  We all do it, my point is take it into account, recognize it, so your aren't 'shocked' by 'empty' guns discharging.
                                    Or suffer emotionally and function dysfunctionally by reacting to what's only in your head. There's enough facts to experience, don't make up illusions.

[HeyItsRyan]

HeyItsRyan:   .   .   .
                     .   .  .
                     .   .   .      You see 9 dots? You see a square? You see four small 'squares"? ( excuse the misalignment).
                                    The larger 'square' and the four smaller ones, are your images/schema you superimpose on 9 dots. I bet you swear the 'squares' are outside your head.
                                     Classic RORSCHACH?  We all do it, my point is take it into account, recognize it, so your aren't 'shocked' by 'empty' guns discharging.
                                    Or suffer emotionally and function dysfunctionally by reacting to what's only in your head. There's enough facts to experience, don't make up illusions.

lol, dude... I don't think you understood what I was saying.

I KNOW what the puzzle is supposed to look like. What I'm saying is that before I even saw a picture of it, my instruction from the Internet told me to simply "draw 9 dots on a piece of paper." They never specified in what order to place them or what shape to make with them, so by all rights I could very well overlap the dots on the paper. This is thinking outside the box.

I know how the puzzle is supposed to be solved, so before you go questioning someone's intelligence I suggest you attempt to comprehend what they're saying first.

[sakoz]

I'm not questioning your intelligence, that's another example of you not recognizing your assumption , see how 'tricky' they are, no wonder I'm not being understood.
I'm about PERCEPTUAL ASSUMPTIONS or BELIEF PERCEPTIONS. Perceptions are taken for granted, as a given, so there not questioned. How can you question what you don't recognize ?
( Where the heck did you get those 'sloppy' instructions for the puzzle (lol)
You went on about gun safety, good comment but not in this context, my topic is about unrecognized .'perceptual assumptions'.

I'm not about 'thinking outside the box'; I'm about "shifting perspective' outside the thought system, and witness the first order frame of reference from the second order frame of reference
You can 'think outside the box" of one thought and think another on the same horizontal plane. You can think about thinking, still on the same horizontal plane. But we can vertically "shift" out of the thought system, to a 'witnessing perspective'.