Why Do We Believe/Trust Scientists ?

[sakoz]

S.Earl Martin; You want closure; your words in your #24 " to end it". O.K. I've been telling you, you have resources already in you that you don't recognize, (yet).
The only way you will be convinced is to recognize/experience for yourself; that will be via aha/insight. Insight cannot be prescribed. You won't try to access what you don't know you have.
Because the 'resource' is innate/natural, you can't volitionally demand it appear. In fact if you 'try' to force it to appear is like trying to forcefully access a name you know you know; it does not work that way. So your "stymied" ( and frustrated). Your own aha/insight is a prerequisite, without it you don't go farther.
So hypothetically, let's say you experienced your insight, you realize you have the resource in you; the means to happiness, well being, mental health. Which is the ability to 'choose' the thoughts you want experience. I explain the process in my #10; that you don't believe is possible. I respect your doubt, you doubt that it's possible because you can't do it (yet).

Do you see how well I "covered my ass"?   by saying you must experience your own aha/insight first?  That's ingenious. Do you think I could make up such a scheme? I would be flattered to be thought of as that smart. Bernie Madoff would be proud of such a scheme; but there's no money involved, so for what end would I do it? To frustrate you?
Why do you persist in trying to understand? Could it be because you 'intuitively' detect it may be true, that you have the resource in you?
 " Truth is stranger than fiction."

[S. Earl Martin]

I will not particapate in selective ignorance. If something is unpleasant? I will just deal with it. That is part of life. You seem to think you are so aware and others are not. That is a mistake. I am fully aware as you. Probably more so, but you are going on about nonsense and not experiencing thoughts and emotions that are unpleasant. Thats ridicules. In pleasant things we have joy. In the things that cause us grief we have lessons we need to learn. Now if you think I am wrong and we can experience things before they happen I am still waiting for an explaination as to how? Not some metaphorical load of crap, but a real explaination as to how it is possible. You keep saying these things and the only factual information about them I have provided. I still believe you just want attention and you know that if this ends your 15 minutes are up.

[pert -5]

You seem to think you are so aware and others are not. That is a mistake. I am fully aware as you. Probably more so, but you are going on about nonsense and not experiencing thoughts and emotions that are unpleasant. Thats ridicules.

Earl, temper your pride! 

In pleasant things we have joy. In the things that cause us grief we have lessons we need to learn.

These words, these words....  It is as if the hand of God spoke unto the masses.  In all things, the most important spiritual thing is football.  Well, that and wrestling.

Now if you think I am wrong and we can experience things before they happen I am still waiting for an explaination as to how? Not some metaphorical load of crap, but a real explaination as to how it is possible. You keep saying these things and the only factual information about them I have provided. I still believe you just want attention and you know that if this ends your 15 minutes are up.

[sakoz]

pert-5;  Lao Tzu  said; "He who speaks does not know; He who knows does not speak".
We're all potentially capable of experiencing the Highest State of Consciousness. It's my contention that Quantuum Energy 'might' be the Highest State of Consciousness from "outside percpective" and 'experiencing" from "inside perspective". ( The  same for individual thoughts, inside and outside 'perspective is vastly different.)
Quantuum energy ( I believe) is a resource we can access  for original thoughts.

[voodoo scientist]

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'.

Are you familiar with the construct 'metacognition'?

[sakoz]

Is that about thinking about thinking about thinking etc.? Like adding one to a big number and going on and on?
I'm referring to "witnessing perspective" outside the system, 'consciousness' that witnesses any and all 'content,' any cognition. "Consciousness" is not content but without it we don't recognize content, consciousness in that sense is like 'light'.

[pert -5]

pert-5;  Lao Tzu  said; "He who speaks does not know; He who knows does not speak".
We're all potentially capable of experiencing the Highest State of Consciousness. It's my contention that Quantuum Energy 'might' be the Highest State of Consciousness from "outside percpective" and 'experiencing" from "inside perspective". ( The for same for individual thoughts, inside and outside 'perspective is vastly different.)
Quantuum energy ( I believe) is a resource we can access  for original thoughts.

Laotze is thrilled, I'm sure...

[sakoz]

me too  lol               ( or is it me one or we one?)         The monk went up to the hot dog vendor and said; 'Make me ONE."

[S. Earl Martin]

Yeah I am losing patience again. Although Sakoz did attempt to be more factual I think. The problem is I still don't understand the example. I am very familar with thinking about thinking about thinking. I wrote about it in a previous thread. I don't understand how Sakoz is using it. I think I need to just stop interacting in this topic. Good luck to you all. I will comment again if I can think of something productive to say.

[voodoo scientist]

I'm almost positive he's talking about metacognition. Metacognition doesn't simply refer to thinking about thinking about thinking - that's metaconsciousness. More specifically, metacognition refers to cognition about cognition, which is significantly broader in its inclusion of the cognitive unconscious, so for instance, mindfulness is a form of metacognition. It could be argued that meditation is a form of metacognition or metaconsciousness.

If sakoz is talking about metacognition, then his "thought-images" essentially correspond to implicit memory effects like reflexes and priming, and possibly schemas, while his "insight" corresponds to metaconsciousness (conscious awareness of metacognitive processes).

Of course, if it turns out there is a standard term for it, it's not as original and revolutionary anymore. It stops being spiritual and becomes scientific.

[sakoz]

Did you ever make a remark that caused a argument or the listeners 'feelings being hurt'? You had no intent for either outcome, yet it occurred. We cannot control how people will react to what we say or write. What is the unseen variable? They react to their thoughts 'about' what you say/write. Not only do you not see those thoughts, neither do they, and that's a 'problem'.
Not only can such thoughts be unrecognized (in the moment), they can be 'wrong', but the reaction to them is never wrong; reactions are always consistent with beliefs, no matter how erroneous the thought.
Think of tasting lemon juice, till you swallow. Some of you will do it; some of you won't. What else do you do besides doing it? You think' " That's Pavlovian conditioning , or Skinners Stimulus-Response"; in other words you 'contaminate' this demo; rather than saying; "Yes, my involuntary reacts to my thoughts".( can you believe that thought as seriously as you believe the thoughts that cause you emotional suffering and/or dysfunctional behavior?) Think of the implications/ramifications of believing thoughts your not aware of ( and some are wrong).

When one meditates, what is the relationship to the thoughts parading/flowing by the "witnessing perspective"? Isin't it impartial witnessing, non-attachment to any of them?
If that 'witnessing perspective' could be maintained, carried 'out of' the meditative state, daily living/experience would be improved to say the least.

Do 'you' still react to your believed thoughts without recognizing  that they are your thoughts, when doing so?   ( 'I thought the gun was empty'.- hindsight).

[Sciencelolz]

The answer to the original question is as unique as the individuals who do believe/trust scientists.

One of the largest problems with psychology is the sheer amount of variables that need to be taken into account when dealing with questions about human nature. But I think that among significant correlates would be the amount that one's social environment revers science and scientific knowledge, one's educational level, and the degree to which a person thinks critically and abstractly about knowledge.

[xynthal]

we believe/trust science because there are no contrary observations...

[sakoz]

Not only because of the results they produce, but because of the way they get their results.
They recognize and test/verify their theories via fact congruence and predictability. They 'let go of', dismiss theories that don't 'work'.
Could we learn to do that to our thoughts or just continue to 'believe' indiscriminately?
The placebo effect is a classic example of not recognizing believing a thought ( without verification).
Give me an example of clients who go for therapy who don't 'do' the nocebo effect, that is they don't recognize their thought and also don't recognize believing them.

The issue is; scientists understand and influence the sub-atomic level to get results they want, etc.
Our thoughts come from where we can't see; can we to understand and influence that level to get results we want also? (Instead of negative thoughts?)