Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you emote unintentionally? That's because you don't monitor the thoughts you 'believe'.
(Do you recognize 'believed thoughts' elicit emotions?)
"Believe - Emote" is "Cause - Effect"; "Stimulus - Reaction".
We were conditioned to emote to thoughts*, and we continue to do so every time we 'believe' a thought.
We were conditioned to condition ourselves. Animals can be conditioned; but they can't condition themselves.
"Believing" a thought is to react to it; whether you 'believe' intentionally or unintentionally.
To 'believe intentionally' requires RECOGNITION.
*Don't lament that you were conditioned at a early age without your consent; rejoice in the fact that you can condition yourself, and override prior conditioning.
A better way to optimal living is to shift to your innate wisdom and free from conditioning except for routine behaviors, where conditioning is useful.
Believing has so many reasons, conclusions, knowledge, perceptions, acknowledgements, commitments, fact based or outcomes based factors , collaboratively viewed ( same page or that which you believe is widely shared). Then we believe based on documentation . Example I believe the bible to be the inspired word off God yet also believe religion to be tweaked by man diluting scriptures message via nonsense doctrines . I also believe many christian denominations teach many truths ,but at the end of the day many are semi- full of baloney. I believe in the transcribers of the bible ( as many as 60 from 30 countries) to be inspired to write what Gods " spirit" physically could not. Thousands of witnesses I believe support the details within scripture, I tend to migrate to best sellers which the bible is number one leaving all literature in the dust ...forever.
openmike: you go into the 'content' of believing. It seems almost impossible to avoid content when talking about 'believing'.
Just as when talking about 'running' we know legs are involved, when talking about swimming, a body is involved.
We can talk about 'thinking', thoughts are implied, but we don't have to give examples of thoughts.
I want to know about 'believing', the process without specific content. Believing seems mysterious even though we all 'believe' routinely.
We all routinely use toilets. ( I bet no one has ever asked you how you regulate your sphincters ). It takes over a year to learn to do so, then we do,so automatically without thinking how to do it.
I use that analogy for 'believing'. It also takes over a year to learn language, then use language automatically, only thinking about the 'content' and not the 'how'.
When we 'unwittingly' believe, we often experience needless emotional suffering. But if we recognize and choose the thoughts to believe, it's unlikely we will choose thoughts that cause needless emotional suffering.
What is the source of 'believing'?
It is considered/alleged that amygdalae are associated with emotion production.It seems a legitimate question to ask, "Is there a organ/gland/etc. associated with 'believing ?"
ANY thought that can be thought into existence can be believed or not-believed. That indicates 'believing' can be a choice/optional. But too often we "unwittingly believe" 'as if' the thought is true without checking.
I didn't offer a thought with content, myriad thoughts are produced daily. You can believe the bible is the word of God or you can believe the 'bogyman' will get you in the dark. Some readers will take offence for my putting those two examples together in the same sentence. What are they doing? They might assume I consider God and bogyman both just imagined thoughts without actual referents. That's a third thought they add to what I wrote. Then they proceed to 'unwittingly' believe the thought they just produced, and that thought will arouse/elicit their emotion. Then they think I caused/evoked their emotion.
Pavlov conditioned dogs to react to the sound of a bell.
Human brains/neurology are more sophisticated than animal brains. We were conditioned to condition ourselves with thoughts/language.
"Believing" is the means we use to condition ourselves.
Way back, our ancestors made a grave/grievous mistake, they INADVERTENTLY CONDITIONED THEMSELVES TO AUTOMATICALLY CONDITION THEMSELVES. We carry on/perpetuate that mistake. (the sins of the fathers?)
We can correct/rectify that error of "self-reinforcing runaway cycle".
Do you emote unintentionally? That's because you don't monitor the thoughts you 'believe'.
(Do you recognize 'believed thoughts' elicit emotions?)
"Believe - Emote" is "Cause - Effect"; "Stimulus - Reaction".
We were conditioned to emote to thoughts*, and we continue to do so every time we 'believe' a thought.
We were conditioned to condition ourselves. Animals can be conditioned; but they can't condition themselves.
"Believing" a thought is to react to it; whether you 'believe' intentionally or unintentionally.
To 'believe intentionally' requires RECOGNITION.
*Don't lament that you were conditioned at a early age without your consent; rejoice in the fact that you can condition yourself, and override prior conditioning.
A better way to optimal living is to shift to your innate wisdom and free from conditioning except for routine behaviors, where conditioning is useful.
I can't answer and hence can't contribute to this thread but your OP has raised some questions. Like how does one go about re-conditioning one's mind? I need to re-condition my mind!
I have succeeded in re-conditioning my responses to what and how other people say or do in the work place.
.... how does one go about re-conditioning one's mind?
I have succeeded in re-conditioning my responses to what and how other people say or do in the work place.
Are your two statements compatible ?
Re-conditioning has it's uses. How about de-conditioning ?
My favorite example of 'de-conditioning' is not emoting to the 'bogyman'.
Youngsters don't recognize that 'bogyman' is only a image without empirical referent; (like mermaid, unicorn, centaur, leprechaun; ete.) they mistakenly believe the 'bogyman' is a live creature. When they recognize it's only a 'thought', they stop believing it, and their fear stops WITHOUT RECONDITIONING; recognition of fact was all it took.
Most of our thoughts are assumptions/inferences; that makes them tentative, subject to verification. (do they fit/match' facts?)
Thoughts are more like blue prints/maps/models instead of surrogate perceptions.
We were conditioned to "unwittingly believe" thoughts are perceptions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
