#LOL … well try it. Try having a perception that is not a direct outcome of one or more of your beliefs. You can’t. The very nature of perception is to shine a spotlight on the aspects of reality that match a belief. That is what perception is.
What is actually needed is to realize that beliefs are choice, not edict, not intrinsic, not assigned by others … and thus we should be choosing the beliefs that support the perceptions we want to be experiencing … instead of believing what we perceive.
it happens whenever i perceive something NEW
… something that is outside what i expected to happen. That happens all the time over here. I love it
! Just being aware of what i already know and believe or expect or create myself is just kind of booing.
This was why American invaded #iraq … Bush believed in #WeaponsOfMassDestruction … he asked America to build the case to justify the war.
#belief alone exclusively forming #perception is not helathy.
There are plenty of examples, both individual and collective.
Oh you can have new perceptions all the time, sure. They are great. A new perception has nothing to do with the filters that comprise the percepiton (beliefs), it only has to do with shining the light of perception upon a different place or aspect of reality. Beliefs determin, when the spotlight of perception is shown upon reality, what will be seen. Beliefs are like red, green, blue, and polarizing filters added to a spotlight … they determine what will be seen, reguardless of all that is there, which is always hugely more than a single individual will ever see in total.
That is not why the war happend. The war happend because, and only because, more people thought more about war than not war. Perhaps Bush’s process of building the case backwards was “part of” what got people thinking more about war than not war, but the real reason is exactly and only what more people were thinking about, positively, or negativly.
Your argument is the same old one that “guns kill people”. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, how you build a case for war does not create war, people thinking about war creates war.
yep, NEW perception happens when light is shined “upon a different place or aspect of reality” …
er … , or said diffrently “outside of some particular belief structure”.
Belief structures do not determine where you perception goes. Belief structures determine what you will see when your perception goes there.
so that is your belief and that is what you think you perceive. But it is not really a sensing outside of your beliefs … rather it is just you believing what you want or expect.
outside of that belief, if Bush had not lied about the weapons of mass destruction, he would not have convinced so many Americans to think positively about supporting the war … especially those in Congress.
Then too one can choose to think like Dave thinks …
Well, that is not “outside of my belief”. You are saying that Bush’s lying caused more to think about war … the process of convincing IS the process of getting people to think about something.
… and that is not the smoking gun. I am not saying that Bush’s tactics did not lead to war in this case. I am saying that they don’t create war anymore than a gun kills people. What created the war was what people were thinking.
When you want to create change, the closer to the actual point of action you can get the more effortlessly you can create the change. Knowing what actually cuases war, not what might lead to war, can make it easier to effect.
look i do not doubt for a second that beliefs shape perceptions. i’m just saying that the less one lets beliefs shape perceptions, the more one will percieve. In the other exteme the sense signals from the outside form the perceptions.
That is percieving inductively from examples to conceptions … rather than deductively from conceptios to perceptions.
Both happen … thinking it is always just one way is not healthy.
Your still missing the point. Beliefs do not shape perceptions. Beliefs determine perceptions. There is not one single thing out there that each person sees differently. Everything possible is out there and what a person sees is exactly what is out there, for that person, and his/her beliefs which shaped it into a perception.
well there is no difference between my description “shape perceptions” and yours “determine perceptions”. i can think in either term meaning the same thing.
i can agree that “one singel thing out there that each person sees differently” does not make any sense. It is as broad as it is long. But those things that are shared between people are known to those people. The important characteristic of those things is that they are shared by those people. Others not sharing the things may well see them differently … or more usually not see them at all. That works wether we are talking about human relations or non-sentient processes.
You always bring up this “not single thing out there” objection. I don’t believe that there is such a single thing out there either. But i do believe that people can share things (spirits). There are way too many examples of those shareings that i have experienced to doubt it. If you look at it that way, then your objection dissolves.
Shareing is the only concept we need in this context.
tag #share #sharing #SharingExperience
Your words describe the condition of there being one single thing out there. I bring it up when you choose concepts and words which point in that direciton.
What is shared between people is not things out there, what is shared is beliefs. People have similar perceptions when they have similar beliefs. When they don’t have similar beliefs, they often have very different perceptions too … even when staring at the same object, or talking about the same concept.
People share beliefs, not things, not perception.
Beliefs are at the front of the reality chain, and the front of the sharing chain.
well we seem to be converging on sharing a belief
i don’t think it is a important distinction that makes any big difference whether you call it sharing a belif or i call it sharing a process. Process is a more generalized concept which covers much more than does belief.
← a circus #trapese act
Notice that their bodies #share a meeting in mid air.
What happens when you water it down by saying that “I don’t think it makes a big difference” is that you shake off some of the aspects of how reality works and end up with just those aspects that are comfortable to you and your idea of what reality is. In fact, it is much bigger. In fact, beliefs are what determine perception, not metaphorically, but quite literally, and the end action, like the bodies in the picture above, is only an attending of an experience that started with belief. The way you water it down with your generalizing eliminates all the possible points that change can occure and even occure more effectively. You partially acknolodge change in beliefs as having effect, and you consider all other change to be happening at the point of action, which is where change is no longer able to happen, but only experiencing can happen.
… in other words. When you feel the impulse to #do and so #do, that is an attending of something that started as a belief, and passed through perception and then a thought. The easiest change happens in thought. The action is nothing but an experiencing, you attend it through #doing. It is not a point of change, you either attend the experience, or you do not.
Most scientists form a theory & then try to prove whether it is true or false, however!
Random fishing for a theory is curious.