Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits

[psychegram]

Interesting article on applications of the placebo effect beyond the clinical (although including those as well). The findings of numerous studies seem to suggest that if we change our idea of what the limits of our capabilities are (or cease thinking of ourselves as limited at all), we change our capabilities.

There seems to be a simple way to instantly increase a person’s level of general knowledge. Psychologists Ulrich Weger and Stephen Loughnan recently asked two groups of people to answer questions. People in one group were told that before each question, the answer would be briefly flashed on their screens — too quickly to consciously perceive, but slow enough for their unconscious to take it in. The other group was told that the flashes simply signaled the next question. In fact, for both groups, a random string of letters, not the answers, was flashed. But, remarkably, the people who thought the answers were flashed did better on the test. Expecting to know the answers made people more likely to get the answers right.

_http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?v=1&id=your-thoughts-can-release-abilities-beyond-normal-limits

 

[Carl]

This is very interesting. What's always bugged me is that we can't use our own conscious minds to 'trick' ourselves into better performance, and they mentioned that motivation had no significant effect. Perhaps by constant growth and good habits, and strengthening the connection to our unconscious, we can achieve these kinds of increases in performance without having to be tricked by somebody else? It makes me think of how important networking is. When I have people who have faith in me and have got my back, I tend to be able to do more, and do it better.

It also reminds me of the learned helplessness study in one of the recent psychology books, where one group was primed to think they suck at anagrams (by giving them impossible problems), and they did much worse than the group who were given easy anagrams to start off with. I think this is the study, or a similar one: _http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1980-08892-001

 

[SMM]

This is very interesting. What's always bugged me is that we can't use our own conscious minds to 'trick' ourselves into better performance, and they mentioned that motivation had no significant effect. Perhaps by constant growth and good habits, and strengthening the connection to our unconscious, we can achieve these kinds of increases in performance without having to be tricked by somebody else? It makes me think of how important networking is. When I have people who have faith in me and have got my back, I tend to be able to do more, and do it better.

It also reminds me of the learned helplessness study in one of the recent psychology books, where one group was primed to think they suck at anagrams (by giving them impossible problems), and they did much worse than the group who were given easy anagrams to start off with. I think this is the study, or a similar one: _http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1980-08892-001

Unconscious functions intercede when trying to trick conscious mind osit.
I agree with what you wrote. Can only view the abstract to the study however it reminds me of some studies presented in Strangers to Ourselves book.

 

[Buddy]

This is very interesting. What's always bugged me is that we can't use our own conscious minds to 'trick' ourselves into better performance, and they mentioned that motivation had no significant effect.

That always bugged me too. Maybe the reason for that is because we don't realize that the very act of trying, or thoughts about 'tricking', demonstrates to that part of us that's being called on that we don't really 'know' or 'have enough faith' that we (as a whole individual) can do it. Maybe that part of ourselves is just being externally considerate? Could the placebo effect represent the process in that saying about 'throwing the dog a bone'?

Really, there are some case studies in hypnosis that demonstrate increases in abilities in a subject once conflicting conscious beliefs are dismantled and laid aside.

And if you combine all that evidence from the guys that inspired and compiled all that info now called the Facial Action Coding System with all that field research on body language that demonstrates that what the body does cannot be separated from what a person really thinks deep down - IOW, at the deeper levels in our organism thought is movement: it's the same 'thing' - then it all begins to make sense. At least to me.

So, when I saw the topic title "Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits", I was thinking how it makes sense as long as there is no conscious doubt or there is like a perfect harmony or consistency of knowledge within the beliefs that do exist.

 

[whitecoast]

This is very interesting. What's always bugged me is that we can't use our own conscious minds to 'trick' ourselves into better performance, and they mentioned that motivation had no significant effect.

That always bugged me too. Maybe the reason for that is because we don't realize that the very act of trying, or thoughts about 'tricking', demonstrates to that part of us that's being called on that we don't really 'know' or 'have enough faith' that we (as a whole individual) can do it. Maybe that part of ourselves is just being externally considerate? Could the placebo effect represent the process in that saying about 'throwing the dog a bone'?

Really, there are some case studies in hypnosis that demonstrate increases in abilities in a subject once conflicting conscious beliefs are dismantled and laid aside.

And if you combine all that evidence from the guys that inspired and compiled all that info now called the Facial Action Coding System with all that field research on body language that demonstrates that what the body does cannot be separated from what a person really thinks deep down - IOW, at the deeper levels in our organism thought is movement: it's the same 'thing' - then it all begins to make sense. At least to me.

So, when I saw the topic title "Your Thoughts Can Release Abilities Beyond Normal Limits", I was thinking how it makes sense as long as there is no conscious doubt or there is like a perfect harmony or consistency of knowledge within the beliefs that do exist.

This brings up something I've noticed in a lot of esoteric topics. Castaneda mentioned that things you learn in the Nagual, though forgotten by the mind of the Tonal, still reside in the body, which remembers. Jeanne de Salzmann spoke about the force of a second body coming through at certain levels of development. I personally have felt that once, after a particularly powerful ceremonial gathering/healing. It felt like there almost was another force inside of me: another body controlling my limbs. But it didn't feel like I was a marionette or anything. Not like I was just "along for the ride" like how I feel when I'm observing myself behave in an extremely mechanical fashion. It felt like pure, crystallized intent from within. Needless to say, it didn't last too long before my regular consciousness returned (a few hours to a day later). It really gave me a taste of what it could possibly feel like to "have no action opposed to one's understanding, and no understanding which is not expressed through action". It also made me wonder if system 1 could be partitioned into a system 1a and system 1b, where one is the carnal body of the predator mind and the other is the creative/enlightened unconscious. System 2 can intervene to suppress the programmed system 1 to help allow the virtuous system 1 to shine through, but system 2 is not ITSELF the incredible power source many coaching groups and esoteric teachers make it out to be. OSIT. Hope I'm not too left-field here. ;)

Perhaps by constant growth and good habits, and strengthening the connection to our unconscious, we can achieve these kinds of increases in performance without having to be tricked by somebody else? It makes me think of how important networking is. When I have people who have faith in me and have got my back, I tend to be able to do more, and do it better.

Gurdjieff did say a certain substance is produced in groups that cannot be produced by the same participates on their own. :D

 

[Nook]

Interesting article, thanks for sharing psychegram.

In many cases, thinking that we are limited is itself a limiting factor. There is accumulating evidence that suggests that our thoughts are often capable of extending our cognitive and physical limits.

So it could've been merely the thought itself - that the group that did better was thinking - namely 'I can do this, I know the answer' that gave them more confidence in their unconscious perception and that might have been enough to give them the boost to actually perform better.
They might have even payed more attention than the control group to try to catch the 'flashed answers', even though they were told it's impossible and there were no answers flashed before the questions.

This is very interesting. What's always bugged me is that we can't use our own conscious minds to 'trick' ourselves into better performance, and they mentioned that motivation had no significant effect.

They did mention that motivation didn't have a significant effect but it was only mental motivation. I don't think it holds much merit.

They read a paper on motivation and were told to be as motivated as possible and they tried mentally but the flight simulator was inactive. If the simulator would've been active, they wouldn't have needed to think about motivation because their bodies would automatically have been motivated by the circumstances (something's happening, have to pay extra attention and elevate senses to survive even if it was a simulator, etc).

We can stop these physical alerts if we want to with our minds, telling ourselves that it's not real, it's just a simulator but otherwise, we're taken in by it, we even enjoy the 'show' and the adrenaline.

The researchers put people in the mindset of an Air Force pilot by bringing them into a flight simulator. The simulator consisted of an actual cockpit including flight instruments. The cockpit was mounted on hydraulic lifts that mimic aircraft movement and performance. People were given green army fatigues; they sat in the pilot’s seat, and performed simple flight maneuvers. They took a vision test while “flying” the simulator. A control group took the same vision test in the cockpit while the simulator was inactive. People’s vision improved only if they were in the working simulator.

So I don't think what they did in their research proves that motivation is not a factor. And also based on my own experience, it is very much a factor.

As far as using our conscious minds to 'trick' ourselves into better performance, I'm quite sure it is possible.
I don't mean to go out on a limb here but if I'm correct I have done this many times as it is very useful, if not essential in acting.
But that might be the Actor-Factor, namely that they're all crazy :D

Perhaps, it could be a matter of exercising our imagination. The more we do it, the stronger it gets and our bodies and feelings actually react to the imaginary circumstances
(also helping with performance skills, abilities, etc)

When I have people who have faith in me and have got my back, I tend to be able to do more, and do it better.

Would definitely have to agree on this.
Same here, I think this also comes down to confidence and not having to worry about how others perceive us.
And/or knowing that they're actually rooting for us.

My thoughts.

edit: clarity

 

[psychegram]

This is very interesting. What's always bugged me is that we can't use our own conscious minds to 'trick' ourselves into better performance, and they mentioned that motivation had no significant effect. Perhaps by constant growth and good habits, and strengthening the connection to our unconscious, we can achieve these kinds of increases in performance without having to be tricked by somebody else? It makes me think of how important networking is. When I have people who have faith in me and have got my back, I tend to be able to do more, and do it better.

It also reminds me of the learned helplessness study in one of the recent psychology books, where one group was primed to think they suck at anagrams (by giving them impossible problems), and they did much worse than the group who were given easy anagrams to start off with. I think this is the study, or a similar one: _http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=1980-08892-001

I'm not certain that's entirely true. Some research seems to suggest that the placebo effect can be activated even when the patient knows they're getting a placebo, e.g.

_http://abcnews.go.com/Health/placebos-work-deception-study/story?id=12462093&singlePage=true

Kaptchuk said that researchers made it clear that the pills had no active ingredients, even going so far as to print 'placebo' on the pill bottles.

But according to the study, patients were told that "placebo pills, something like sugar pills, have been shown in rigorous clinical testing to produce significant mind-body self-healing processes."

Zubieta said that patients may have had an expectation of improvement after hearing that placebos showed 'self-healing processes.'

This tells me that the key thing is the patient's expectation. If they are primed to believe that placebo works, then it will work, just as it will work if they are primed to believe that the placebo is not a placebo.

Interesting article, thanks for sharing psychegram.

In many cases, thinking that we are limited is itself a limiting factor. There is accumulating evidence that suggests that our thoughts are often capable of extending our cognitive and physical limits.

So it could've been merely the thought itself - that the group that did better was thinking - namely 'I can do this, I know the answer' that gave them more confidence in their unconscious perception and that might have been enough to give them the boost to actually perform better.
They might have even payed more attention than the control group to try to catch the 'flashed answers', even though they were told it's impossible and there were no answers flashed before the questions.

This is very interesting. What's always bugged me is that we can't use our own conscious minds to 'trick' ourselves into better performance, and they mentioned that motivation had no significant effect.

They did mention that motivation didn't have a significant effect but it was only mental motivation. I don't think it holds much merit.

They read a paper on motivation and were told to be as motivated as possible and they tried mentally but the flight simulator was inactive. If the simulator would've been active, they wouldn't have needed to think about motivation because their bodies would automatically have been motivated by the circumstances (something's happening, have to pay extra attention and elevate senses to survive even if it was a simulator, etc).

We can stop these physical alerts if we want to with our minds, telling ourselves that it's not real, it's just a simulator but otherwise, we're taken in by it, we even enjoy the 'show' and the adrenaline.

The researchers put people in the mindset of an Air Force pilot by bringing them into a flight simulator. The simulator consisted of an actual cockpit including flight instruments. The cockpit was mounted on hydraulic lifts that mimic aircraft movement and performance. People were given green army fatigues; they sat in the pilot’s seat, and performed simple flight maneuvers. They took a vision test while “flying” the simulator. A control group took the same vision test in the cockpit while the simulator was inactive. People’s vision improved only if they were in the working simulator.

So I don't think what they did in their research proves that motivation is not a factor. And also based on my own experience, it is very much a factor.

As far as using our conscious minds to 'trick' ourselves into better performance, I'm quite sure it is possible.
I don't mean to go out on a limb here but if I'm correct I have done this many times as it is very useful, if not essential in acting.
But that might be the Actor-Factor, namely that they're all crazy :D

Perhaps, it could be a matter of exercising our imagination. The more we do it, the stronger it gets and our bodies and feelings actually react to the imaginary circumstances
(also helping with performance skills, abilities, etc)

When I have people who have faith in me and have got my back, I tend to be able to do more, and do it better.

Would definitely have to agree on this.
Same here, I think this also comes down to confidence and not having to worry about how others perceive us.
And/or knowing that they're actually rooting for us.

My thoughts.

edit: clarity

I've noticed this effect of the faith of others, as well. For instance, when teaching students physics problems, very often they want to give up before they even start (because they have been primed to think that physics is hard, that they do not know anything, etc.) When I insist that they can find the answer if they only think about it for a bit, that it is not so hard, this small encouragement very often leads to them finding the answer in short order. Very similar to Carlisle's illustration of anagrams.

Something else that comes to mind here ... I can't remember if it was in the C's material, or Ra, or elsewhere. The idea that Jesus was able to access vast knowledge of the cosmos simply because he had the faith that he could do so: he believed so strongly that he could access this knowledge, that he was able to access it. Perhaps this is related to whitecoast's quote about the 'certain something produced in groups'. It would seem much easier to sustain belief that gnosis could be achieved if participating in a group that also believed.

How could this knowledge be applied?

 

[Keit]

I'm not certain that's entirely true. Some research seems to suggest that the placebo effect can be activated even when the patient knows they're getting a placebo, e.g.
[...]
This tells me that the key thing is the patient's expectation. If they are primed to believe that placebo works, then it will work, just as it will work if they are primed to believe that the placebo is not a placebo.

I think that it may work well, especially on those who tend to analyze or think over things. And it's probably has to do with creating narratives. For example, imagine a scenario:

I am trying to analyze a certain situation and my reactions to it. This is an ongoing problem, and no matter how hard I try, how much self control is being utilized, I still catch myself agonizing over it and reacting to it. And the main reason is, that I continue to see it as a problem, a conflict. So, my recent eureka was, that since the situation isn't going to change, and it's basically not my responsibility or not in my ability to do something about it, then my only solution is to basically change my perspective on the situation, a sort of conscious lie to self that will allow me to stop wasting energy over it.

And that probably has to do with human beings' amazing ability of self-deception. But the key is to do it with full awareness and in accordance with a personal aim. osit.

Oh, as for the research mentioned in the first post, the best proof that it works is to look at what happens during exam sessions in universities! Since it may be different in the US or other countries, here is a short description: The exam session here lasts 20 days, with up to 5 exams. So there are usually 3-5 days between exams. Some of them are supposed to test one semester material, some of them two (one year). Now, even if you may have more time than 3-4 days to prepare, no one will do it and will drag it (or learn there and there) till the last moment.

And this is the period when a student finds out that he or she has super powers of speed reading and memorization It doesn't matter how much material, or how difficult it was to study this specific topic during the semester. You maybe agonized over it for hours during the semester, but during the exam session this topic is dealt with in a matter of minutes. How? No freaking idea. Maybe stress. Maybe being put in an extreme and difficult situation. But that's a fact. :) And with each passing exam session it becomes easier and easier because you know that you were able to do it before.

 

[Scottie]

This tells me that the key thing is the patient's expectation. If they are primed to believe that placebo works, then it will work, just as it will work if they are primed to believe that the placebo is not a placebo.

The "placebo effect" has always been one of my favorite topics, ever since I first learned about it ages ago. I have always wondered why medical science hasn't simply ditched big pharma and moved toward a more holistic approach involving "placebo medicine". Seems to me that it would be far more effective at actually helping people. Well, the answer to that question is pretty obvious, I guess...

Still, the hotel workers who lost weight simply because they were told that the amount of room cleaning they were doing was good exercise, well... that's pretty interesting. That also implies that you can actually be the healthiest person in the world, but you can still "make yourself sick" - literally. That, of course, means that you are then NOT the healthiest person in the world, but even problems of a genetic nature would still be totally fixable. Just because you were "made that way" doesn't mean you have to stay that way.

In the flight simulator experiment, it seems that the people weren't really directly primed beforehand to expect any particular results - except for the fact that "fighter pilots have good eyesight" thing, which is so-called general knowledge. The "placebos work" study had the authority figures planting the expectation or idea of success in the subjects' minds more directly.

This may sound totally crazy, but I have always wondered what would happen if you took a child and raised it from birth to believe that people can fly. The parents would fly around by some concealed method, and everyone in the environment would also have to be able to fly. Would the child then just take off and float around like superkid?

Well, we know that if a child is raised by wolves or something, it will act like a wolf. And we suspect that our reality is sort of like a "pen" where we are being limited in many ways. And then the C's indicate certain things like "there is no time", and "learn to think in unlimited terms". Obviously, both of those are pretty hard to get our heads around, because we're inside the pen, most of which is actually just inside our own heads.

Somehow, I really suspect that at some point, we will come to find that it really IS as easy as clicking your heels together and repeating, "There's no place like home!" But, given that we can't even get over our preprogrammed notions about ourselves (I'm crap at math, I'm too fat, I'm worthless, etc.), that's a LOOOONG way to go.

But then, what if the belief that "it's a long way to go" is itself a self-imposed limitation?

I've noticed this effect of the faith of others, as well. For instance, when teaching students physics problems, very often they want to give up before they even start (because they have been primed to think that physics is hard, that they do not know anything, etc.) When I insist that they can find the answer if they only think about it for a bit, that it is not so hard, this small encouragement very often leads to them finding the answer in short order. Very similar to Carlisle's illustration of anagrams.

I have seen this one over and over again. The notion that something is too complex, or too hard, and especially the "I must be doing something wrong because so-and-so says to do it this way and so-and-so is an authority on the matter!" immediately kills any possibility of accomplishing things. But, AFTER the individual discovers that they can do it, or that the so-called authority figure is actually a doofus and/or not a god after all, suddenly the accomplishments and learning just start pouring out.

If actual changes in the body can occur via placebo effect, then what's really happening when we modify our diet, work on ourselves, deal with our own stuff, and so on? Imagine a depressed Jesus on a diet of McDonalds and Snickers bars... "Here Jesus, take these antidepressants. That'll fix ya right up!"

In any case, I definitely think that a group stands a much better chance of "getting somewhere" than an individual, both in terms of positive feedback and ridding ourselves of programmed limitations.

Well, I'm gonna go run around in the back yard in blue tights and practice my take-offs.

 

[luke wilson]

From the article, I get the impression that whether the placebo works or not is usually dependent on some sort of 'authority' figure, not really because of the actual experimentee. The authority figure or figures makes the other person believe something or not and thus make it real or not.

EG:

In the general knowledge test, the researchers tell the participants whether they'll see the answer beforehand or not.

with the flight simulator they say this

It is a common belief that fighter pilots have very good vision.

But they haven't questioned where the above came from? So again, an authority figure that is outside the participant.

With the eye test

In an eye exam, we are used to start experiencing problems at the bottom third of the eye chart, where letters start to get small.

In the above case I wonder if the researchers let the participants know this... anyways, here expectations played a role but I don't know what triggered the expectation.

With the hotel staff, there expectations and believes were influenced by the researchers.

All in all I think these researchers are playing the role of 'authority' figures and are the ones responsible for triggering the placebo effect.

So now, for us as individuals, is there anyway to transfer the authority figure from an external source, say, a researcher, society, even experience that may be misplaced e.g. I have felt worthless all my life therefore this is proof that I am worthless etc and into something more internal and fluid thus it can trigger the placebo effect independent from any external factors?

What do you guys think?

 

[seek10]

Interesting topic.

Priming with messages seems to be the premise behind lot of Self Help / New age /YCYOR Hype. But that seems to work up to some limit( particularly some one is down), but the question of when it works and when it doesn't is a big question. This quote stuck me in my mind for a while

950812

Q: (L) Can we define our roles?

A: It is up to each and everyone of you to define your roles as whatever role you see yourself fulfilling, and also to communicate those to each other. If this is done, it can bring a
much clearer picture of the situation to each one of you, and also avoid the possibility that misunderstandings, conflicts of interest, as is possible when there is a lack of
communication in any situation. See, this is one of many modes of attack employed very successfully by those who wish to see efforts cease, and the attack is most ingenious because
it involves playing with the subconscious mind where 92 % of all thought processes originate in third density.

If disassociated person ( programs from past experiences) can Instintually do physically things which he normally can't do. It is also known that advertisers/movie trailers makers make them in a such a way that produces dopamine while using fleeting images of their product( creating associatin) which only subconscious mind can recognize ( the movie greatest movie eaver sold has a clip about this phenomenon in some soft drink advertisement)

950812

Q: (L) Is there any benefit to be obtained through the use of mantras?
A: Especially when the mind says there is. Remember, most all power necessary for altering reality and physicality is contained within the belief center of the mind. This is
something you will understand more closely when you reach 4th density reality where physicality is no longer a prison, but is instead, your home, for you to alter as you please. In
your current state, you have the misinterpretation of believing that reality is finite and therein lies your difficulty with finite physical existence. We are surprised that you are still not
able to completely grasp this concept.

So it looks there are limits to placebo effect. Regarding suggestibality, reminds me of this.

Q: (L) What is this thing we call hypnosis?
A: The 2nd step to open consciousness union with level 5.
Q: (L) What's the first step?
A: Dream state.
Q: (L) What's the third step?
A: Trance.
Q: (L) What's the fourth step?
A: Expiration of body functions.
Q: (L) You mean as in death, kicked the bucket?
A: Of body.

So some thing much more than physical going on which we don't understand clearly.

 

[psychegram]

This tells me that the key thing is the patient's expectation. If they are primed to believe that placebo works, then it will work, just as it will work if they are primed to believe that the placebo is not a placebo.

The "placebo effect" has always been one of my favorite topics, ever since I first learned about it ages ago. I have always wondered why medical science hasn't simply ditched big pharma and moved toward a more holistic approach involving "placebo medicine". Seems to me that it would be far more effective at actually helping people. Well, the answer to that question is pretty obvious, I guess...

My thoughts precisely. In fact, if you examine premodern medicine (e.g. Paracelsus' techniques, but certainly not limited to a European context), it becomes apparent that physicians would typically try to trigger a placebo response first, second, and third (using chants and incantations, charms and amulets, etc.), resorting to medication and/or surgery only when placebo did not work. This seems much wiser, since there are no side-effects or complications to placebo. To a degree doctors still do this, only they do so using real medicines that have real side-effects, but which won't have any effect on the disease in question (e.g. "Doc, I've got a cold", "OK, here are some antibiotics....").

I've noticed this effect of the faith of others, as well. For instance, when teaching students physics problems, very often they want to give up before they even start (because they have been primed to think that physics is hard, that they do not know anything, etc.) When I insist that they can find the answer if they only think about it for a bit, that it is not so hard, this small encouragement very often leads to them finding the answer in short order. Very similar to Carlisle's illustration of anagrams.

I have seen this one over and over again. The notion that something is too complex, or too hard, and especially the "I must be doing something wrong because so-and-so says to do it this way and so-and-so is an authority on the matter!" immediately kills any possibility of accomplishing things. But, AFTER the individual discovers that they can do it, or that the so-called authority figure is actually a doofus and/or not a god after all, suddenly the accomplishments and learning just start pouring out.

When in the lab, I would often act to directly undermine my own authority (for instance, mild casual profanity, slightly off-colour jokes; or admitting straight up if I didn't know the answer to a question). This had the effect of humanizing me: rather than being a distant, scary grad student who knows soooooo much more than the undergrads, I was just like them, only slightly older. Thus, if I could do it, they could do it. I'm not so certain this would work in a lecture-style environment (but then I feel that lectures are possibly one of, if not the, least optimal environments for learning).

So now, for us as individuals, is there anyway to transfer the authority figure from an external source, say, a researcher, society, even experience that may be misplaced e.g. I have felt worthless all my life therefore this is proof that I am worthless etc and into something more internal and fluid thus it can trigger the placebo effect independent from any external factors?

What do you guys think?

I think that this is basically social reality construction. In an authoritarian society such as ours, for something to be 'real' it suffices for authority figures to proclaim it so. However, the same effect can be achieved by means of group expectation, without any authority figures, at least in the right context ... in this case of course authority is simply transferred from an individual higher up in the hierarchy, to the group. I don't think it's possible, or really I should say practical, for individual efforts alone to modify individual reality to a substantive degree. We're a social species, after all, not solitary predators. Strictly speaking it may be possible for an individual to 'create their own reality' in something more than the illusory sense, but this would likely require total isolation from society lest the weight of collective disbelief undermine their efforts (e.g. a Buddhist monk who meditates alone in a cave for twenty years, and eventually is able to levitate ... only to come crashing to the ground when eyes are laid upon him). Conversely, if one is a member of a group that believes something to be possible, even if the wider society and its authority figures proclaim it be impossible, the path is significantly eased.

 

[psychegram]

Interesting topic.

Priming with messages seems to be the premise behind lot of Self Help / New age /YCYOR Hype. But that seems to work up to some limit( particularly some one is down), but the question of when it works and when it doesn't is a big question. This quote stuck me in my mind for a while

950812

Q: (L) Can we define our roles?

A: It is up to each and everyone of you to define your roles as whatever role you see yourself fulfilling, and also to communicate those to each other. If this is done, it can bring a
much clearer picture of the situation to each one of you, and also avoid the possibility that misunderstandings, conflicts of interest, as is possible when there is a lack of
communication in any situation. See, this is one of many modes of attack employed very successfully by those who wish to see efforts cease, and the attack is most ingenious because
it involves playing with the subconscious mind where 92 % of all thought processes originate in third density.

If disassociated person ( programs from past experiences) can Instintually do physically things which he normally can't do. It is also known that advertisers/movie trailers makers make them in a such a way that produces dopamine while using fleeting images of their product( creating associatin) which only subconscious mind can recognize ( the movie greatest movie eaver sold has a clip about this phenomenon in some soft drink advertisement)

950812

Q: (L) Is there any benefit to be obtained through the use of mantras?
A: Especially when the mind says there is. Remember, most all power necessary for altering reality and physicality is contained within the belief center of the mind. This is
something you will understand more closely when you reach 4th density reality where physicality is no longer a prison, but is instead, your home, for you to alter as you please. In
your current state, you have the misinterpretation of believing that reality is finite and therein lies your difficulty with finite physical existence. We are surprised that you are still not
able to completely grasp this concept.

So it looks there are limits to placebo effect. Regarding suggestibality, reminds me of this.

Q: (L) What is this thing we call hypnosis?
A: The 2nd step to open consciousness union with level 5.
Q: (L) What's the first step?
A: Dream state.
Q: (L) What's the third step?
A: Trance.
Q: (L) What's the fourth step?
A: Expiration of body functions.
Q: (L) You mean as in death, kicked the bucket?
A: Of body.

So some thing much more than physical going on which we don't understand clearly.

And therein lies precisely the difficulty here, what makes this subject so tricky ... on the one hand, YCYOR is a dangerously misguided concept, leading very easily to wishful thinking ... on the other, reality seems to be open to change based upon beliefs about reality. How exactly does this process work? What are its limitations (or is 'limitation' precisely the wrong concept to use, in which case, what is the correct concept?)

 

[luke wilson]

You know, I didn't realize this topic was perilously close to the concept of YCYOR.

And therein lies precisely the difficulty here, what makes this subject so tricky ... on the one hand, YCYOR is a dangerously misguided concept, leading very easily to wishful thinking ... on the other, reality seems to be open to change based upon beliefs about reality. How exactly does this process work? What are its limitations (or is 'limitation' precisely the wrong concept to use, in which case, what is the correct concept?)

I 100% believe there is some truth to this but also think it is essentially a minefield. In a way 3D is a concrete reality, but also to some extent it can be molded by belief systems as is evident by the outside world. So finding out about the intricacies of the whole process is the challenge. And make no mistake about it, it affects everyone probably in ways we don't even realize. You have been brought up to believe in certain things, not only by your parents, by your school, friends, the wider society, even by your own experience all of which shape what is real and what you can and can't do. This process is real and is ongoing in real time, not just measurable in a lab.

But yeah, it is a minefield.

 

[Buddy]

Well, I'm gonna go run around in the back yard in blue tights and practice my take-offs.

I hope your bones are hollow like the birds. Otherwise I don't wanna be there for the landing. :)

You have been brought up to believe in certain things, not only by your parents, by your school, friends, the wider society, even by your own experience all of which shape what is real and what you can and can't do. This process is real and is ongoing in real time, not just measurable in a lab.

I keep coming back to the idea that consciousness is just that set of perception creating filters on an otherwise unfiltered awareness. I think it's relevant to an act of 'shaping' like you mentioned, but the implications of this idea are so many, I have yet to grasp them all.