It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Denying ignorance and the mind's tendency to reinforce it

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by John Matrix

Think I need to turn that one over in my mind a few times. Thanks for giving me something to think about.

S&F for your thread. It gives us food for thought and motivates us to look at ourselves and ask questions concerning why we believe what we believe. Double thumbs up for you too.

I believe a single thougt, once accepted by the mind, has an attraction mechanism, and it grows according to the attention we give it and the available supporting thoughts that can be attached to it.

One would do well to ask what the center of gravity is for their thought life.

[edit on 20/9/09 by John Matrix]

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by John Matrix

Agreed. That is exactly more or less the point I am trying to make.

[edit on 20-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Star and Flag my friend. That truly IS how to deny ignorance. Good job!

two lines

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:43 PM
reply to post by Mr. Toodles

Thank you. Has always been my opinion that the best way to combat ignorance is "Know thyself.". That includes how "you" works.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:55 PM
Excellent thread, Watcher. I remember studying this as a part of the way we learn and develop. Memorized much of it, actually, but your OP is as comprehensive and well thought out as anything I studied.

Schemata in simpler terms, is just the way our brain organizes fragments into a whole construct, so we might assign it meaning, or understand it. It's the way we learn, and make sense of things....the world.

This subject applies to our problems on ATS, and yes, as you know we have had problems at times. When our human brains are fully developed we have to try to open them. Sometimes this takes a conscious effort. We have to TRY. That is to say, to resist the urge to fall back on previous notions and concepts which we have always held to be TRUE. And clearly, we don't. Our ways of thinking and our accepted doctrines are so ingrained in us that we don't change, and don't even try anymore, particularly insofar as political and religious ideologies are concerned.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Great thread, my friend.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Fantastic OP, Watcher! Extremely insightful... I wonder what the effect of increased intelligence is on the perception and adherence to schema is? I know that when I was younger, I definitely held on to 'beliefs' of many types due to this, but as I have grown older I now tend to first challenge my own beliefs and views before defending them. I am not so prone to blindly accept my 'beliefs', especially if contradictory evidence presents itself. Being of a higher IQ range, I wonder if it is due to this, or is it due to having beliefs proven false in the past. In other words, is it due to intelligence or due to the wisdom of aging? Thanks for the info! S & F!!

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:07 AM

I love to see such disclosure on how the human mind works being disseminated and supported to such a degree!

A couple things that pop to mind...

1. How difficult it is to read all of it before posting. Early on I had an idea of what I wanted to post, yet to be sincere to the subject matter one must read the entire OP... at every angle the intellect wishes to interject with what it believes should come next!

2. This reminds me A LOT of Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson!

Watcher, you would get a tremendous kick out of reading it...

One link about it

What the above link doesn't mention, oddly enough, is something the author brings serious highlighting to in his introduction. Namely that the book is written in labyrinthine sentences specifically to dissuade automatic thinking.

Thank you for an amazing post!


posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:25 AM
Extremely interesting material, I was considering after reading this that when children are very young things like racism can be placed into their minds, or not, and that will stay with them for the rest of their lives...

Applied to ATS I have to say that we all believe what we do based on facts or news, research, ect. But when you put schema into play, it makes me understand how someone who absolutely believes something they are saying to be fact even though the real facts don't prove it, this is why they are adamant about their belief.

Wow. I also understand now also why when I was hit by a car in the parking lot, I had 5 witnesses who saw everything. It is a little over a year later and we are about to go to court ( hit and run, driver identified) and I was asking each of them to remember what happened, and lo and behold it sounded like 5 different stories. I hope the courts know about schema!

Star and Flag, wonderful, thought provoking, and very helpful on this site in particular.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by space cadet

I found it to be rather enlightening. Especially in the capacity that now that I know the mind has a tendency to work such I can make sure to fight those tendency. And I think it would help minimize the BS that goes on this board if everyone knew this.

Applied to ATS I have to say that we all believe what we do based on facts or news, research, ect. But when you put schema into play, it makes me understand how someone who absolutely believes something they are saying to be fact even though the real facts don't prove it, this is why they are adamant about their belief.


posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:04 PM
Also I was thinking. I think this supports the old Socrates quote:

"The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing."

sounds almost to me like a anti-schemata schema before the concept was really labeled if you really think about it.

And sorry to bunch up response posts on you guys but time is not being friendly with me today.
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Firstly, thank you.
And I am not sure. It could be argued from both standpoints I think. I'm inclined to believe it's wisdom as I have known some very smart people get tripped up in their own preconceptions and simply be out to reinforce those. Or perhaps a combination of the two.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Yea I know it is a bit to take in. But I didn't feel like I was doing the subject justice if I didn't provide as much information as possible. And I do believe this is something that strongly needs discussing on this site, given certain tendencies I have seen. I will definantly be checking out that link ASAP thank you for providing it.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:05 PM
reply to post by ladyinwaiting

You hit the nail exactly on the head. Thusly the reason I strongly feel this is something we all need to at least take a look at.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

A schema is a cognitive structure of knowledge we have in our minds.

This is very, very, very, very, very important to always consider.

This is where sacred geometry comes into play, because you see the word "structure" in that sentence. Literally there is a geometry in the networking on your neurons, and that very geometry, across so many millions of neurons, eventually takes on very complex experiential "meaning" to you. Understanding something often means simply being aware of its geometry, of how it moves and occupies space and time, whether it be a space ship, or love, or any other ideas or physical objects.

So what about this geometry?

I'm going to post this image and I want to know what it makes you think of:

To briefly explain it, this is my attempt of categorizing human intelligence with a geometrical diagram.

At the core of all experience, the thing that is required by all other knowledge yet can exist completely independent of it, is the phenomena of consciousness or the sense of "being" itself. Which is the small, innermost circle. And it is still an obvious scientific mystery.

Outside of that I have "love and light," "study of transcendence," and "study of information." You can make of those what you will, but I am referring to transcendental patterns/energies/archetypes (love/coherence/unity -- which all move towards higher integration of understanding and awareness of being), a concept equivalent to "zen" in Zen Buddhism (which is the transcendence itself), and the technical study of logic and reasoning itself (which becomes a self-referencing system itself, or else arbitrary, depending on your conclusions when you transcend it
), respectively.

Once outside of the understanding of what it means to understand, you have all the more mundane studies: geometry and mathematics, natural/physical/engineering sciences, artistic studies, body-awareness study (yoga, meditation, tactile imaging, etc.), etc. The number and classification of these is ultimately completely arbitrary imo, I just divided them up as most convenient to my own personal understanding, which is obviously very limited as I am human. In actuality all of these studies are some sort of gradient and all flow into each other.

The "modifier" is a reminder that knowledge and awareness are constantly changing, and that to stagnate your growth and education is ultimately to die. So everything within the diagram can and will be modified with time, to allow a greater organization and understanding of increasingly available information.

I try to use this diagram as a personal reminder to where my knowledge is lacking and what I need to pay more attention to, because all of the outer circles branch potentially infinitely into more trivial and detailed analyses, geometry/mathematics into trigonometry, fractals, etc.; psychology into Jungian analysis, Freudian analysis, Maslow's theories, Pavlov, etc.

Great thread, btw.
The really nitty-gritty stuff in analytical psychology, like these schemas and the very make-up of all of our thoughts, opened a completely different world to me. Hofstadter's G.E.B., Robert Anton Wilson's Prometheus Rising and Quantum Psychology broke it down for me, and I highly recommend those 3 books as there are so many ideas in them I would never be able to completely express myself. I'm sure there are other books as well.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by bsbray11]

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

Interesting and thanks for the input. I will have to ponder what you posted. But, what do you think of the contention that schemas can also make us at times even subconciously *with out us really knowing* ignore information that lies outside our existing schemata?

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

I agree completely. I have seen it countless times myself, have seen the studies showing where reinforcing "mental territory" against a perceived opposition (new ideas) results in increased endorphin flow that appears addictive (ie Hannity, Colmes, O'Reilly, etc. are all endorphin junkies that more than enjoy arguing), and have read Carl Jung discuss how the biggest problem with self-interpretation of dreams is that we consciously block out our biggest subconscious issues because they are too threatening to our conscious sense of self and identity, to even be brought up and considered consciously by the same.

For me personally, when an idea bothers me, I have grown to become obsessed with it until I am fulling accepting of it and it does not bother me anymore, because I know there is obviously some painful truth to it or else it would not be bothering me. So in effect this willful ignorance can be turned into a very valuable tool when you are aware that you are illogically brushing things aside out of fear or an unwillingness to accept certain things in life, and aware that this function of your mind is a limitation to be aware of and overcome.

For example when I read a conspiracy theory that bothers me, that I don't want to believe, since this is mainly a conspiracy forum, then I know that I am going to have to go off and reflect on a few things. I know it for a fact. Because I can read things about reptilian shape-shifters all day and the idea does not even bother me in the least. I can't tell you why, and it obviously isn't proof either way of their existence, but the fact that the idea does not strike a dissonant chord with me intuitively, I find, is a good indicator that there is really nothing for me to worry about, since our subconscious faculties are so much more powerful than our conscious ones (we subconsciously remember all sorts of things we can't remember consciously and can dig up so many memories under hypnosis or in heightened states of awareness, etc.). When I read an idea that angers me, or otherwise upsets me emotionally, then I know that there is a serious conflict between my current opinions and what my intuition is telling me, because my intuition/subconscious is effectively conflicting with my ego and sense of conscious identity. Or else there would not be the internal conflict that is my emotional unbalance. So it's a very, very good indicator imo.

It may sound schizo, but your mind is full of all kinds of opposing forces, the push-pull between survival, sex, will, compassion, expression, understanding and love for all creation, though "you" are ultimately only your sense of awareness, not your body, and can orchestrate all of these things in your mind and body coherently if you are able to step back, find your reigns, and keep careful watch over what you are thinking and why you are thinking it.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by bsbray11]

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:51 PM
reply to post by bsbray11

Definantly a plausible explanation. My intrepretation is slightly different though, which most likely explains the gap between mine and your beliefs. When I read threads about reptoid alien shapeshifters and the like it doesn't bother me as well, as it sounds more fiction than factual to me and I will pay it no mind. Which I believe may just maybe the crux, if a CT sounds closer to what I view as possible it will bug me and I will check into it, not to mention throw me off into a whole "what-if" trip of speculation. But I do still at least try to keep an open/neutral mind don't know if I am sucessful or not to be competely honest. But of course admittingly that is not any measure of true factuality.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 04:48 PM
Also a great deal of my research reaches a point at which, least from what I can tell *ESPECIALLY with CTs*, where what you deem as true is based on who you choose to listen to and believe.

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
what you deem as true is based on who you choose to listen to and believe

I try to avoid having to trust anybody as much as possible. I would much sooner say I don't know something, that data is missing, before I will take anybody's word on something.

On the other hand, I do have some faith in documents that are produced as part of standard procedure, so long as there is no reason to believe standard procedure was not compromised. For example, the following memos are regarding the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building, and detail 2nd and 3rd bombs being found inside the building and being removed undetonated:

A civilian affadavit claims one of the unexploded bombs removed from the federal building was attached to a gas pipeline:

That is about the closest I will come to taking someone's word for something, and taking it for granted. Besides that, it either has to be reproducible or otherwise demonstrable (as per basic tenets of science), or else the data is incomplete and/or missing. And that's the simple way I look at it. Not much differently than a court would. It's obvious we weren't told the whole truth about the OKC bombing because there was never an investigation into why live bombs were being stored in a public building (which is illegal) where a children's daycare was also located. So there is some kind of "duck" here, but like I said, I can't tell you much more about it because the data is lacking. But I certainly don't put trust into anyone to determine my opinions; I do it myself based on the data I am looking at, holes and all.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by bsbray11

Yes, documents can be good. If you trust the people who wrote them. And don't miss anything. Case in point:

But please note, this is off topic and I'd prefer to avoid it.

What you got to remember is has been proven that there are times we will subconciously ignore information that does not fit our exist schemas. It doesn't even register.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
What you got to remember is has been proven that there are times we will subconciously ignore information that does not fit our exist schemas.

Why do you feel as though I have ever forgotten that? Hmmmmm?

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:06 AM
Ok let me throw something out here that‘s been nudging my brain on a regular basis.
Note: It‘s not a *finished* throaty by any means, but, one I‘m presenting for debate and discussion.

I do, to some extent believe in the theory of schema and I’d like to take it a step further.

Right down to the very base of us all = our cell memory.

We’re learning more and more each day about DNA - how one little cell from anywhere on our bodies can recreate another *us* - how cells migrate when we’re being formed and some might migrate to areas and become brain cells, another cell to our elbows.
In other words, we’re all there in each cell - that means memory too.

Now take it a step farther.

The cells in a woman's ovaries.

She’s born with them.

So like an unbroken umbilicus that strings back to the very first woman - those very *first cells* are there, in us, and, all the memory in between. Let me repeat - And all the memory in between.

Think about it.

When I was born, I had my ovaries already in place, which means I came from an egg from my mother, who came from an egg from her mother which in turn... Ok, you get the idea.

What that means is, I am the first woman, in some respect. - all women are - in some respect and from there to here is millenniums of memory. Right there in my cells at my center.


How does this apply to schema, or, is it schema at it’s very best - it’s very creation?

We’ve people and animals that present the world with an excellence never seen before.

Have they, somehow, tapped into their cell memory, tapped into and drawn on the schema of all those before them?

I think so.

I got to thinking about this way back from my first riding instructor Sally Swift.

She frequently told me - “To ride dressage with even a shadow of perfection we need more than one lifetime.” (And then went on to tell me never to quit trying).

Anyway, I thought about this theory over and over again.

And it led me to the belief that the *Greats* (not just confined to humans) - they somehow *tap* into their cell memory.

They don’t start their life on the bottom rung of the schema ladder, but, the top, from the lifetime before them, the top rung as that life knew it, then they added excellence, rung by rung, for the next life that comes after.

(Which would explain many peoples accounts of a belief in being reincarnated).

So, am I (we) an END product of the schema of the original woman __# (however many) generations removed??? (The child is the mother of the daughter, the child is the father of the man)...

Why some of us, who’ve stayed true to the schema before them, continue to evolve into higher beings with greater abilities, insights, capabilities, etc, and those who *break* the schema of their ancestors, turn away from the schema in their cell memory, (or never learn to tap into it) never to achieve anything but basic existence with no *enlightenment*?


new topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in