And what does our subconscious mind do? As Dr. Bruce Lipton explains :. And this is how your thoughts create your reality. What happens next? You dwell and fall into a trap of self-pity. As we repeat thought patterns, they become subconscious behavioural patterns that drive our life.
You create new patterns that create a new reality. And in order for you to do this, you need to understand that you are not your thoughts, you are the thoughts you give power and attention to— you are the thinker.
Your thoughts are nothing more than an endless stream of ideas running through your mind. They are powerless until you decide to cling onto one on them , which then trickle into a chain.
This very act makes you the thinker of your thoughts. In other words, imagine your mind to be a farm and your thoughts to be the seeds. You can plant either good seeds roses or bad seeds poison ivy. Whichever seed you choose to focus on and plant, it will then grow and multiply. And the same happens in your mind—whichever thought you choose to focus on and plant, it will then grow and multiply. Do you want your mind to flourish into a garden of roses or a farm of poison?
Increase your awareness by observing your emotions and body reactions. Be more conscious of what thoughts you give your attention to. The next time you feel a strong emotion, bring your awareness to it by pausing and asking yourself:. Why am I feeling this way? This can help us figure out why we're feeling what we're feeling and drive us back to the root cause of these feelings: the thoughts we first gave our attention to.
As author and master trainer of Neurolinguistic Programming Michael Neill explains:. Once we agree to give our attention to a thought, it becomes more and more real to us over time and has more and more power over out life. It triggers an emotion, which then triggers a body reaction and drives us to act in a certain way. This thought pattern creates a mental circuit in our brain, and as we repeat it, it becomes a subconscious behavioural pattern that runs on automation.
This is how your thoughts shape your reality. And this is why all the great minds and thinkers agree that:. The quality of our thoughts creates the quality of our life. As a result, she develops a condition known as global aphasia, meaning she can no longer produce or understand phrases and sentences. Many writers and philosophers have drawn a strong connection between language and thought. Do neuroscientists agree? Not quite. Neuroimaging evidence has revealed a specialized set of regions within the human brain that respond strongly and selectively to language.
Thus, vast portions of our everyday cognitive experiences appear to be unrelated to language per se. Turns out, patients with global aphasia can solve arithmetic problems, reason about intentions of others, and engage in complex causal reasoning tasks.
Some of them play chess in their spare time. Some even engage in creative tasks — a composer Vissarion Shebalin continued to write music even after a stroke that left him severely aphasic. Some readers might find these results surprising, given that their own thoughts seem to be tied to language so closely.
If you find yourself in that category, I have a surprise for you — research has established that not everybody has inner speech experiences. Therefore, even inner speech does not appear to be necessary for thought. Have we solved the mystery then? If I also had to interpret whether he is interpreting his own mental state correctly, then that would make my task impossible.
It is far simpler to assume that he knows his own mind as, generally, he does. The illusion of immediacy has the advantage of enabling us to understand others with much greater speed and probably with little or no loss of reliability. If I had to figure out to what extent others are reliable interpreters of themselves, then that would make things much more complicated and slow. It would take a great deal more energy and interpretive work to understand the intentions and mental states of others.
And then it is the same heuristic transparency-of-mind assumption that makes my own thoughts seem transparently available to me. There is a great deal of experimental evidence from normal subjects, especially of their readiness to falsely, but unknowingly, fabricate facts or memories to fill in for lost ones.
Moreover, if introspection were fundamentally different from reading the minds of others, one would expect there to be disorders in which only one capacity was damaged but not the other. Autism spectrum disorders, for example, are not only associated with limited access to the thoughts of others but also with a restricted understanding of oneself.
There seems to be only a single mind-reading mechanism on which we depend both internally and in our social relations. The price we pay is that we believe subjectively that we are possessed of far greater certainty about our attitudes than we actually have. We believe that if we are in mental state X, it is the same as being in that state. As soon as I believe I am hungry, I am. Once I believe I am happy, I am. But that is not really the case.
It is a trick of the mind that makes us equate the act of thinking one has a thought with the thought itself. What might be the alternative? What should we do about it , if only we could? Well, in theory, we would have to distinguish between an experiential state itself on the one hand and our judgment or belief underlying this experience on the other hand. There are rare instances when we succeed in doing so: for example, when I feel nervous or irritated but suddenly realize that I am actually hungry and need to eat.
That would be one way of saying it. It is astonishingly difficult to maintain this kind of distanced view of oneself. Brain researchers put a lot of effort into figuring out the neural correlates of consciousness, the NCC.
Will this endeavor ever be successful? I think we already know a lot about how and where working memory is represented in the brain. Our philosophical concepts of what consciousness actually is are much more informed by empirical work than they were even a few decades ago. Whether we can ever close the gap between subjective experiences and neurophysiological processes that produce them is still a matter of dispute. I would rather say that consciousness is not what we generally think it is.
It is not direct awareness of our inner world of thoughts and judgments but a highly inferential process that only gives us the impression of immediacy. We can still have free will and be responsible for our actions. Conscious and unconscious are not separate spheres; they operate in tandem. We are not simply puppets manipulated by our unconscious thoughts, because obviously, conscious reflection does have effects on our behavior.
It interacts with and is fueled by implicit processes.
0コメント