Controlling the ‘self-deceptive’ syndrome.

In a nutshell, ‘self deception’ feelings during an ongoing decision-making process, had been a source of personal confusion for quite some time now thanks to modern scientific technology and mathematical logic sophistications. It is no longer as threatening even though it remains as enigmatic. We have abundantly analyzed elsewhere how the human brain consciously acquires and maintains a belief ‘a’ tailored to the individual’s present and past existential circumstances while simultaneously being consciously aware of good evidence to the contrary in co-existing belief ‘b’.
Belief ‘a’ responds to the exigent circumstances of sheer species survival imperatives shared with other subhuman species that subconsciously also act to stay alive, experience the neuro-hormone driven psychic state of emotional feelings while being assisted by the corresponding good feeling of being socially accepted to share a cooperative labor with others in the community. This we had coined as the adaptive biopsychosocial (bps) equilibrium strategy for species biological survival. In an evolving reality these beliefs are expected to be modified. How much? Belief ‘a’, which many, including Libet, et al, thought we had no conscious control of, has been shown by fMRI to be the result of a very conscious contrivance to survive, at all costs, and why not? Do we have choices? Yes we humans do. Here we part with the beloved subhumans sharing our vital chunk of biospheric turf and develop our belief ‘b’.
Belief ‘b’ evolves in the direction and intensity that a given subjects’ intellectual resources, experiences, interests, etc. permit. It is the meditative Sancho Panza of Don Quijote’s meditations that exists in all of us, constantly warning and confusing us about dangers that maybe are there or not! Belief ‘a’ adaptively responds to existential phenomenological contingencies along bps guidelines, a problem solver. Belief ‘b’ reflects on the same contingency for effective solutions today AND the ‘day after tomorrow’. Beyond the perceptual phenomenological input could there be additional, non-conventional sources of information input? Quare. We believe so and have elaborated on the conceptual mathematical logic evidence sustaining our model poem. It is fair to say that sometimes we wished we had less freely willed introspective access to plan ‘a’ or ‘b’ in response to ongoing, real space time contingencies. Poor Sancho Panza having to listen to himself and Don Quixote at the same time before deciding the next step! See “Meditaciones del Quijote”. I can only relate about how self-deception may represent a challenge if not an outright obstacle to self-knowledge and moral development. It is not easy to feel a stranger to yourself, consciously blind to your own moral failings while struggling to survive. Read on YOGI below and you’ll get to know an embellished, fictional version of REAL experiences lived in blood and flesh.
When you meditate deep like only a ‘yogi’ can you discover unexpected relations, not just the mathematical logic formulation best fitting your brain storm but the unconventional beauty in form and the dramatic simplification for the prepared analyst in search of the truths they hopefully contain. The Don Quijote in Sancho Panza’s brain can do more than just battle fictional windmills, he can enjoy abstract beauty and reach transfinity while in search for…what?
Who can ignore 17th century Isaac Newton, who dare contrive a symbolic calculus representation to frame a credible explanation about the motions of the planets around the sun! Or the deceptively simple Pythagorean formulation a^2 + b^2 = c^2 that so brilliantly amalgamates geometry and numbers! See [5 Seriously Mind-Boggling Math Facts]. Need I mention Einstein ‘alter ego’ as captured in his formulas for special relativity, which embodies a whole new fancy way of looking at the cosmological multiverse we conceptualize, an entirely new vision of a dynamical evolving phenomenological ‘reality?’ and our relationship to it. Suddenly reality is you and your brain capacity to explain it! To make a long story short I will give you what I consider the biggest simplification about the most complex conceptualization of the sensory experience that our ‘alter ego’ is capable of, under plan ‘b’. Imagine Von Euler’s alter ego genius representing the sensory sphere of our common experience as, e.g., a mathematical tetrahedron shape of four triangles, six edges (E) and four vertices (V) and faces (F). Applying pressure to its surface (F) will make it evolve into a sphere such that V – E + F = 2 will always be true of any other combination of faces, edges and vertices. Notice that any geometry, e.g., polygon, is a sphere in potency as it sequentially diminishes its size, as discussed above. This is a consistent but mind boggling fact that in such a deceptively simple formulation explains so much about our metaphysical reality. What reality is true? The ego existence or the superego dream if they both are consciously available? Are we one or the other? We submit ‘a’ and ‘b’ are both dynamically embedded into each other as a unit whole either one prevailing in control depending of the quality and nature of our inherited and acquired lifetime experiences.
What is puzzling is what determines the controlling influence in the conscious human choice of alternative (b), especially against survival self interest that fuels altruistic behaviors? What is the source of righteousness that guides Jesus sacrificial acts of Jesus of Nazarene, Mother Theresa of Calcutta, Mahatma Ghandi, Dalai Lama and other historical prophets? What is important is IMHO, the exemplary life they lived under adversity, when they had the conscious choice of a more comfortable alternative ‘a’. The easiest explanation to justify this historical fact is to invoke the operation of a reciprocal information transfer process between a putative source in transfinity space time coordinates and a premotor neocortex. This represents the metaphysical logic equivalent of theosophical, agnostic, materialistic physical Gods. But, ultimately, within the context of an existential reality brain dynamics model, it doesn’t matter much for the vast majority of our species; if they do not exist, we will invent them if it helps to maintain ourselves inside the bps norms of cooperative psychosocial conviviality.
This is an excerpt taken from the book “Neurophilosophy of Consciousness, Vol. V and YOGI.” Published by Trafford, Inc. of Penguin Books.
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. In Deltona, Florida Winter 2012


About Dr.d

See CV, family & publications at:
This entry was posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Controlling the ‘self-deceptive’ syndrome.

  1. Pingback: Epistemontological Synthesis of Psychopathological States, Part II | Neurophilosophy of Consciousness

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s