Answering the critics. Back to basics.

“Is there anything sacred or secretive or mystical or metaphysical or supra/super natural here about conscious behaviors (as some one recently raised objections to such physical allusions to sacred consciousness, or was it sacred behaviors?)?”

Reply:

To the extent that only a living entity is capable of ‘conscious behaviors’, one may ask the very same question about ‘life’ in general or in particular to the role our human species play in defining/explaining the what, when, where of a ‘living’ entity. The very first thing to keep in mind is the narrator’s resources to communicate what life and consciousness are. The only credible one on historical record, for good or for bad, is the seriously limited (perceptual/conceptual resolution capacity) human being operating from his/her circumstantial vital space on our biosphere as it continuously evolves into a different existential reality. We can then choose to describe/explain the smallest constituent micro particle or the largest cosmological structural/functional aggregate of the smallest physical particles. We have just concurred that such smallest particle must be physical (have mass or its energy equivalent) and consequently can only ‘describe’ the sense-phenomenal ontology of aggregates; anything smaller needs to be ‘explained’ epistemologically. This brings the first cognitive unsolvable issue when we ask what is the absolute truthful dimension of the smallest physical particle

when we subdivide any size aggregate? Can we call it a ‘point’ and posit it’s dimensionless extension? Quare! A similar argument can be suggested for the other extreme dimensional macro cosmological realm. Enter the brain’s conceptual invention of ‘infinities’ beyond the absolute truth cognitive reach of our human species. So, why not be practical and consolidate first our knowledge of the sense-phenomenal macro ontological mesoscopic existential structures/functions of measurable and/or observed objects/events as the scientific methodological substrate to sustain our conjectures/speculations about our quotidian existence in our biosphere. We have agreed that this requires a solid biophysical chemistry background as successfully argued for a ‘biodark chemistry’ model of phenomenal reality. Unfortunately this model, like all others, cannot ever reach an absolute cognitive, truthful and reliable knowledge grasp of either the micro subatomic or the macro cosmological manifolds. Consequently any claim for exclusivity of truth, whether the physicality of scientific methodology or the theosophy-based models are necessarily incomplete unless all falsifiable and justifiable variables are considered and incorporated as a singularity hybrid unit we call ‘Epistemontology’ which reunites all consistent and reliable elements of biological, psycho-social human (BPS) experience. This brain dynamics anthropogenic model provides a respectable entry for all organized JudeoChrIslamic efforts for a continued survival of our human species (survival imperative) living under constitutional democracies in health, happiness and convivial cooperation. It recognizes the vestigial remains of primitive emotions in early childhood, a remainder of our animal origins (See Piaget’s “The Development of Thought.”, Viking Press)  Along the guidelines of these premises this author has proposed a model to reconcile these unavoidable human emotions we share with other social subhuman species with a rational human living on our planet, a sine qua non for useful and creative adaptive solutions to germinate and guarantee a biopsychosocial harmony in defense of our species against potential environmental threats in a constantly changing environment. Accordingly we developed a sub-model conjecture identifying the source of cosmic radiation capable of stimulating the human brain’s premotor cortex baryonic dark matter and thus inducing  translational genetic changes in human RNA/DNA resulting in the production of the appropriate protective enzymes in anticipation of forthcoming threatening environmental influences on human life. See Vol. VII, “A Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness”, a Multidisciplinary BioPsychoSocial (BPS) Model. Penguin Press/Trafford Publications, Inc. In case you didn’t notice, this ‘rational’ interpretation was not meant to substitute the most important congregation of JudeoChrIslamic organized religions to collectively help with each other needs but instead to add another dimension to their religious beliefs. Either emotional or rational exclusive explanations are incomplete to deal with mesoscopic existential reality.    Dr.d

 

From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:47 AM
To: MindBrain MindBrain
Cc: thoretical_physics yahoogroups
Subject: [Bulk] RE: [Bulk] [Mind and Brain] Consciousness & the Cults

 

 

[Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.]
If subhuman species are unable to engage in a self induced introspective state of establishing the difference between self and others and communicate the experience symbolically or in body language, then they are only aware of the environ and adaptively respond by reflexes  governed by neurohormones.
Unconscious behaviors: Purely inherited responses
subconscious [behaviors]: Produced from information acquired/learned from the environment.
[Conscious Behaviors]: Self induced and introspective. Recognize the difference between self and others and able to communicate by symbols and/or language.
[Philip Benjamin]
Is there anything sacred or secretive or mystical or metaphysical or supra/super natural here about conscious behaviors (as some one recently raised objections to such physical allusions to sacred consciousness, or was it sacred behaviors?)?
What is self-induced?  Same as brain induced? If not what is self? Where is it? Any size or shape, smell or sign? If both are the same why befuddle “brain processes” with “self-processes”?
Self and others? All electrons “look” the same. So are all subatomic particles at all levels– atomic, molecular, cellular including genetic components. How on earth should there be either any difference at all between self and others, or any electron/nucleon/quarks mechanism to recognize any difference anywhere?
Best regards

Philip Benjamin
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
CC: theoretical_physics@yahoogroups.com; physical_sciences@yahoogroups.com
From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:56:38 -0400
Subject: RE: [Bulk] [Mind and Brain] Consciousness & the Cults

Back to basics. IMHO, it will expedite our discussions if we will all agree on the linguistic use of some terms like e.g., consciousness, awareness, unconscious, subconscious, etc. We are trapped in a Merry Go Round repetition, rephrasing and saying nothing new other than advancing our own models. For starters, iff we agree that subhuman species are unable to engage in a self induced introspective state of establishing the difference between self and others and communicate the experience symbolically or in body language, then they are only aware of the sense-phenomenal presence of an object or event and adaptively respond reflexly, as dictated by neurohormonal control of responses. These responses come in two flavors: inherited and environmentally acquired. If exclusively inherited (e.g., Chomsky’s primitive language ‘organ’) then the behavior is unconscious. If information is acquired/learned from the environment then the combination can be termed subconscious. Consequent to organic maturity ( as per accepted models of early childhood development) we eventually distinguish self from other and are able to communicate/narrate linguistically the results of our interactions with our vital biosphere. It all leads to maintain our species alive, healthy, happy and convivially cooperating to compensate for our perceptual/conceptual limitations vis a vis other species. Because of these species limitations we must consider falsifiable ontological measurements/observations as the basis for an epistemological representation of falsifiable/justifiable seen and unseen elements of our mesoscopic reality as a potential hybrid singularity when dealing with spatio-temporal realities in a changing world.  Dr.d

 

From: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 2:24 PM
To: MindBrain MindBrain
Cc: thoretical_physics yahoogroups; PhysicalSciences PhysicalSciences
Subject: [Bulk] [Mind and Brain] Consciousness & the Cults

 

 

  1. Dialectical Materialism (A. Spirkin)  The Marxist view. Highlights are not in the original https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch03.html
    “As the highest level of human mental activity, consciousness is one of the basic concepts of philosophy, psychology and sociology”.
    2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
    First published Fri Jun 18, 2004; substantive revision Tue Jan 14, 2014
    Consciousness is an aspect of mind.

    Consciousness as we know it today is a relatively recent historical development that arose sometime after the Homeric era (Jaynes 1974).
    There was no word of ancient Greek that corresponds to “consciousness” (Wilkes 1984, 1988, 1995).
    The stage Hamlet in 1600 already saw his world and self with profoundly modern eyes.
    Only by the early modern era in the seventeenth century, consciousness came full center in thinking about the mind, as essential or definitive of the mental.
    René Descartes defined thought (pensée) in terms of self-awareness. In the Principles of Philosophy (1640) he wrote,

‘Thought’ (‘pensée’) is all that of which we are conscious as operating in us [Note the adjective form].

Psychology Today  https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201303/what-is-consciousness
Kristian Marlow on Mar 01, 2013 in The Superhuman Mind
“Consciousness is something it’s like to experience the color red, to taste chocolate, to feel happy or sad…. Philosophers call this phenomenology.”
[Philip Benjamin]
“Consciousness as the ground of being” is an entirely New Age religious concept. It refers to the Tao Yin/Yang or the Vedic and Upanishad Brahman/Cosmos described as the “ground of being”.  Atman is the “self” or Atman part of Brahman. It was first popularized by Swami Vivekananda in the Parliament of Religions, in Chicago in 1893.
This is what the various cults including the “academedia” knowingly or unknowingly mean by consciousness and the occultist scientistsy, especially physicists, are determined to bring it into science as a principle.
 

__._,_.___

Posted by: Philip Benjamin <medinuclear@hotmail.com>

Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)

Visit Your Group

 

.

__,_._,___

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Leave a comment

A Critical Analysis of Real Time Existential Reality in our Vital Biosphere.*

 

Thanks RKS for bringing into focus several necessary constitutive components of quotidian existential reality as experienced/narrated in our real time spatial ecosystem environment (‘behavioral phenotype’). It is clear that the historical account of such narrative is a function of the individualized narrators’ ‘discretional personality’ BioPsychoSocial interactions in her/his changing environment. We sorely need to bring all of these causal variables into one truthful and coherent whole comprehensive model of quotidian reality. In your previous comments on ‘how the brain processes what we see’, you seem to prioritize the influence of pre-motor ‘higher brain areas’ ( ‘top down’, left hemispheric) brain influence over the more primitive sense phenomenal input from right hemispheric receptors. Your argument is based on : “..there are ten times as many neurons innovating the early visual processing areas from higher brain areas than from the retina as measured in the cat. The ratio in humans is probably even higher in favour of top-down.” This conclusion brings two possible ‘modus operandi’ in the human decision-making process: 1) inherited primitive inner language Chomskian processor, as modified by evolving, acquired environmental sense-phenomenal inputs into left hemispheric higher brain areas or 2) an independent from sense phenomenal input evolution of a ‘higher brain’ plan to control behavioral phenotypes, top-down. You do not discuss the source of such ‘intelligent design’ information about the spontaneous, self sustained complexity and order of any negentropic ‘life’ protocol.
Intuitive logic dictates that the most elementary/indivisible physical micro particles can aggregate (e.,g., spin coupling, etc.) to form macro structures within the sensory threshold of human sensory/instrumental detection. If we extrapolate to the putative first micro particle, we cannot ascertain its causal origin other than saying that scientific methodology cannot describe/explain its spontaneous, self-sustained evolution into the complex order we call life. That’s why the ‘idealistic’ exclusivity claims of physicalist models of existential reality are incomplete and must incorporate other necessary -albeit insufficient- BioPsychoSocial ‘realism’ elements into the mix. Consequently any first object or event must first bring information into the right brain hemisphere before a left hemisphere premotor cortex adaptively responds to keep human species viable in a changing environment. See Volume VII, “Neurophilosophy of Consciousness”, The unexpected transition from idealism to realism. Penguin Books/Trafford Publishing, Inc.

 

However, if we seriously take into consideration the imperative survival of the human species to counter its perceptual/conceptual limitations to compete for survival with better environmentally adapted subhuman species, then we must focus into historical human narratives, as provided by JudeoChrIslamic organized theosophies for additional explanations about the survival role emotions and rationality play when making sense about the physical -albeit invisible- falsifiable interactions between the seen and the unseen micro subatomic and macro cosmological manifolds, i.e., how to incorporate in our present existence the past experiences to plan a future defense against potential threats to human survival, where a dynamic living biological brain records, codifies, modifies past psychosocial experiences in the present to create future strategies of species collective survival against predictable future threats to survival. Any BioPsychoSocial model of species survival must reckon with all these concurrent variables as a unit hybrid model where the falsifiable/reliable aspects the measurable, the symbolic linguistic representation of the ‘seen’ and the confirmed speculations about the ‘unseen’ become useful tools stay alive, healthy, happy and enjoying convivial collective cooperation with others.                                                     An example of such theoretical epistemontological brainstorm that follows, has been for many years our own contribution to integrate the sense phenomenal (ontological) with the mathematical logic symbolic representations of speculative conjectures (epistemological) as a single hybrid unit singularity to improve on the environmental conditions that we experience in our biosphere.

 

In a nutshell we quote from “Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.”, Vol. IV, Speculations and Conjectures.”

 

“Quantum Receptor Architecture. The final structure/function of this quantum receptor complex must, above all, sustain quantum coherence at human body (brain) temperature, become accessible to measurable attempts at corroboration and become capable of falsifiable predictions. Being part and parcel of a more general biopsychosocial (BPS) neurophilosophical model of consciousness, it should harmonize with the model’s foundations on variations on a transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (TIQM) describing quantum interactions in terms of a standing wave formed by retarded (forward-in-time) and advanced (backward-intime) waves as explained in our Volume II. The original model was first proposed in 1986 by John G. Cramer. Our BPS model, being an ‘epistemontological hybrid approach, endorses the ‘anthropic principle’ and the emphasis on the mesoscopic level of laboratory and philosophical research. This should not be construed as discouraging whatever metaphysical physico-mathematical poem that opens new avenues for creative speculations. This sub-model on a ‘quantum receptor complex’ is an example. This is illustrated by our implied emphasis on a parallel computing approach in suggesting the presence of multiple processing elements simultaneously present in the quantum receptor complex to solve the problem of reciprocal transactional information transfer between man and that transfinity something that somehow guides and inspires our species to transcend the subhuman condition in conceptually building an ordered cosmos that defies the entropy laws of nature.” For more details see de la Sierra-Sheffer.net/* or Neurophilosophy of Consciousness

Neurophilosophy of Consciousness

Just another WordPress.com site

View on angelldls.wordpress… Preview by Yahoo

 

de la Sierra-Sheffer.net*

de la Sierra-Sheffer.net*

View on delaSierra-Sheffer.net Preview by Yahoo

 

 

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reconciling the immanent/pragmatic ‘now’ with transcendental but probable ‘tomorrow’.

Reconciling the immanent/pragmatic ‘now’ with the transcendental but probable ‘tomorrow’.

  • A critical analysis of statements by distinguished experts in neurophilosophy of consciousness.

    Statement 1: “Tolerance and empathy are not the same thing,” Twenge said. “Millennials believe that everyone can live their lives as they want to—thus, they are tolerant—but that doesn’t always extend to taking someone else’s perspective or feeling empathy.

    Statement 2: “Being conscious of SELF, requires the reality/existence of the SELF. Visible things/matter are made of visible particles. Invisible things/matter are made of invisible particles. Invisible particles come under the generic name of dark matter. If the SELF is real and invisible, SELF then must be made of dark matter.
    Reaction: Intuition suggests that the experience of ‘being conscious of self’ precedes the qualia of ’empathy’. If we admit the premise that an ‘inner language’ makes possible a conscious introspective dissociation narrative between our physical body self and a putative, virtual mind self (as represented by memory experiences -and encoded by neuronal networks in our physical brain-, then it is difficult to experience ‘tolerance’ for an object/event without a simultaneous qualia empathy, thus tolerance and empathy are functionally the same thing….unless you extend the critical analysis to provide justifiable exceptions! 
    Furthermore, if we also admit the premise that there is measurable fMRI evidence of non phenomenal/’invisible’ interpersonal communication, it is fair to say that the ‘self’ may well be just a convenient conceptualization evidencing the neuronal activity of a physical brain. This is not meant to exclude theoretical math probability calculus and Bayesian arguments that e.g. dark baryonic subatomic ‘wavicle radiation’ (neutrino?) influences  intra cellular RNA/DNA translation process as we published elsewhere. 
    As we have argued many times, in consideration of the human species intrinsic perceptual/conceptual cognitive limitations as the exclusive narrators of history, it is not necessary to invest exclusively on scientific methodology ontological measurements/observations (the ‘seen’) or philosophy’s epistemological conjectures (the ‘unseen’) when we can adopt an evolving ‘epistemontological’ hybrid model incorporating the best of both formulations that reconcile the immanent/pragmatic in our real time mesoscopic biosphere environment with the anticipated probabilities of the cosmological domain. This way our healthy physical brain dynamic activity will best realize the optimal mindscape strategy for protecting our biopsychosocial (BPS) needs in our changing existential reality.  Dr.d 
Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is language at the roots of life and conscious free will?

(cw) Then what do you mean by control all of nature if string THEORY has free will? Am I not part of nature?

 
The advantage of all these discussions is that one is challenged to search for the common denominator(s) connecting all the seemingly contradicting claims re: life and consciousness. The real challenge is to reconcile what appears ontologically and epistemologically counter intuitive, yet it seems entrenched in the historical human experience. Then, why not join the best experimentally testable perceptual evidence and the best conceptual probability logic that sentential/symbolic mathematical tools can muster into one hybrid ‘Epistemontological’ unit of existential reality. This approach will generate an infinity of probable models/ interpretations (MWI) for us to test and confirm/discard in a changing environment. Because of the well known resolution limitations of the human perceptual/conceptual cognitive tools, we will need to impose restrictions to eliminate micro subPlanckian and Cosmological infinities that escape linguistic tools apprehension. If we adopt this anthropocentric proposition, it should be easier to see how language communication (sentential, symbolic, geometrical/topologic, body language, mind reading, etc.) occupies center stage. This is so because we need to elaborate an inner living brain language of communication to distinguish the observer/narrator from others.
We should accordingly spend more time reconciling the apparent differences between the innate Universal Grammar of Noam Chomsky-Steven Pinker (see The Language Instinct, etc.) and the ‘language myth’  Sapir Whorf claimed as linguistic ‘relativity’ (See “The Language Myth”, Vyvyan Evans). We need to find out what is common to both abstract propositions. Individuals (humans & subhuman) form collectives as an united front in behalf of their biological survival imperative. Based on the combination of their subconscious Chomskian inheritance and their Sapir Whorf acquired resources each narrator of a mesoscopic existence perceive and conceptualize their early and late experiences in their turf/vital environment accordingly; thereby shaping up their individualized frame of references reality filters. Recent neurophysiological measurements from fMRI suggests both arguments in favor of both the innate and the acquired propositions. Which one is correct? The winner is the one whose predictive explanations become validated/confirmed by testable observations and\or measurements as supported by metaphysical logic, Occam’s razor and Bayesian arguments. If anyone wishes to contest this interpretation on a cognitive basis, I suggest reading first Piaget’s “The Development of Thought.”, etc. or “Altered Egos”, Todd E. Feinberg, (Oxford Press) a lucid account on how the living brain creates the subjective self (‘I’)
If Chomsky’s wishful thinking about a ‘single’ mutation in a human gene creating the characteristic structural/functional details of the vocal chords was incomplete, so is the argument about Neanderthals similar anatomy being able to develop a language. Human anterior-posterior pectoral anatomy, like mammalian birds, is not a guarantee of human unaided flights. Neanderthals have not left any historical accounts of their linguistic ability to speak, detailing the grammar, syntax structure, etc.. But, it is fair to say, the inherent proposition sustaining the existence of an human ‘inner language’ as the result of an introspective search into self that made possible the Fodor’s ‘language of thought’ spelling out the difference between ‘self and others’ is also incomplete. The overwhelming evidence considers all aspects of subhuman communication efforts as being reflexly generated as an exclusively subconscious, neuro-humoral control activity. You can find more at “A Treatise on  The Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” Penguin/Trafford Publishing, Inc.
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.    In Deltona, Florida.

 

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The sequence sensory conceptual creative critical thinking.

A previous participant most likely was quoting HELEN Blavatsky: “Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness”..IMHO Blavatsky set the guidelines for future development of brain dynamics even though she was not privy of the more recent technological information explosion sustained by experimental measurements, observations and metaphysical mathematical logic. She was not even aware of the posterior detailed anatomical brain structure descriptions of Ramon y Cajal.. When combined, what FOLLOWED was essentially a ‘filling up of the blanks’ of the details predicted by their general outlines of the future path to project into the future.

The alternative to critical THINKING – and by far superior – is creative thinking. (That gets mentioned in the middle of the argument but also gets swallowed up).

 

A proper philosophy of critical thinking starts from the basic tenet that the information content is a always a human linguistic narrative of perceptual objects/events in the vital environment of our immediate existential experiences in real space time. This initial step is mostly a function of the right hemispheric living brain. What follows is an immediate adaptive response, a reflex control (subconscious) to guarantee our biological integrity as a species, like any other advanced mammalian subhuman social species would do. The scientific literature is replete with the structure/function of objects and or events ontologically recorded in the ‘survival’ neuronal memory networks. As noted above, this information has to be linguistically transmitted to the rest of the cooperating collective. Thanks to the EXCLUSIVE ability of humans to use an ‘inner’ language we can engage the ‘tribe’ in a collective biopsychosocial effort to plan and execute efficient and appropriate adaptive responses in an evolving environment. But, as repeated, the historical narrator of existential reality has known sensory perceptual and linguistic conceptual limitation in the truthful identification of the potentially damaging stimulus, not always easy to frame into sentential or symbolic strategies to have a reliable ‘critical thinking’ tool. Enter the next step, the ‘creative thinking’ effort involving a probability of ocurrence calculus involving as well Bayesian considerations in metaphysical logic. This ‘representational’ effort generates many possible infinite solutions to any problem, the problem now at hand is to give priority to sense-phenomenal input information arriving the living brain as recorded in memories and common to all witnesses sharing the mesoscopic existential reality and assisted by the established scientific methodology (including thermodynamics!). To this falsifiable ontological information we now add epistemological cognitive predictions and conjectures subject to experimental or observational ocurrence. As anyone in the experimental sciences can tell you, the easiest/simplest explanation that works, is the best, a crude explanation of Occam’s razor. All things proportionally considered it is not realistically possible to exclude theosophy as a time-honored activity because, if for nothing else, there is a vast literature endorsing the existence in every human judgment of a dynamic frame of reference with its relevance reality filters as controlled by both reflex subconscious and freely willed conscious influences. So, whether Blavatsky’s imagination and reality flow in different direction in the mesoscopic world, the search for ultimate truthful causalities mandates a philosophical effort to regress to the hypothetical first unit mass sub-Planckian particle and their consequent aggregations to give us our mesoscopic reality we live and die for every day, per ‘secula seculorum’

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.  From Deltona, Florida. This Fall 2014

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The rationale behind religious services. Part two reply to a New Zealand scholar.

Dear Chris, we agree much more than you are able to discern when judging with your individualized framework filters on. When you say: “…You are right that religion brings people together….. Life IS immortal. Animals since the dawn of history have had to give their all to perpetuating their offspring, although the odds are often almost vanishing that a given offspring will survive and their own term is mortally limited. It is this will to life that has been an unbroken chain that got us all here to speculate ‘quotidian’ fantasies about reality….. exclusive reference to a gerrymandered conglomerate Judeo-Chrislamic religion, which doesn’t actually exist asa reality, is an insult to Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Jainsim, Taoism, Yazidism, Shintoism and every ethnic religion worldwide, all of which deserve as much respect as your somewhat jingoistic emphasis on monotheism, ..”  Chris, I couldn’t have said it better than that! Indeed life is immortal since the dawn of recorded history. We humans may consciously will death by holding our breath until we experience unconsciousness. But we also consistently experience genetic-driven recovery against our conscious will to the contrary. All recorded history before and after the JudeoChrIslamic experience is in agreement of this fact of life, not just human life as observed and recorded.

 

But just as true is the undeniable fact that “.. the entire evolutionary round of birth and death, of natural reproduction in forming the passage of the generations, as some sort of degraded ‘robotic’ lower survival mechanism to be rescued by religion..”, notwithstanding the superior environmental adaptability of other subhuman species. Why were our human species ‘chosen’ to keep on living as a leading survival species even we are so perceptually (ontologically) and conceptually (epistemologically) limited to the measurable realities of our living brain structural/functional realities? Why us? I am not limiting my model proposition to the known organized religions I happen to be familiar with. It applies as well to equivalent organized collectives as you suggest and I agree. To make a long story short, it has been established experimentally that collectives, such as those meeting inside a church, synagogue, mosque, civic center, etc. can communicate and reach a joint unified biopsychosocial effort and thus become more effective in the solution of a new or familiar issue affecting the collective then or anticipated. As I explained in my short essay.

 

Angell

 

 


Angel:
We humans may consciously will death by holding our breath until we experience unconsciousness. But we also consistently experience genetic-driven recovery against our conscious will to the contrary. All recorded history before and after the JudeoChrIslamic experience is in agreement of this fact of life, not just human life as observed and recorded.

Chris:
By saying “genetic driven” you are both failing to grasp how the natural universe solves the existential dilemma and at the same time trying to insert a theistic proposition without justification to fill it along traditional Christian lines.

 

It is rather OUR human interpretation of ‘how’ “the natural universe solves the existential dilemma”. My BPS model proposition is inclusive of, not just the JudeoChrIslamic organized religions but all their derivatives, even the so called materialistic ‘atheists’ because IMHO it is impossible not to believe (one’s own frame of reference about ongoing quotidian life and consciousness in our mesoscopic existential reality in our biospheric environment, including its built-in filters).

The fallacy is that “genetic driven” isn’t deterministic and gives rise to conscious sentient beings discovering their own existence and reproducing accordingly, and this means we aren’t as uniquely set apart by God as you imagine.

 

Your own proposition implying the occurrence of complexly/ordered, ‘deterministic’ and dynamic “conscious sentient beings” capable of an introspective self search IS  the natural result of spontaneous, self-sustaining evolution is, in itself, a religion of sorts because it invokes things like ‘emergence’ and is not amenable to experimental verification thus far. Chalmers has come the closest to an explanation.

 

All mammals have an insula, just as humans do. Although their brains (dolphins excepted) may not have as many folds, they still have the same complement of brain structures supporting experiential consciousness. The point about Attenborough’s tigress is that animals, as well as humans, intuitively experience the same existential dilemma you describe in a theistic justification. They have to solve the dilemma of mortal existence to care for their offspring knowing the fragility of life so that the passage of the generations is completed, even if their own personal quest is in vain.

 

As soon as there is a linguistic account/historical evidence of any subhuman species, including even Neanderthals, Bonomos or any advanced social species, we’d like to know, otherwise we have to rely on human’s incomplete version of the absolute truth, such as the Kantian ‘ding an sich’ or the Leibniz ‘Monadic’ proposition or their content equivalent. 

I have a great deal of sympathy about your loss of family members and I can well understand you turning to church communities for a sense of healing from the personal pain and angst that results from such tragedy. But we are trying to crack the cosmic egg here so let’s pursue the holy grail for a moment.

Yes humans have taken this to an extreme, having a minimally deterministic genetic endowment which allows for the emergence of culture and all the dimensions of science and religious notions as well as art and music and the intrigues of courtly love, mysticism and overwhelming experience of the mysterium tremendum, but we got here by biological evolution according to the laws of nature, not by God’s intervention to seek higher things.
Barring the occurrence of a demonstrable human genetic mutation, and considering its well establish resolution limitations (sense phenomenal ontology and conceptual epistemological) cognition, we have to rely on our species incomplete linguistic narrative of the probable truth. But one thing is clear, all things being considered (our relatively inferior adaptive potential to our vital biosphere environment  (vis a vis those of ants, roaches and other subhuman species), we remain the historical linguistic narrators of ‘life and consciousness’ of record. Ergo, intuitively, we may speculate that besides the extreme exclusivity claims of Skinnerian myopic ‘behaviorism’ or ‘Scientific Methodology’ there a metaphysical logic need to include an additional consistent, verifiable and falsifiable objects and/or events that sometimes are even ineffable but their predictions are verified and need to be integrated along with the required other two to for a new dynamic –exclusively human- unit reality we have called Epistemontological hybrid where the inherited ‘emotional’ subconscious, the environmentally acquired/learned and the theosophical influences on the dynamic living human brain become the new unit singularity. In other words, whereas the ‘biopsychosocial’ BPS satisfies the biological survival imperative common to ALL species, only the human species transcend and escapes the animal cage and becomes humanized with the resulting trans-generational  survival where all other species become history when their life cycle is completed. See “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness, a Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial (BPS) Model” Penguin/Trafford Publishing Inc.
Yes humans have a kind of leading edge on this because of the emergence of human culture, but it’s not “God ordained” and we certainly aren’t facing up to the quest of protecting the planet, despite the dominance of major proselytizing world religions. In fact the religions disable our capacity to take responsibility, by claiming we are flawed beings in much the same way you refer to genetic determinism. And they are desert religions which abuse the natural order and regard it as bestial to be discarded.

 

Indeed “humans have a kind of leading edge” but not because of any counterintuitive mystical ‘emergence’ as briefly explained above. The best explanation is the simplest one that is consistent, can sustain the cutting edge effects of an Occam razor and can ontologically describe the ‘seen’ and epistemologically explain the ‘unseen’ by providing many probable explanations based on measurements, observations and metaphysical logic probable explanations (Many World Interpretations) which, when their predictions are verified experimentally or mathematical logic, they need to be incorporated as evolving ‘truths’ in a changing environmental reality. Now humans can distinguish between self and others by an introspective incursion unto self and can improve on the vital environment they found according to their inherited and/or acquired resources to adopt the unimagined results of the technological information explosion allowing use to approximate a working understanding of the invisible but present micro subatomic and macro cosmological manifolds. This way we use past familiar memory experiences in the existential mesoscopic present to anticipate the probability of future threats to existence and plan accordingly as detailed/explained in the reference given above..

The key point is that the natural universe is facing this dilemma through experiential consciousness as we speak and it is this which makes the sacred web, not your habitual ideas of God. Yes life is a mortal tragedy, but short of trashing the planet’s viability, the passage of the generations is immortal.

Angel:
Why were our human species ‘chosen’ to keep on living as a leading survival species even we are so perceptually (ontologically) and conceptually (epistemologically) limited to the measurable realities of our living brain structural/functional realities?
 

Chris:
You are begging the question here again. You may be ontologically and epistemologically limited but that is your problem. Who says we are limited in this way? It’s just more Catholic original sin jargon of no scientific basis. You chant this kind of psychobabble, but it has no evidential basis.

Angel:
Why us? I am not limiting my model proposition to the known organized religions I happen to be familiar with. It
 APPLIES as well to equivalent organized collectives as you suggest and I agree. 

Chris:
I’m sure we have both read Teilhard de Chardin on the evolutionary emergence of Christ consciousness. I think we do both agree that the universe’s laws of nature have evolved interactively to a re-entry point where, at least on our planet, human consciousness has brought together the emergent properties of cosmic consciousness in biological brains in a way which enables the universe to ask the ultimate questions. I think this is a cosmological Sigma point, destined interactively in the cosmic origin, but this doesn’t mean it is, or was, an act of God, but rather that the whole thing is discovering itself-ourselves through the very process we are engaging. It is the biota that are achieving this with us caught up into the process as a climax species. Only by casting off God and setting the delusion free can we come to our full potential.

Angel:
To make a long story short, it has been established experimentally that collectives, such as those meeting inside a church, synagogue, mosque, civic center, etc. can communicate and reach a joint unified biopsychosocial effort and thus become more effective in the solution of a new or familiar issue affecting the collective then or anticipated. As I explained in my short
 ESSAY. 

Chris:
Yes but you haven’t completed the diabolical conclusion clearly spelled out in Richard Alexander’s “Biology of Morality”.Morality is simply a social dynamic which reduces intra-social strife to increase inter-social dominance leading ultimately to violent conflict. Religions are not just spirtual portals to our transcendence, they are grotesque PARASITIC and predatory social systems – a kind of social carcinoma.

The problem isn’t individual psychopathy, which admittedly does play a major part in expedient exploitation of the worlds resources, but institutional psychopathy inflated by religious delusions of grandeur. Religions are the source of the most genocidal psychopathic event both now and throughout world history.

 

Your statement implies that you are adopting Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract (humans are created good but society corrupts them). Anyone that has handled babies can give testimony to their very primitive un-developed behavior reminiscent of subhuman subconscious behavior controlled by reflex hormonally-induced responses to environmental familiar or new changes (right hemispheric stimulation) and how this gradually evolves with early development into an increasing participation of left hemisphere loci of measurable activity as the developing escapes the BPS stage s(he) shares with lower advanced social species as Chomsky/Pinsker described and starts emphasizing less the ‘emotional’ and developing (left hemispheric) ‘rational’ mode of response via an adopted language as detailed in the references given. It should be clear that the decision-making strategies are essentially individualized responses are influenced by both inherited and environmentally learned elements (subconscious state) during development. Impoverished environments during early stages of growth may cause a naturally intelligent potential to develop into an eventual  psychopath by consciously willed choice. As emphasized in my essay, this negative valence course may be reversed when influenced by a collective gathering environment  responding to new or familiar threats to their biopsychosocial adaptive equilibrium as detailed in the essay using modern fMRI technology measurements. If it fails it can be readily picked up in the brain recordings during a collective gathering. Behind the negative valence religious delusive feelings of grandeur you will always find an oligarchic minority trying to control the psycho-social behavioral outcomes during concerted responses.  Fortunately, during most religious assemblies of record there prevails a sense of collective synchronization of good will and, if for nothing else, they should be encouraged early on, always remembering that many good people living in impoverished environments had no choice but to survive to satisfy their basic needs. During religious/civic sessions understanding and compassionate forgiving is encouraged by activating the brain areas that correspond to that altruistic feeling. This is especially important to new generations –our future leaders- to undo the negative manipulations of oligarchies on the left (communist governments) or right (monopolistic capitalism) extremes of moderate behavior. Anecdotic accounts, such as the Islamic Republic Jihadists, the Sunny, Shiites, Kurds conundrum, etc., are just that and do not necessarily invalidate the measurement of many of all ages and social backgrounds as measured and recorded in the study cited in my essay. Meanwhile the conscious, good willed quest for truth in meaning and understanding in a changing environment will continue as a journey to approximate survival in good health, happiness and psychosocial collective cooperation..  

Actually small bands of people have always had to depend on one another through social rituals of belonging enforced by altruistic punishment. San Bushman life requires small bands keeping together by fellow feeling because single nuclear families cannot survive in the harsh terrain of the Kalahari.

All that happened when the large civic religions from Zeus and Marduk to your monotheistic complex got rolling, was larger more dominant religious societies that became world threatening in terms of wholesale genocidal war, and in our generation, a COMPLETE distraction from protecting the planet into global war and rumours of apocalyptic victory, with the Middle East tellingly split between Salafist and Shi’ite camps intent on destroying one another and all of us with them.

So the answer to your quest is that it is you, Angel, and all of us, not God, that is ‘chosen’ by evolutionary fate to lead our conscious quest for meaning, just as it is the tigress who does it out on the savannah for her offspring.

You won’t do this by writing tracts subtly implying we are just genetically determined beings except for the redemption of a hidden force which turns out to be nothing more than the Catholic deity celebrated in a cannabilistic Eucharist.

Some people never have the dubious fortune of having offspring. Others have family tragedies that challenge the meaning of life itself. Yet life has to go on to reach greater heights.The mortal coil is both a tragedy and yet at the same time our golden opportunity to experience this fabulous extraordinary universe and play a part in it’s conscious evolution.

For goodness sake don’t waste your own opportunity spouting all these tracts claiming we are helpless biopsychosocial genetically determined beings caught in the rat race of meaningless reproduction.

If there is the God in you, you need to let it free and just exist, as the tigress does. Smell the air and hear the tall grass blowing in the wind. It is your own bondage that makes you think that we are rescued only by a third party pulling us from our biological doom.

 

In Deltona, Florida  11/09/2014

 

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.

 

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Leave a comment

BioPsychoSocial Integration of Emotional and Rational Reality.

The survival of humankind depends on the survival of the JudeoChrIslamic rituals.
BioPsychoSocial integration of the emotional and rational components.

The ‘emotional’ elements in one’s quotidian life inside our vital mesoscopic environment is not very different to that of other competing sub human species inside our biosphere. It is to a large extent controlled by reflex activity at subconscious levels directed to guarantee/enforce the biological imperative of survival of the species. Thus we reproduce, stay healthy, happy and tend to help each other in social cooperative convivial behavior against new or anticipated familiar threats from a changing environment. Once we have completed our life cycle journey we become history. This limited existential reality we have called the biopsychosocial (BPS) equilibrium adaptation inside our environmental ecosystem. Well adapted species come and go as they execute their corresponding master structural/functional journey plan and arrive at their destination. But the human species continue their trans-generation presence notwithstanding their relatively poor adaptive resources when compared to other competing subhuman species. If not ‘why’, we should be able to explain ‘how’ does it happen? For starters, we have a historical record written exclusively by humans in different languages. The oldest records reveal how nature is ‘described’ based on perceptual sense-phenomenal experiences of objects and/or events such as smell, texture, color, sounds, etc. Even the most advanced social subhuman species could not match this particular evolutionary escape from BPS stage and become both a rational and emotional being! A qualitative jump! Now we can make ontological descriptions of the ‘seen’ and epistemological explanations of the ‘unseen’ beyond albeit their presence was consistent and witnessed by all! We have examined in detail the relevant aspects of life and consciousness and the fundamental role a human living dynamic brain plays in this cognitive escape from the BPS cage we share with other species. See “Treatise on the Neurophilosophy of Consciousness, a Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial (BPS) Model.” Trafford Publishing. Our discussion of the ‘rational’ element that follows will be a brief account of solid experimental evidence to reinforce our model strategy.
The ‘rational’ model element participation in the decision-making process is best illustrated by the discovery that the psychosocial feeling of rejection by our friends or family shares/activates the same brain neuronal networks as when experiencing physical pain. What is more relevant to this present discussion is that the collective empathy response /experience by those closer to you when participating in a religious ritual -whether inside a church, synagogue or a Muslim temple- is neurologically similar to the one grieving a loved one’s death, loss, or was socially rejected by his neighbors, peers, etc.! The neurological synchrony of feeling and purpose is what effectively triggers the congregation’s relief response in behalf of the suffering parishioner. What follows next is not about sickness, death or a romantic break up but focuses on social exclusion suffering in the first person or vicariously because of looks, economic worth, nationality, etc. Either way fMRI has recorded in both a simultaneous activation of the posterior insular cortex where physical painful sensory experiences are processed. Graphic pictures of anatomical location for the ‘anterior cingulate cortex’ and ‘insular cortex’are not provided but it is common knowledge its association with the human’s social interpersonal connectedness, homeostasis, emotions, perceptual motor control and introspective awareness of self and the subjective others.
On the negative side of this account positive subjective synchronized neuronal interconnectedness is that it does not apply to psychopath empathizing parish strangers as revealed by the fMRI data. The neural representation of empathic threat response in this case is lower, absent or reversed, it may even activate neuronal networks associated with pleasurable stimulation as recorded in the activation of the ventral striatum known to be involved in pleasurable experiences!! The message is clear, the more people participate in religious activities together they are satisfying the natural crave for companionship with friends and allies who neurologically bond together as a collective unit in purpose and a commitment to help each other! Unfortunately, psychopathic behavior is linked to the same insular cortex and neuronal networks associated with pain perception. This complex situation posits an unexpected test on the perplexed parishioners. St. Theresa of Calcutta reminds us not to make judgment before you know all the relevant behavioral facts; what if the affected subject is not consciously aware of his actions, as if subconsciously driven to behave he could not control. Is it better to forgive and be compassionate because he had no choices about his inherited genetic or acquired resources during his impoverished early childhood environment? They are usually very traumatized about their own pain, but –not by freely willed conscious choice insensitive to others negative social or physically painful experiences. There is growing evidence that loving kindness meditations as seen in collective prayer related activities can positively influence the structure/function activity of the brain’s insular cortex by neurologically enhancing a feeling of positive empathy. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/olympics-insula-gives-edge/ For more details on the rational aspects of the religious experience see: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201403/the-neuroscience-social-pain

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. In Deltona, Florida 10/20/2014

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Leave a comment

The practical ongoing human survival now & the ideal survival forever…

View Source

Statement: “The validity of this version of the ‘Design Argument” for God’s
>>existence depends essentially upon “watches, and worlds” being 
>>indistinguishable. Does that bother anyone else? That’s my question to 
>>the group.

Reaction: Of course it should bother any ‘objective’ human observer who honestly seeks for the closest description of sense phenomenal reality and an explanation of all beyond human sensory resolution, to an absolute, invariant reality. But we keep hopelessly in a cycle riding the special Merry Go Round of horse carriages where sometimes the carriage is either drawn by the horse (as in experiential phenomenal reality descriptions) or the horse is drawn by the carriage (as in probable and non testable, wishful thinking mathematical logic). And one keeps wondering how and when can the participants honestly and objectively agree on some basic premises (polymath dream?) and move forward to the next chapter of p
roviding new argument in defense of their respective specialty views on the very same sensory descriptive ontology and extrasensory explanatory epistemology we all witness in our midst. Then we respectfully share or learn, as the case may be. Is that so difficult to work as a group? With notably few exceptions, we keep being repetitious without providing new foundations in a most boring ride in the Merry Go Round….
Can we not agree on the anthropocentric premise that we, the perceptually/conceptually limited human beings are the exclusive historical narrators of our experience on our vital earth environment? That the very first historical account of ongoing, real time reality had to be sensory-experienced before it could be explained to self and others? Does that not lead to positing that a physical brain had to be previously in place such that distinguishable and important, life preserving experiences can be recorded as memories (incarnate), i.e., embodied, as neuron networks to be accessed (main ‘mind’ activity) when needed?. Because it is impossible for that first human experience to be communicated to self and others before it happens? Is it that difficult to conceive the communication media invariably reflects an individualized genetic and an acquired component that shapes your mindset frame of reference and sometimes may even cause cognitive dissidence when environmental reality evolves and affects your life experiences? I can continue on and on trying to move this discussion onto becoming a worthwhile learning experience for all.
The viral debate going on in practically all Christian assemblies everywhere exemplifies the slow but relentless doctrinal update where the new Jesuit Pope carries the baton. This is not a surprise because of the way Jesuits are trained under Augustinian tradition (“Seeing is believing”) and encouraging intellectual critical analytical biblical debates to reach a synthesis of both the ongoing pragmatic quotidian life now & the ideal trans-phenomenal reality we experience and conceptualize beyond the realm of our sensory resolution faculties to perceptually describe and communicate in our primitive language to self and others. .., from Leibniz (Monads) to Kant (Critique of Pure Reason) to Wittgenstein (The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein) to Chalmers (The Conscious Mind) to Fodor (Language of Thought), Chomsky (A New Synthesis of Language and Mind), Ledoux (The Emotional Brain, Synaptic Self) and few others. The very survival imperative of the human species, the exclusive historically-recorded narrators of the seen and the unseen and the sophisticated civilization (both the experimental information explosion and even the ineffable but consistent occurrences we all experience suggesting a theosophical manifold) may be at stake when we consider the relatively inferior adaptive capacity of humans when compared to other highly evolved Homo Sapiens (Bonobos, Neandarthals, etc. variety) subhuman social animals. We need to incorporate in a new hybrid synthesis unit both the ontologically verifiable physical brain neuronal networks plus the epistemologically mathematical logic calculus tool. The new unit of mesoscopic reality on our vital space-time earth environment,  we have called the Epistemontological Theory of Everything as detailed in many volumes and Treatise (The Neurophilosophy of Consciousness, a Multidisciplinary Biopsychosocial (BPS) Model). Trafford, Inc.
As I write this brief summary, all Catholic Services are celebrating ‘Corpus Christi’ describing the synthesis of the practical, ongoing, real time convergence of the emotional uneducated Peter and the rational sophisticated scholar Paul who both experienced the very same environmental reality from their respective individual perspective as dictated by their individualized inherited and learned experiences during early childhood and subsequently as adult Jesus followers. As adults they both had the necessity of deriving their speculative conjecture about an intelligent design by an invisible unknown entity to create such wondrous complex reality, that taken separately, each was a necessary but an insufficient entity capable of generating such ineffable and naturally improbable complexity. They called it God, the invisible Father. When you join the Trinity of the Father, the real life spokesperson Son (Jesus) and posit a unifying Holy Spirit, they now become necessary and sufficient to explain the invariant and the evolving aspects of human complex reality. It also makes possible for the literati to test the various options available to describe and explain our human experience now and forever, ‘per secula seculorum’.
In Deltona, Florida   Summer Solstice   2014
Angell
Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Questions and probable answers.

Once again, I have to give credit to X’s more objective perspective in reconciling Y’s extreme conservative ‘mind’ perspective with Z’s extreme liberal physical ‘brain’ views, both of which IMHO are necessary but by themselves not sufficient for a credible, falsifiable, justifiable theory of life and consciousness.in a real time/space, evolving and complex mesoscopic existential reality. A cognitive handle of life and consciousness has so many interacting complex variables that some must inevitably escape human phenomenological descriptive ontological characterization or resist being framed in consistent mathematical logic epistemological representations using symbolic or sentential language tools. Is is still debatable the human inherent cognitive limitations in the perceptual and conceptual domain of discourse will always deny us absolute certainty? Ergo, does it make sense to tentatively conclude that a hybrid -but evolving- Epistemontological singularity synthesis is the best compromise? Why settle for either an incomplete physicalist or theosophical model when both are necessary?

Is it still debatable that humans are the exclusive historical linguistic reporters of our existential reality in our vital earth biosphere? Is it still debatable that any complex structures/function -like the living- cannot spontaneously be initiated and sustained without an external, unfathomable source of energy? Yet, is it not self evident that there is nonetheless  a coherent and synchronized non random order beyond human predictable control at all levels of organization from the sub-Planckian to the cosmological manifolds? Why is there no big surprise there must be good experimental evidence there seems to be a collective global synchronization to preserve human lives now and always? Is it not convincing yet the experimental evidence on the role of the human amygdala to mediate neurohormonal emotional anticipation of probable threats to life or the cingulate cortex participation in analyzing complex situations of probable threat significance to life?
Is it still debatable that there must be an embodiment of a living, conscious human brain, preferably healthy, happy and convivial first and foremost before s(he) can provide reliable accounts of our biopsychosocial life in our vital environment? Is there still any doubt about the unavoidable emotional drive for human reproductive activity before any rational expressions become evident?
Finally, is it surprising to suspect that many probable threats to a biopsychosocial equilibrium still remain unsolvable by reason or facts and consequently this global synchrony of human collective intentional acts find its expression as organized community theosophies in churches, synagogues or mosques. 
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq.    

Deltona, Fl. 5/4/2014

Posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness | Leave a comment

An Involuntary Short Tour of Dante’s Psychosocial Legal Inferno

An Involuntary Short Tour of Dante’s Psychosocial Legal Inferno. A Dantesque Not So Divine Comedy of Institutionalized Intimidation.

No, this experience did not happen more than 800 years ago in 13th. Century Florence, Italy, it happened a few days ago in Volusia County, Florida’s Penitentiary System. The Guelfs and the Ghibellines factions were not competing for control, it was the Southern Anglo Saxons and the Latinos vying for control of indigenous AmerIndians and a legal recent brain drain migratory inflow into North American Hispanic Florida followed by transient illegal migrant workers sustained by taxpayers as planned and sponsored by their enslaving rich master/handlers, not the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

Instead it is all about an 82 years old retired academic professional who with his writings was trying to raise the level of public discourse about biopsychosocial (BPS) ongoing evolution of complexity in our vital space time environment as a function of our perceptually/conceptually limited dynamic brain capacity to determine and linguistically report on the absolute truth content.

The short tour to the Dantesque psychopathology inferno started when I was driving my new lease car home from an evening activity at DeBary, Florida Veterans of Foreign War (VFW) carrying some purchased food. When I turned into my street nobody was in sight. I was a few blocks and ½ a mile away along my curvy, meandering boulevard from my house where my two daughters were waiting for me. I noticed the blinking bright lights of a police patrol car illuminating the road as I stopped into a drive way wondering what happened. The big cop asked me to get out of the car with an authoritative voice and said I was not supposed to use the long lights at night in that boulevard. I noticed his patrol car was blocking traffic and illuminating the same street with his intense bright lights. I laughed and asked the cop, since when was the use of my protective long lights a punishable act? He then called other patrols and improvised a traffic-stopping show. He began by asking stereotyping questions about salary (I was driving a new car), nationality, etc. When I questioned the relevance of the questions to the alleged offense he got frustrated and began searching inside my pockets by placing my hands behind me and using painfully tight handcuffs. He pulled my chain off my neck and pulled from my shirt an Air Force officer pin and other emblems. I feared physical aggression and called my daughters a few blocks away to get me because I thought they would also take my car. When daughters showed up, the cop panicked because my jacket was stained with blood freely flowing from my pinched skin at the end of the handcuffs and elsewhere. The cop was upset when he asked me to put my hands over my head to continue the search. I smiled and replied that I would but I was not a contortionist. In his frustration he asked me to get a sobriety test and I said it was unrelated to the expressed violation and unnecessary because I did not abuse any controlled substances, was coherent and tolerating their physical abuse. He let my daughters take the leased car home, threw me inside their patrol car with handcuffs still  behind my body. Then he drove me to prison without my medications and bleeding into the patrol car floor from the tight handcuffs. We arrived at the Volusia County prison.

The rest was one nightmarish abuse after another for the ‘Ess-holes’ (as they called arrested people not intimidated by their abuses in the penitentiary). They were told about my peaceful compliance with any reasonable request made and justified. I promised that this police brutality ordeal will be made available for education purposes at my Word Press Blog. I had to experience this saga in my own flesh to believe it was happening in 2014 U.S.A.!

Once being pushed around into the maze of corridors and tiny cubicles to isolate the ‘Essholes’ inside the Volusia County Penitentiary amid a sordid display of screaming, yelling background I chose to be calm.

Having taken account for all relevant variables at play, it is fair to say that I expected a worse situation, bad as it was indeed. The prisoners were more in numbers and of a more aggressive demeanor and better informed about their rights under our Constitutional democracy when compared to other foreign jurisdictions. The patrol car cop’s more sophisticated torture by intimidation was more consciously free willed and evil. Inside the prison system you find human robots following the psycho-social protocol but the staff was more concerned about their full time secured employment position than their non government counterparts. As expected, most women were more understanding and humane in their behavior than their male brutes counterparts unable to think outside the box and acting reflexly with no idea about the importance of a presumption of innocence and due process. Was that Skinnerian protocol justified once security against hidden weapons was attained?

I noticed that what impressed the handcuffed prisoners the most was the proportionality between the physical psychopathology display and the trivia of most alleged offenses that could have been resolved in a less intimidating environment. One man was arrested and imprisoned for driving a family tricycle scooter without a license in his name. Another was awakened from his sleep while looking for someone else believed to be inside the house. No warrant for an arrest or search ever shown to the owner who demanded explanations. Another was caught urinating against an electric pole because he couldn’t hold it until he got home. All of them ended up handcuffed, finger printed and photographed with a prison uniform and made public for everyone to see in the Internet for their alleged ‘heinous misdemeanor crime’, like yours truly for driving safely home with my long lights on!

Once the patrol cop brings an alleged ‘offender’ the institutionalized protocol is to coerce the accused of the benefits of a bonded settlement by admission of guilt same day unless you want to continue the experiences of being taken all day from one cage to another without your medications, sleepy, tired, still bleeding after being denied paramedic help and surrounded by some truly serious offenders.

The Machiavellian strategy that the successfully intimidating ends justify the means in ALL cases brought by the patrol cop, real or trumped up, is worrisome. An institutionalized validation of biased and/or trumped up charges in a Constitutional democracy in this 21st. Century should not be tolerated.

This April Spring time 2014 in Deltona, Florida Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. .  .. .. ….

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment