On Sep 8, 1:50 am, "Sean"
now.com.au> wrote:> "Immortalist"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> Interesting but do you think this ability is learned, instinctual, or
>> a bit of both?
>
> Both. Like eating. Keep it in balance and it works well. In all things
> extremes of experience tend to create extremes of naturally balanced inner
> activity.
>
This sounds reasonable.
>> Could such denial have been selected for and how would
>> that make the ideas of many pop psychologies attempts to eliminate all
>> states of denial.
>
> I think that's an exageration Imm. to say "all". It's about self-awareness,
> the pop psychologists as you call them may simply be suggesting to "be
> aware" of potential extremes in your own life. Only you can decide what's
> functional and working for you. Some, most don't care, and therefore such
> suggestions are moot. Others ... well for whatever reason such things are
> important to them. That's their choice, and they happen to have the same
> brain biology as everyone else, basically.
>
I agree I should not have case all psychologists as trying to
eliminate all denial. I suppose I am feeling this out to see if I can
compare it to the self-biases of social psychology and then find some
relation to evolutionary psychology. Then tease out a "paleolithic
prescription" an idea that compares a healthy aspect in primitive
society 50,000 or more years ago, how it conflicts with modern society
and then an appropriate response like diet when it come to the easy
availability of sugar that was harder to get back when.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna_principle
>> Maybe in emergency situations the brain has a way to
>> force us to focus on what is necessary to survive in the midst of over-
>> powering activities in other parts of the brain.
>
> Sure . and all brains work that way. and as i said before, one's own
> experiences affects them to different degrees. But the answers won't be
> found in the brain itself, it;s just a tool. No different than a kidney, but
> has a different role to play.
>
I disagree, since I favor the theory that everything I am and
experience is a direct result of the activities of the brain. If you
proposing some form of spirit dualism or something our conversation
may get strange. I believe that this denial is particular activities
of the brain and its unusual molecular properties when combined.
>
>
>> I was reading
>> McCrones, Going inside, about 500 pages of everything going on in the
>> brain during one or to moments, and the researchers with scanners have
>> fount the parts that cut off vase areas of the brain in the forward
>> cone of activities, I think in the front of the Amygdala; Temporal
>> Tip, Nucleus Accumbens; the Intersection of Intentions & Interruptions
>
>> Chapter 10 - Of Sub-cortical Bottlenecks
>> - The Thalamus as Sensory Input Bottleneck & It's Top Down Controls
>> - Basal Ganglia as Output Bottleneck & Control of Unthinking Habits
>> - Basal Ganglia as Center of the Web of Crosstraffic
>> - Hormones, Neurtransmitters, Dopamine & The Sprinkler Systems
>> - As the Recorder of Trials & Errors & The Most Active Circuitry
>> - As Player Piano Robotically Produces Same Run of Notes, Sought For &
>> Surprising
>
>> Chapter 11 - The Brain's Forking Pathway
>> - Orientation Response, Sought For & Surprise; Mismatch & Off
>> Orientation
>> - Interruption Handling Pathways, Brain Stem
>> - Amygdala; Temporal Tip, Motor-Planning of Feelings, Salience, Inputs
>> - Nucleus Accumbens; Crossroads for Brains Planning & Acting
>> - Nucleus Accumbens; Intersection & Snapshot of Intentions &
>> Interruptions
>> - Cingulate Cortex; Bottleneck of High/Low Areas, Awareness Focusing
>> - Frontal Cortex Holds Ideas & Cingulate Shapes Up & Adjusts Interrupt
>> - Hippocampus; Catching Core of Moment, Cingulate Loads, Directing
>> Anticipations
>> - Systems View of Consciousness & Evolution of Focused State of
>> Response
>
>
> Sure, lots of info .... and how can anyone be conscious of all this
> activity? They can't. That's why there is a concious mind and a sub-concious
> mind. But in the area of volitional behaviours, the sub-conscious can over
> power the concious. Look up "engrams" , look up OCD and so on.
>
I have only read the book three times and find it easy to imagine just
how information flows around the brain, that is when I concentrate and
that aspect of it. Otherwise I agree that basic explanations may be
appropriate till everyone can understand just how the activities of
the brain are these experiences. As for research, especially with many
new discoveries from scanner movies of all activities in the brain,
could provide some help, as medical science and technology has and
can. Someone from a couple hundred years ago might say the same thing
about what we consider basic explainations since much of what goes for
common knoweldge would be complex science to them.
> Look, we are all "self-delusional" in some form or other. It's real, the
> question is how self-delusional are you prepared to accept for yourself?
If there is some instinctual component, however much this component
can be influenced by learning, people may vary in how easy it is to
deal with it. I was just reading this article about fat, "Maybe you
CAN blame being fat on your genes. But there's a way to overcome that
family history — just get three to four hours of moderate activity a
day."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26611180/
> That's where the power is, that's where the free will is, that's where the
> awareness comes into it. Up to you ...... and the brain will adapt
> accordingly. The brain is affected after , it isn't the cause. YOU are the
> cause, you choose your behaviour to survive in your culture, family and
> society.
Wait, I believe that all I am is identical to the activities of the
brain, so how could the change in the brain come after?
> Sometimes this learned beahviour gets to a poiunt where it no
> longer works for the individual. But that's a value judgement ... and so
> one's deeper values comes into play here. Those that don;t give a shit, well
> they don't really care if they are self-deluded because they cannot see that
> they are, and will therefore not bother to look.
>
> Catch 22 --- but a non self-deluded and self aware person can see it a mile
> away and recognise it for what it is. How the brain functions has zip to do
> with it, imho. Cheers sean
>
I disagree since the best evidence lends creadence to the idea that we
are the activities of our brains.
> ps good questions though, that's for sure.
