Hi Immm... catching up,

"Immortalist" yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:df339437-b674-4a33-91e3-d47a7fa8dc07@a18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 8, 1:50 am, "Sean" now.com.au> wrote:

This sounds reasonable.

S: THX, i can be when i choose to be. Other times there's always a good
reason for my unreasonablness. :-0

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

SEAN: Diabetes, kidney failure, and heart disease leading to significant
lower rates of longevity are a major problem for the Aboriginal people here
in australia. So there's some anecdotal but widespread current examples of
the savanna principle. Yet is that because of their poverty and poor diet,
or more a reeflection of their longterm genetics struggling to cope with
such a massive change in under 100 years?

As to self serving biases, and the evolutionary theories around that, well I
wouldn't necessarily see that as the same thing as self-delusion. The words
sound the same conceptually, but i feel the actuality of these are a
distinct psychology.

We all think/feel/hope we are right. If we didn;t the race would have died
out long ago.

And usually we are, given the information.knowledge and skills we may have
had at that time. In hindsight we can maybe see where we lacked the "right
info" but that doesn't mean that we ourselves were "wrong". This is why
"truth" is variable and depends on one's perspective in the current moment.

Now, imho, that a lot different than standing up for our own self-interests,
in the example of the trial about the car accident. Which i think is a bad
and simplisitic example, that doesn't have much relevance to the theory it
is supposed to support.

Where self-delusion plays a part, isn;t "after the event" of wanting be seen
as being more right, but in the present being consciously unable to see
things right in front of our eyes ... be it an awareness of something
physical, or conceptual about a situation. and it regards people who are
successful, intelligent, generally emotionally sound and functional in
society .... it's a more common trait however in people who emotionally
invest their own value with that of a broader group, to an extreme degree.
eg fanatics of all kinds be they religious, athiest, scientific, political,
or racial.

At least that's how I see it.

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.

Sean:

Yes I understand that's how you see things, and believe it to be so. I
respect that, it's a valid opinion. And I know that you are one who has
spent a lot of time considering this by looking at some very hard core
research. It can be compelling that's for sure, especially as so much focus
by scientice has been on studing the activities of the brain the last 50
years as technology has improved.

And yet here we are. I expect I could offer up any number of examples that I
feel would negate such a view, at least any degree of certainity. But I also
know that you have probably heard or read about much before, and discounted
it.

I could ask, how do you know that your brain and it;s molecular activities
aren't deluding you, and that you got it wrong? :-)

Or I could ask, if there is in fact, a distinct difference and yet a
harmony, between the brain functions and your *mind* that is not a physical
one, then could studing the brain's physical characteristics and activities
alone, ever prove either of us was correct, or more correct?

I appreciate your rational and scientific approach Imm. , more than others,
yet wonder have you ever heard of remote viewing type things? Or looked into
reports from people who have used LSD?

How does a brain work out and come to know exactly what someone close to
them is doing 300 miles away, and the other confirms what one just
"saw/knew" was actually 100%% spot on and true, a few days later? Just one
example of many hundreds I could list from personal direct experience, many
I've even forgotten. ;-)

If that happened to you, can you tell me how you'd rationalise that as being
nothing more than the chemical molecular activities of your brain? Because I
just can't follow how you could and still be in the bounds of logic. [ not
criticising, just questioning, and not looking for an argument either ]

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.
---------------------------------

Sean:
Ok, I have no problem that all this is true, it is complicated.

But can you, or any scientist clearly show how a memory is actually filed,
where it is filed, what it looks like in as much how that memory appears and
functions in the brain differently than another memory?

Can they point to it and say yes, that is where that memory is located, and
this is how the person retrieved and now it is located "here" in their
conscious thinking apparatusd for use after being "recalled"?

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