Formation of the Self that Thrives on Misperception

[hard science]

When the conscious views something

[sakoz]

Excuse my 'myopia' but I 'zero/focus' on your phrases, "perception is not real' and "from perception to experience". ( I agree )
What do you believe about believing?
You wrote; " We can't focus and un-focus". Do I misinterpret you? There are many instances of persons focusing so intently, they are oblivious of anything else, until they un-focus.
"Formation of the Self.....etc.." Implies that self is itself a artifact; not innate at birth. ( We are born conscious; I regard consciousness as the 'natural Self", it must be present at birth.)
The second self, the formed/artifact, can't be formed until we learn language and so have concepts from which we form one; some people form multiple ones, I think one's enough.

[sakoz]

Yes,I read too quickly, I didn't include your phrase, "from evolution to conditioning". (excellant).
My question: "What do you believe about believing?" can be answered apart from your post. Just by what you wrote, I would like to know 'what you believe about believing?'
("Parts" of what you wrote are not new to me as they might be to other readers.  )

" Where is man going to find evolution?'  Within. Each of us are the "vanguard"; "tendril" of evolution. We "debased" our role. (I believe by misusing language; which is 'correctable'; to get back 'on course' to "higher order" evolution, etc.

[sakoz]

Thanks for answering my question; ( What Do Believe About Believing?) I may use that question as the title of a thread.

Very interesting title you might use. I recently read the book, "The Folly of Fools" The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life:.
I was hoping to find a chapter or a paragraph about my interest in self-deception when we believe some of our though-images are real. He did not 'touch on that subject'.
I wrote to the author about my ideas about that kind of self-deception, it never occurred to him. He wrote back he needs time to think about it. He said he does not,know what he believes about believing. That's why it occurred to me to ask more people that question.
I found the book interesting and you might too.
I'm intrigued by your title;  "The Ultimate Deception Detection Science". ( Many people would have to look up who's Paul Ekman? Me too will soon as i post this.

Ah, just looked up Paul Ekman, he wrote the book; "Telling Lies"; never heard of it but will look at it.

[sakoz]

In #4, your first two sentences "stop me in my tracks". "Belief is what causes conscious to form." " You can't believe what you perceive."
As I see it; 'believing requires content' and consciousness witnesses content; whether the content is believed or not.
"Belief is what causes conscious to form". I see just the reverse, consciousness forms the thoughts that are believed or not believed. "
" You can't believe what you perceive. " Is that admonition/recommendation? Believing what we perceive, or rather reacting to perceptions is what we all do, including animals.
Humans can  "counterfeit" perceptions,- when done unwittingly/unrecognize doing so is the 'ultimate self-deception'. The 'root' of emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior, mistakes, stress, burn-out, etc.
So I'm looking forward to your "Detection Science",  that's why I came to this site back in February of 2011. (Hope you deliver:) )

[sakoz]

hard science:  We'll see if your 'work' paralles mine or differs. Mine is based on perception and believing. "All creatures are responsive to perceptions". (irrefutable).
Humans, by "believing', can 'counterfeit perceptions'. (boon and bane; depending if recognized and how used).
How do you change the status of a mental image? "Believing" makes thought-images referents in and of themselves. Believing as alchemy, reification, pseudo transformation, idolatry of mental images. Believing makes our thought-images SEEM real as a perception to be reacted to as per "The Law of Perception". "All creatures are responsive to perceptions".
Remembering a "bad" experience, seems like a current perception, and so is involuntarily reacted to as such, relived.
Just as we shift perspective when we look at the Necker Cube, we shift from proxy to referent, when perceiving some thought-image believed real.
The past can only be relived/reexperienced if the remembered images are "believed" real, our amygdala reacts to current perceptionss, even if pseduo/counterfeit.
The "Law of Perception" is not violated.
We only know we believed 'after the fact'. ( I thought the gun was empty.) because we are conditioned to believe automatically. Therefore the act of believing occurs before recognition. Similar to Benjamin Libets work; he recognized; "An act is (subliminally) initiated BEFORE we decide to perform  it." ( We're already doing it before we recognize what we're doing.)

Can you relate to the following statement: " I have some *horrendous* memories that (want) to function like Pavlovs bell."
I can't describe what it's like while thinking, really 'getting into it' and suddenly recognize; "I'm reacting to the images I'm entertaining/manipulating." What a relief it is to recognize what one is doing.

[sakoz]

hard science: You wrote; "Sorry to say, but your work manifests the illusion......".  Do you believe what you write/wrote? ( The kettle calling the pot black ).
My work is about debunking the most widespread, pernicious illusion, which is, mistakenly believing some thought-images are real, (making proxy referent; reification).
That "Grand Illusion" causes emotional suffering, dysfunctional behavior,  mistakes, stress, etc. 'You'-yourself use thoughts, are you beyond experiencing the illusion I refer to?
Believing is 'equating'.  Do you believe what 'you' write/wrote?
( See my post; "Can't see the Forest for the Trees? (Shift to a higher perspective)   ( Do you think I could write what I do from/at lower level, where the illusion is 'in full swing"? Only from the "higher perspective" can the illusion be seen, 'come up' and see for yourself.)
Spiders do not get caught in the web they themselves weave; but we are, often, victims of our own 'unrecognized' subterfuges.

[sakoz]

Let me abstract the phrase you wrote: " I long ago transcended thinking". (TRANSCENDED THOUGHTS; I emphasize that witnessing perspective). That's not unique to you, but is still relatively rare in the populace. I believe that will be the next "pardigm shift" ;  it's not  the next step in evolution, because' believing some thought-images are real' is a mistake, as much of a mistake as was believing that the earth was flat. ( Human error, not a evolutionary  'mistake').

You believe what you wrote. When you use language, you are subject to the "rules of usage". 'Language' is a artifact, but acting like you believe it was inherent at birth, makes it difficult to transcend thoughts produced via language. We 'construct' a self-concept/'ego' from thought and then believe we are who we think we are, that also makes it difficult to transcend that construct. Let's communicate from that 'transcended, witnessing perspective' and demonstrate/model for those readers who have not yet "shifted/transcended" perspective to a higher level.

You wrote; ( note how you just react to the criticism.....)' My 'ego' is gulty as charged; egos are compelled to react thus. If you had been at 'higher, witnessing perspective' you would show compassion instead of criticism; again I repeat,- 'the kettle calling the pot black.' You may have 'transcended your thinking' but apparently not your ego. My 'ego' finds your ego "abrasive", I 'm sure you will say "ditto".  If this is how we show readers how we interact having  'transcended thought'; why should they bother? Their egos are on a par with ours already.
The only contact we have is via words on our computer screens. That means we react to our own interpretations of what we perceive on the screens. "The 'tail' wagging the dog." The 'tail' being 'thoughts'.

[sakoz]

Interesting  (to me)