On Autobiographical Memory, Semantic Memory, and "Free Will"

I've come to a conclusion regarding my autobiographical memory, which can perhaps be extrapolated to a general sense: I have little or no control over what my mind has stored as memories, if I perceive a more random pattern and/or variably related to my tastes and desires. For example, regarding my desire to preserve certain lived moments, which I also believe is a common desire. And the equally common frustration of realizing that, in reality, our minds don't consult us to know what we'd like to keep as memories. I also need to emphasize that I've never made an effort to direct my mind to store what I'd like and erase or deprioritize what I don't want to keep as memories. However, perhaps the visceral feeling that there isn't even a minimal possibility of establishing this control may have contributed to never attempting this type of mental exercise, as it's more of a theoretical extrapolation than a true one. But what seems more like an extrapolation, at least partially true, is that this level of passivity we exhibit regarding our autobiographical memory can also be considered feasible regarding our semantic memory. I say partially because, a priori, it seems we exhibit a greater capacity for control, and not just for storing information—that is, for being able to direct our cognitive abilities based on what we've memorized as techniques or learning. It seems... Or, it could be that this perception is more of a subjective impression, a "wishful thinking" or positive thinking, than a true fact. It could be that we simply follow predetermined tendencies, and for many of us, this happens completely unconsciously, made as if they were legitimate decisions and not simply an extreme conformity to our own nature. Even regarding what appear to be specific details seemingly related more to our personalities than to our cognitive abilities—for example, my interest in the humanities, and especially geography, which I began to display in my second childhood, and which also developed or confirmed itself as a true vocation—which would not be simply an interest that arose randomly early in my life, but a reflection of more intrinsic aspects of my psycho-cognitive profile: the constitutive morphology of my brain and hormonal patterns, for example. In other words, I'm trying to say that no one becomes interested in certain topics without underlying factors, more intrinsic to their own biology, and this may mean that we also lack full control over the direction our intelligence takes, through a more direct route, by semantic memory. I see in myself, simultaneously, this illusory impression of cognitive self-control and a perception of a lack of choice, if I really didn't consciously or voluntarily decide to like geography and dislike math. For it to be simply a matter of choice, theoretically, upon exposure to these disciplines, I should have demonstrated similar levels of learning in both and, therefore, decided on one of them. Even so, this still doesn't mean that, in this scenario, there would be a real possibility of choice, especially since this attraction we display to our intellectual or other interests, again, never appears "out of nowhere," but based on our own cognitive, psychological, hormonal characteristics... Another personal example: if, since early adulthood, I have come to enjoy psychology and philosophy (the latter more like an active content creator), this is also due to my own characteristics, such as a cognitive profile more inclined toward linguistic abilities and a heightened self-awareness that induces a high frequency of reflective thoughts, even with unflattering aspects, such as a greater narcissistic tendency. For I observe that there was no antecedent in the environment I lived in as a child that would have led me to like geography and dislike math. And even in cases where it exists or existed, a factor external to the individual does not have the power to profoundly change him without a prior basis within himself or his biology that could make this change possible. In these cases, therefore, it would be more of a coincidence or even a factor that merely reinforced or served as an influential stimulus for the emergence of a preexisting potential, returning to my defense of biological determinism, in which no pattern or change in behavior, or development, that we exhibit, occurs without a predisposition or prior basis. It may sound redundant and disappointing, but that is what I intend to say, i have noticed on this topic, primarily by myself.

The evolution of a species is the evolution of a matrix and the archaic-epigenetic variables that turn off the alternate reality sense of geniuses and wises

Genius among others (predominant) virtuosities tend to express himself fundamentally by their individuality.

The development of a species also constitutes development / enhancement of a mental centric culture, i.e., natural emphasizing / mechanically its own existential perspectives instead of reality itself or surrounding it. In other words, all species have a high latent inhibition when they met instinctively concentrated in their own natural way of life, interpreting the world in accordance with their respective  perceptive potential.

All forms of life have their respective matrix (instinctive cultures), ie the idiosyncratic and limited range of their minds regarding the perception of reality that surrounds us. Therefore, the evolution of a species reverberate both in the evolution of a matrix, secure, full of certainties retained its perceptive potential and not in relation to perceptual absolute, maximum degree of perception. And this process obviously tends to give firstly at collective level. That is, the macro-scale, even humans, all species evolve by this orchestrated manner as was visually exemplified above.

The human species is unique because of its extreme evolutionary capacity, comparatively speaking, that is, his intelligence. The defining characteristic / separates humanity is  amplified self consciousness, or delayed potential instinctive response. Between thinking and acting, we can reflect our thoughts and change our actions. But most of our species remains subdued by macroevolution or 'evolution of the masses''. We belong to the masses, we are their shape and their movement. We are, on average, hybrids with conscious and sub/inconscious will, which is not by reflective thought, but by instinct. In micro-scale experience, we, as individuals, are the bottom of the phenomenological hierarchy of evolution and / or adaptation. We received the sub / or unconsciously, all evolutionary guidelines, and this proves partially that the  complete free will is an illusion. We are overwhelmed. We are involuntary heirs, products, fruits. And we reflect with great realism our natural dispositions to mass behavior.

But not all humans are synchronized toward the anthropocentric world, our natural matrix, where perhaps many if not all human behavior can be predicted with great accuracy margin.

The sense of 'individuality', caused by changes of epigenetic nature, even during the formation of the fetus, or even, as in the conception of life, has a key role in many of the most powerful phenomena of the human mind, as the genius and wisdom.

Again with the held literary metaphor of the classic '' Brave New World '', where we can see represented clearly the differences between the more cognitively intelligent human types regarding those who are the most intellectually smart, respectively, the types '' alpha and beta '', and the perceptual / existential outliers.
The mental capacity of the alpha and beta types, is mainly cognitive nature, that is manifested based on the potential for seizing / learning tasks that are designed to support the civilizations where they live.

The mental capacity of outliers / perceptual existential outsiders, is based primarily on critical-analytical thinking or perception, relating closely with the wisdom, or the basis for all kinds of cognition that characterize human mental diversity.

Perceptive / existential outliers/outsiders, because of their epigenetic nature, is very likely to inherit various biological defects, which together with high capacity critical and analytical thinking, will make them more disconnected from the collective trance and orchestrated that is the human matrix, anthropocentrism, which diversifies in various cultural expressions wherever the human animal is living.

The filter of the reality of this type is virtually nonexistent, making him prolific in his ability to perceive truisms or trample details that go unnoticed by the common people and are often identified as' creative insight ''. They see the reality, in fact, while much of the people, including alpha and beta types, the most cognitively intelligent, tend to see personalized versions (which will be in accordance with its bio-cognitive class or subgroup) of reality .


The alternative sense of reality which produces all types of mass behavior, or behavior induced by bio-cognitive similarities, will disconnected in more wandering minds in all its organic composition, precisely because of these mutations more than make them transcend rule and be able to see it in a privileged perspective. The relationship between genius, among others virtuosity and mental disorders is significant, especially when we are dealing with existential-perceptual genius, because it is a burden, a lot to see, understand a lot more than others. Moreover, the essential / fundamental existential doubt, that terrifies us all, because whe are naturally aware of it, will be made even more realistic for most intellectually prodigious minds, with the place / common product melancholy.

The righteous are realistic, individual (and not necessarily individualistic), honest and / or sincere


... And most of his insights are derived from the fact that they can see as well. In other words, most human evolutionary transgression is not to lock himself inside a bio-cultural bubble centric, but precisely to burst any '' alternative reality '' and begin by observing and living on site all the phenomenology that involve ourselves, and submitting ourselves to your whims.

We all have mental or thought and action that will be constant patterns. As I've talked superficially in earlier texts, the reactions may be largely instinctive, emotional '' or '' rational (usually, we are mostly reactive hybrid, but will tend to be usually unilateral responses / emphasized for one of three types) .

Sincerity and honesty are not exactly the same thing, because while the sincerity manifests itself without the need for an empathetic approach, honesty will be made irreducibly through thinking about the other, the shared instinct / reflected (or life guard's instinct yourself and the next) and sophisticated.

However, the sincere will be more likely to understand the reality of what the honest, or one that has a disposition / natural / behavioral gift for this kind of reaction. The wise among other virtuous tend to be both.


A '' simple '' perception of reality can make you more creative and wise, realize that the '' simple '' act of begin by impersonal truth however balanced / harmonic way, it consists of a differential that qualitatively separates the spectrum of virtuosity and other human exceptionalities from collective / common landscape, orchestrated, predictable, binary and adaptively psychotic, those who despise reality / truth or can not understand it.