11 ms·

Head-Trapped – Descartes, Dawkins, Hobbes, Marx, Mill, Darwin

28 points by k1m 3y ago

thx-2718 3y ago
"This is why the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was so wrong when he wrote: ‘We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.’ (Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’, preface to 1976 edition, Oxford University Press, 1989, p.v) We are not ‘blindly programmed’ at all. We are aware of the thoughts, passions and instinctual programming that drive us." Author lost me there when they failed to understand what Dawkins is saying here and insufficiently refuting Dawkins (probably due to lack of understanding it). Observationally we have become aware of our base instincts over time (through science) however we're pretty much at their whim. We don't choose or control or have any real influence other than following our programming as to what we find sexually attractive or not.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  I don't even think that this person should be disagreeing with the Dawkins quote, because to the extent that I can find a thesis, Dawkins' blind robot vehicles support it. If you realize that "we" are observers of our thoughts, and not necessarily thinkers, it's weird to overvalue the worth of introspection. Introspection is a liar. It seems like the beginning of this thing is proposing some sort of therapeutic dualism, where you can have a thought that you object to (why do you object to it?), and assign that thought to your body through another thought (the realization that the thought is not me), and peacefully live thought-free. Now it's not a mind-body dualism, but a thought-metathought dualism that is even less likely. The reason these people were and are great thinkers is because of their comfort in abstraction and objectivity, and their disdain for introspection. You can't transcend thinking by thinking harder.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    If omniscience is possible, then why not transcendence?
    - 3rdthoughtsmay 3y ago
      Cos...some wanted it 'unstuffed', and some for real P-: Or in German: "Einige wollten 'Gott' nicht bedingen und andere wollten Gott unbedingt " (Kalauer) (-;
- seventytwo 3y ago
  I stopped reading at exactly this point, too, for exact the same reason.
nickelpro 3y ago
> If I identify with the anger, if I think it’s me – ‘I’m angry’ – I’m very likely to pursue, and act on, the angry thought and feeling. After all, I’m just me being me. But because I’m actually the observer of my thoughts and feelings – because I’m separate – I can think: ‘There’s anger in me.’ Ah, mis-step here. You just said that thoughts and feelings are things one cannot have, but merely observe. You cannot think, "There's anger in me." Without a consciousness that independently generates thoughts, which violates the thesis statement: > I know that ‘I am’ because I am aware of thoughts, emotions, external objects, not because I think. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid. I'm a bigger fan of framings that allow for different abstraction levels or lenses of thought, all of them belonging to the same consciousness. "Emotionally I feel this, but logically I think this, and instinctually I believe this."
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  You can break it down even further than "I feel this", "I logically think this". Even thinking there is 'logic' is already missing that there has to be a place where the logic 'comes from' or 'arises'. This article did play fast and loose with terminology. I'd suggest reading up on Schopenhauer and Phenomenology, for historical background, and then for modern neuroscience, "Being You" by Anil Seth. They try to get at same thing, our 'subjective' experience is just how our brain interpret inputs, and with meditation you can grow the ability to observer how the brain reacts. But in the end the reactions happen from somewhere, even a 'logical thinking' comes from somewhere before the 'thinking' can take place. You can think what you will, but how do you decide to think about what you want to think about. Actually, forget it. I'm trying to explain this article, but I thought it was a bit confused to begin with. Guess its basically long and winding way to say 'be in the present movement'. But that's pretty generic.
  - nickelpro 3y ago
    I don't think it's so complex a point. The article's (and other framings') "observer" is a mechanism of self-reflective meta-thought. My point is that this meta-thought is itself a thought, it arises from the same place as all other thoughts. The observer is not a separate, passive system from the thinker. It is the thinker, or an element of it, a feedback loop inside the mechanism of the thinker, allowing the thinker to think about the ideas it is contemplating and the process of contemplation itself ("think about thinking"). It allows the thinker to observe in completeness its own contemplative state, and if desired, modify it. In this simplified framework the system is not significantly different from say, industrial control theory.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
james-bcn 3y ago
Sorry I normally wouldn't post this kind of thing here but this video of Eckhart Tolle talking about "I" put to music is very relevant to this and very cool I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1iWK3dlowI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1iWK3dlowI
pgorczak 3y ago
> There is an observer and that which is observed, the thought. I am the observer, not the observed. Why couldn’t you be both? The duality of physical and metaphysical self is beautifully illustrated in the Tree of Jiva and Atman from a few thousand years ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman
jemmyw 3y ago
`There is no such thing as perpetual tranquility of mind, while we live here; because life itself is but motion, and can never be without desire, nor without fear, no more than without sense.’ (Hobbes, ‘Leviathan’, Oxford University Press, 1998, p.41) > This is fundamentally wrong The author has an axe to grind. You might disagree with the statement by Hobbes or you may agree with it. Either way, it's not the kind of thing you can say is fundamentally wrong. It's a philosophical statement about the mind. Besides which, it seems true to me, you can not be perpetually at peace. Eventually you're going to get hungry and whatever your process of gaining nutrition it is unlikely to be mediative.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Debating axioms is the oldest tradition in philosophy.
kayo_20211030 3y ago
The joy is in the doing. Darwin was rescued by the doing; Mill by doing differently. I have no particular opinion on meditation, but it just seems like some form of "doing" too. Provocative, but let's not be calling everybody wrong, when they're just doing as best they can.
- scns 3y ago
  I concur. Meditation is training a mental muscle if you will. It is a very useful practice. First time i noticed its effect were subtle but profound. In an argument with my ex i noticed the anger. In the past i would have reacted and entered fight mode on autopilot. I stayed calm. Later i realized this was the first time i could choose myself how to act.
m4nu3l 3y ago
"Obviously, the past does not exist; it is a collection of mere memories, impressions in the mind. But the future also does not exist; it is a collection of ideas about what should or might happen" It's been proved beyond reasonable doubt that time is as real as space and what is an illusion is the flow of time. There is no "present" moment. Every moment and place exists in time-space with different versions of you thinking they are in the present. So it's exactly the opposite. You could say that taken one of those points in time and named it "present" you can say that the past and future do not existent within that moment. But because of the relativity of simultaneity you now also have to pick an arbitrary frame of reference to define "preset".
- affgrff2 3y ago
  Let me be unreasonable and have some doubt. How does these proofs look like? Honestly, I am ignorant and not convinced at all.
  - m4nu3l 3y ago
    Because you simply can't define "preset" in absolute terms. Two events that happen at the same time in my frame of reference might happen one after the other in your frame of reference. If the past nor the future exist and you first see one of the things happening, then the other, but I see them happening at the same time I'm seeing things that shouldn't exist in a single moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
    - affgrff2 3y ago
      Okay, want I cannot directly agree with in your original post is the notion that flow of time is an illusion and that it follows from the argument. Obviously, as you argue, with relativity, it is not possible to have an absolute 'now'. But isn't it possible to have a local flow of time? All things you perceive are not the events themselves (happened in your past), but their effects on your now.
      - 3y ago
bloomingeek 3y ago
I came up with a word of advice at work because of something that happened to me, "If you want to screw the company, that's none of my business, but don't screw me because I won't screw you." I know this is overly simplistic, however it speaks to the idea that if you come up with some action or idea, consider how it may affect others. Selfishness is a huge root of all evil. And yes, after giving my advice, I also tell them screwing the company was a bad idea.
3rdthoughtsmay 3y ago
> "What is an illusion, is the flow of time. There is no 'present' moment. So We don't choose to control, or have any influence? > If you realize that "we" are observers of our thoughts, and not necessarily thinkers, it may be weird to value the worth of an (one only!) introspection. But you can have a thought that you object to, or a thing, something materialistical and assign that thought another thought? Hint: 2nd Art Law, 'Mass can be trained around Informationpoints of a Reality' > A 'metathought' dualism -or you may call it a kind of 'mechanistic-thinking' ?! ^^
gregfjohnson 3y ago
A person's mind or quality of consciousness is a work in progress. It evolves and develops over a lifetime. We can in fact self-referentially make choices that affect the trajectory of our mind's development. A meditation practice is one such choice that I have personally found helpful. My hoped-for trajectory is toward the following: thoughtful, mature, wise, sane. The opposites provide a useful contrast: unthoughtful, immature, unwise, insane. Other characteristics on the hoped-for trajectory: calm, aware, caring. However, this all poses an evolutionary quandary. If a company or movement or institution wants to spread, one highly effective means is to facilitate a consciousness in the public that is manipulable, reactive, ignorant, and controllable. Advertising sometimes seems to be dual-purpose: convince consumers to buy products, and also, more subtly, shape consumer consciousness so that it is more amenable to manipulation. Bad religion, bad companies, and bad social movements very effectively use this strategy. And they succeed. Good religion, good companies, and good social movements also exist. But these often seem less effective and less successful, at least in the short term. It is a paradox: How does an institution encourage and facilitate inner freedom, wisdom, and all of those good things, and also get people to do what it needs them to do in order that the institution itself can survive and continue to exist?

28 points by k1m 3y ago

"This is why the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was so wrong when he wrote: ‘We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.’ (Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’, preface to 1976 edition, Oxford University Press, 1989, p.v) We are not ‘blindly programmed’ at all. We are aware of the thoughts, passions and instinctual programming that drive us." Author lost me there when they failed to understand what Dawkins is saying here and insufficiently refuting Dawkins (probably due to lack of understanding it). Observationally we have become aware of our base instincts over time (through science) however we're pretty much at their whim. We don't choose or control or have any real influence other than following our programming as to what we find sexually attractive or not.

pessimizer 3y ago
I don't even think that this person should be disagreeing with the Dawkins quote, because to the extent that I can find a thesis, Dawkins' blind robot vehicles support it. If you realize that "we" are observers of our thoughts, and not necessarily thinkers, it's weird to overvalue the worth of introspection. Introspection is a liar. It seems like the beginning of this thing is proposing some sort of therapeutic dualism, where you can have a thought that you object to (why do you object to it?), and assign that thought to your body through another thought (the realization that the thought is not me), and peacefully live thought-free. Now it's not a mind-body dualism, but a thought-metathought dualism that is even less likely. The reason these people were and are great thinkers is because of their comfort in abstraction and objectivity, and their disdain for introspection. You can't transcend thinking by thinking harder.
- mistermann 3y ago
  If omniscience is possible, then why not transcendence?
  - 3rdthoughtsmay 3y ago
    Cos...some wanted it 'unstuffed', and some for real P-: Or in German: "Einige wollten 'Gott' nicht bedingen und andere wollten Gott unbedingt " (Kalauer) (-;
seventytwo 3y ago
I stopped reading at exactly this point, too, for exact the same reason.

nickelpro 3y ago

> If I identify with the anger, if I think it’s me – ‘I’m angry’ – I’m very likely to pursue, and act on, the angry thought and feeling. After all, I’m just me being me. But because I’m actually the observer of my thoughts and feelings – because I’m separate – I can think: ‘There’s anger in me.’ Ah, mis-step here. You just said that thoughts and feelings are things one cannot have, but merely observe. You cannot think, "There's anger in me." Without a consciousness that independently generates thoughts, which violates the thesis statement: > I know that ‘I am’ because I am aware of thoughts, emotions, external objects, not because I think. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid. I'm a bigger fan of framings that allow for different abstraction levels or lenses of thought, all of them belonging to the same consciousness. "Emotionally I feel this, but logically I think this, and instinctually I believe this."

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
You can break it down even further than "I feel this", "I logically think this". Even thinking there is 'logic' is already missing that there has to be a place where the logic 'comes from' or 'arises'. This article did play fast and loose with terminology. I'd suggest reading up on Schopenhauer and Phenomenology, for historical background, and then for modern neuroscience, "Being You" by Anil Seth. They try to get at same thing, our 'subjective' experience is just how our brain interpret inputs, and with meditation you can grow the ability to observer how the brain reacts. But in the end the reactions happen from somewhere, even a 'logical thinking' comes from somewhere before the 'thinking' can take place. You can think what you will, but how do you decide to think about what you want to think about. Actually, forget it. I'm trying to explain this article, but I thought it was a bit confused to begin with. Guess its basically long and winding way to say 'be in the present movement'. But that's pretty generic.
- nickelpro 3y ago
  I don't think it's so complex a point. The article's (and other framings') "observer" is a mechanism of self-reflective meta-thought. My point is that this meta-thought is itself a thought, it arises from the same place as all other thoughts. The observer is not a separate, passive system from the thinker. It is the thinker, or an element of it, a feedback loop inside the mechanism of the thinker, allowing the thinker to think about the ideas it is contemplating and the process of contemplation itself ("think about thinking"). It allows the thinker to observe in completeness its own contemplative state, and if desired, modify it. In this simplified framework the system is not significantly different from say, industrial control theory.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

james-bcn 3y ago

Sorry I normally wouldn't post this kind of thing here but this video of Eckhart Tolle talking about "I" put to music is very relevant to this and very cool I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1iWK3dlowI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1iWK3dlowI

pgorczak 3y ago

> There is an observer and that which is observed, the thought. I am the observer, not the observed. Why couldn’t you be both? The duality of physical and metaphysical self is beautifully illustrated in the Tree of Jiva and Atman from a few thousand years ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Jiva_and_Atman

jemmyw 3y ago

`There is no such thing as perpetual tranquility of mind, while we live here; because life itself is but motion, and can never be without desire, nor without fear, no more than without sense.’ (Hobbes, ‘Leviathan’, Oxford University Press, 1998, p.41) > This is fundamentally wrong The author has an axe to grind. You might disagree with the statement by Hobbes or you may agree with it. Either way, it's not the kind of thing you can say is fundamentally wrong. It's a philosophical statement about the mind. Besides which, it seems true to me, you can not be perpetually at peace. Eventually you're going to get hungry and whatever your process of gaining nutrition it is unlikely to be mediative.

mensetmanusman 3y ago

Debating axioms is the oldest tradition in philosophy.

kayo_20211030 3y ago

The joy is in the doing. Darwin was rescued by the doing; Mill by doing differently. I have no particular opinion on meditation, but it just seems like some form of "doing" too. Provocative, but let's not be calling everybody wrong, when they're just doing as best they can.

scns 3y ago
I concur. Meditation is training a mental muscle if you will. It is a very useful practice. First time i noticed its effect were subtle but profound. In an argument with my ex i noticed the anger. In the past i would have reacted and entered fight mode on autopilot. I stayed calm. Later i realized this was the first time i could choose myself how to act.

m4nu3l 3y ago

"Obviously, the past does not exist; it is a collection of mere memories, impressions in the mind. But the future also does not exist; it is a collection of ideas about what should or might happen" It's been proved beyond reasonable doubt that time is as real as space and what is an illusion is the flow of time. There is no "present" moment. Every moment and place exists in time-space with different versions of you thinking they are in the present. So it's exactly the opposite. You could say that taken one of those points in time and named it "present" you can say that the past and future do not existent within that moment. But because of the relativity of simultaneity you now also have to pick an arbitrary frame of reference to define "preset".

affgrff2 3y ago
Let me be unreasonable and have some doubt. How does these proofs look like? Honestly, I am ignorant and not convinced at all.
- m4nu3l 3y ago
  Because you simply can't define "preset" in absolute terms. Two events that happen at the same time in my frame of reference might happen one after the other in your frame of reference. If the past nor the future exist and you first see one of the things happening, then the other, but I see them happening at the same time I'm seeing things that shouldn't exist in a single moment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
  - affgrff2 3y ago
    Okay, want I cannot directly agree with in your original post is the notion that flow of time is an illusion and that it follows from the argument. Obviously, as you argue, with relativity, it is not possible to have an absolute 'now'. But isn't it possible to have a local flow of time? All things you perceive are not the events themselves (happened in your past), but their effects on your now.
    - 3y ago

bloomingeek 3y ago

I came up with a word of advice at work because of something that happened to me, "If you want to screw the company, that's none of my business, but don't screw me because I won't screw you." I know this is overly simplistic, however it speaks to the idea that if you come up with some action or idea, consider how it may affect others. Selfishness is a huge root of all evil. And yes, after giving my advice, I also tell them screwing the company was a bad idea.

3rdthoughtsmay 3y ago

> "What is an illusion, is the flow of time. There is no 'present' moment. So We don't choose to control, or have any influence? > If you realize that "we" are observers of our thoughts, and not necessarily thinkers, it may be weird to value the worth of an (one only!) introspection. But you can have a thought that you object to, or a thing, something materialistical and assign that thought another thought? Hint: 2nd Art Law, 'Mass can be trained around Informationpoints of a Reality' > A 'metathought' dualism -or you may call it a kind of 'mechanistic-thinking' ?! ^^

gregfjohnson 3y ago

A person's mind or quality of consciousness is a work in progress. It evolves and develops over a lifetime. We can in fact self-referentially make choices that affect the trajectory of our mind's development. A meditation practice is one such choice that I have personally found helpful. My hoped-for trajectory is toward the following: thoughtful, mature, wise, sane. The opposites provide a useful contrast: unthoughtful, immature, unwise, insane. Other characteristics on the hoped-for trajectory: calm, aware, caring. However, this all poses an evolutionary quandary. If a company or movement or institution wants to spread, one highly effective means is to facilitate a consciousness in the public that is manipulable, reactive, ignorant, and controllable. Advertising sometimes seems to be dual-purpose: convince consumers to buy products, and also, more subtly, shape consumer consciousness so that it is more amenable to manipulation. Bad religion, bad companies, and bad social movements very effectively use this strategy. And they succeed. Good religion, good companies, and good social movements also exist. But these often seem less effective and less successful, at least in the short term. It is a paradox: How does an institution encourage and facilitate inner freedom, wisdom, and all of those good things, and also get people to do what it needs them to do in order that the institution itself can survive and continue to exist?