5 ms·

"This is why the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was so wrong when he wrote: ‘We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preser

"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.

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.