Conspiracy of the Intellectuals

  • Thread starter coberst
  • Start date
  • #26
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1


The problem as I see it is that we have mistakenly used this ability to make the mind and body as independent of one another and as a result our view of realty is dangerously distorted.
This is where the "driver's manual" for civilization comes in handy. When you realize that the whole of all activity in the universe is working like the cogs of a machine you are able to visualize how a society, or even the global civilization, can be maintained, modified and developed from a similar vantage.

A driver's manual is the result of years of observation of drivers and the physical predicaments that arise out of driving on city streets with pedestrians, animals, other cars and residents living beside the road. Most of the manuals today are very detailed about the rules of driving as well as the reasoning behind the existence of the rules. There are many rules, as you know. Each one of them has a physical basis for each rule. And the rules (what I'd call ethics) are extremely efficient in that when they're followed there are very few altercations or accidents. There is some corruption of the rules but its rare and usually done at 4 am.:smile:

A.H. Maslow uses driving as one way to gauge the level of Self Actualization in an individual. If the individual drives according the rules because they're told to, this is the lower end of Self Actualization.

If the driver drives in a way that resembles the "ethics" or rules of driving because they realize the harm that can come out of breaking the rules this shows that this driver has assimilated the principles of efficient and empathetic driving and acts out of concern of the effect rather that out of the concern of breaking the rules an getting caught.

There are 2 motives for obeying traffic laws:

1. You avoid hurting or inconveniencing others.

2. You avoid hurting or inconveniencing yourself.


In a society that commonly understands the cognitive sciences and applies the research and outcomes to human interaction, much in the way the research and outcomes of driver studies is applied to the everyday rules of traffic, we would see a rapid increase in efficiency and development of every kind imaginable. This would require that people strip away the notion of a separation between mind and body, and it would require that both mind and body be considered equally as important to the efficient functioning of a society.

When medical science separated the mind from the body, it was a huge mistake. To not include the mind as part of the cause of many morphological conditions was like assuming you can grow a plant without its roots. The fact that one thought can cause a "blushing" response should provide enough evidence for the controlling aspect of the mind in relation to the rest of the body.
 
  • #27
298
0


Ah.. I get your intention here. It is the separation of the mind from the body that has given us abominations like solipsism, religion and elite morality and intellectualism etc.

When philiosophy creates a system that leads us to conclude that the mind is independent of the body and decides that the mind is like software in a computer and that the computer can be ignored as a mere machine having no affect on the functions of reason we make a mistake. We are ignoring what Darwin has discovered.

Reason is not an essence that separates humans from other animals but it is a continuum that is shared with other animals. Human reason is a capacity evolved from that form of reason present in “lower” animals. Human reasoning does not transcend our animal nature but is an uninterrupted extension from that animal nature.

“The same neural and cognitive mechanisms that allow us to perceive and move around also create our conceptual systems and modes of reasoning.” To comprehend reason we must study our sensory and motor systems, which shape our ability of comprehension itself.
 
  • #28
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1


When philiosophy creates a system that leads us to conclude that the mind is independent of the body and decides that the mind is like software in a computer and that the computer can be ignored as a mere machine having no affect on the functions of reason we make a mistake. We are ignoring what Darwin has discovered.

Reason is not an essence that separates humans from other animals but it is a continuum that is shared with other animals. Human reason is a capacity evolved from that form of reason present in “lower” animals. Human reasoning does not transcend our animal nature but is an uninterrupted extension from that animal nature.

“The same neural and cognitive mechanisms that allow us to perceive and move around also create our conceptual systems and modes of reasoning.” To comprehend reason we must study our sensory and motor systems, which shape our ability of comprehension itself.
To go a little deeper than cognitive function, and to look at the blueprints of its structure, Darwin touched upon the genetic predisposition for altruism in every species at every stage of evolution. This fundamental efficiency factor (altruism) can be viewed as the reason life has survived and evolved on this 3rd rock from the sun.

So, it does not take separating from the "lower instincts" and the "dirty impulses" of the body to reach an altruistic state as many would claim. Altruism is more likely the second most important genetic trait next to the survival instinct.
 
  • #29
266
0


Altruism is more likely the second most important genetic trait next to the survival instinct.
Yes indeed. The "Selfish Gene" as professor Dawkin's puts it. A propensity for altruism follows directly and predictably from the nature of our genetic evolution. It is inherent.

coberst,
I wasn't aware that the intellectuals you are describing attempted to literally separate the mind from the body, that probably stems from a lack of reading on my part (philosophy and reasoning comes easy, physics and mathematics on the other hand absorb the majority of my time). A position as such would indeed be naive and incorrect; and, as most naive and incorrect presumptuous beliefs, it is likely to be dangerous. So I believe that we can agree on that point.
 
  • #30
298
0


Yes indeed. The "Selfish Gene" as professor Dawkin's puts it. A propensity for altruism follows directly and predictably from the nature of our genetic evolution. It is inherent.

coberst,
I wasn't aware that the intellectuals you are describing attempted to literally separate the mind from the body, that probably stems from a lack of reading on my part (philosophy and reasoning comes easy, physics and mathematics on the other hand absorb the majority of my time). A position as such would indeed be naive and incorrect; and, as most naive and incorrect presumptuous beliefs, it is likely to be dangerous. So I believe that we can agree on that point.
The mind/body dichotomy is part of our Western philosophical tradition. We absorb this tradition through social osmosis.
 
  • #31
sketchtrack


Lets think of what are Emotions. We have anger, we have sorrow, we have infatuation, and desire. These emotions are a major part of humanity, and are the driving force behind pretty much everything we do as individuals and as groups. I do not recognize how emotions can be dismissed by rationality because they are two different worlds. Rationality is a tool used for reasoning. If we are to leave emotion out of rationality so be it, but without emotion there is no reason for rationality. Without emotion there is nothing important and there is no point to anything.

How is it possible for a value system to be void of emotion? In a world without emotion there is no such thing as right or wrong, or good or bad.

Maybe I can see compassion being thrown out the door, but that still leaves desire and greed which are branches of emotion, even in a self serving satanic like philosophical system, emotions still run the show the only difference is that the emotions that are running things are negative and destructive to humanity as a whole and to the greater well being of the individual as well. How dumb do you have to be to think that we would be better off backstabbing each other and being only out for ourselves than helping and loving one another. Is not happiness the desirable emotion?

Survival is key. but rationally how is ones survival worth anything more than time to experience emotion. Ultimately we all die, and our children inherit the future. So if you are wise, you will promote the good emotions and not the bad, and you will have children and teach them to do the same. If you don't wish to have children, maybe because the world is overpopulated, then you should just try to experience positive emotions while you are here. If you are up to it maybe do something you can be proud of while your here and maybe a part of you will live on as the change for the better you created that may change the coarse of history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
baywax
Gold Member
1,940
1

Related Threads on Conspiracy of the Intellectuals

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
45
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Top