Self-Deception.
From Straw Dogs by John Gray:
"Truth has no systematic evolutionary advantage over error. Quite to the contrary, evolution will 'select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray -- by the subtle signs of self-knowledge -- the deception being practised'. As Trivers points out, evolution favours useful error: 'the conventional view that natural selection favours nervous systems which produce ever more accurate images of the world must be a very naive view of mental evolution'."
Could belief in God be one of these self-deceptions that has developed because of its evolutionary benefits?
"Truth has no systematic evolutionary advantage over error. Quite to the contrary, evolution will 'select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray -- by the subtle signs of self-knowledge -- the deception being practised'. As Trivers points out, evolution favours useful error: 'the conventional view that natural selection favours nervous systems which produce ever more accurate images of the world must be a very naive view of mental evolution'."
Could belief in God be one of these self-deceptions that has developed because of its evolutionary benefits?
posted by spankidiots at 8:42 PM
5 Comments:
I read Amit Gaswami and Amy L. Lansky's papers (from your profile) and while what they say is interesting-- especially about spirituality and the belief in materialism-- I couldn't see how their arguments lead to humans being responsible (truly in control) of their actions.
Maybe you could explain downward causation better so that I could see how it amounts to free will.
Are you saying that the ability to understand the human condition with regards to the power-relationship with memes (their power over us)-- that this enlightenment or evolution of the "within"-- gives us free will?
Because, if this is what you're saying, it doesn't seem to me that by simply understanding that memes exert power over us that this amounts free will-- at least not in the classical sense of the term. Coming to the understanding that memes use humanity-- doesn't mean that we freely choose to come to this understanding, and therefore, if we choose to act a certain way in accordance with this understanding (by implementing something like a rhizome structure)then we are simply acting as part of the dance-- part of the evolution of the meme.
And thanks for directing me to Jeff Vail's "A Theory of Power" it's awesome. Everyone should read it. www.jeffvail.net!
My logical problem:
In order for there to be free will, we have to say that causation in the human mind is such that we break the bond of upward causation in such a way that we cause the atoms and molecules in our brain to act in accordance to our will. Macrocausation, by itself, is not enough to guarantee free will; as in the Teed Rockwell quote you provided-- "It must, for example, be possible for a brain to control its atoms and molecules"-- we must go farther than this and state that, in order for there to be free will, the way in which the brain controls the atoms and molecules must be such that the rational self can freely choose the state of the mind.
As in the proof against free will that I posted http://spankidiots.blogspot.com/2006/04/free-will.html
"It is not simply that one must have caused oneself to have that current state of mind; that is not sufficient for true responsibility. One must have consciously and explicitly chosen to have their current state of mind and they must have succeeded in bringing about that desired state of mind."
I don't feel that anybody has sufficiently shown this to be the case.
My hippie problem:
The problem I have is that I have observed the causality in my own mind (which became especially, and somewhat uncomfortably, clear after ingesting a certain psychedelic). First, I came to see that I have no control over my thoughts-- I saw each thought feed off of the previous thought in an endless string. I tried to gain control of that string but there was no stopping it and no end to it... like the causal magician pulling an endless scarf from his sleeve. I also came to see that I have no control over my actions. I saw that the facilities that I was using to make choices about my actions were all stemming from something that was outside of my control: from previous thoughts, experiences or choices (which were based on choices of choices of choices, ad infinitum).
While this may seem ridiculously simple in comparison to the articles you provided-- the clarity with which I experienced this causation was infinitely more convincing than the possibility of our brains being able to control atoms and molecules.
You said:
"in saying there is an 'infinite regress of choices' we could say our ideas are built upon the whole of mans knowledge"
&
"because we were only an egg and sperm once, and before that matter of food, and before that something else ect... we are forms matter moving with energy always changing. the 'without' is caused and depends on everything before it just as 'within' of things."
I agree completely with these statements.
<><><><><>
One more stab at it:
We are born with mechanisms that have developed because they increased our chances for flourishing-- from our birth we use these mechanisms (one of our main mechanisms being "increase pleasure & avoid pain"). Naturally, at our births, we have no choice as to what these mechanisms are-- and so from this mold we develop. We, because of the makeup of our mechanisms and the environment in which we use our mechanisms, as humans develop in a great variety of ways. Some of us come to live our lives striving to watch killer baseball games while getting super wasted (instinctual life); and others of us will come to live our lives striving to develop ideals/morals/ethics or to base economies on earthly dependence (integrative thought). It certainly seems, from this luck of the draw, that the cosmic movement of the "without" and the "within" is such that the way we are is the only way we ever could be--we have neither control over our mechanisms nor control over our environment-- what do we have control over?
<><><><><>
you said:
"'my' thoughts,'the within', right now are really 'the universes thoughts' in developement through me, as with the 'without', though if i am conscious now of my thoughts i am activily engageing the universe, the spectrum."
The first part of what you said above (through 'without',) is equivalent to what I have said above. Though, in response to the remainder, I say this: You never chose to become conscious of your thoughts, the cosmos/nature is such that it has lead you to come to this understanding--and once you come to this understanding, you are not engaging the universe-- the universe is engaging itself.
<><><><><>
On original thought:
As we go down our path, our brains gather information. We have "with-in" causation that allows us to bounce this information off of itself. From this we are able to come to new understandings and come up with novel ideas. For instance, if I gather knowledge of a horse, knowledge of horns and the knowledge of mixing things together-- the nature of my brain could develop the idea of a unicorn. We have invented computers that do this very thing (http://www.imagination-engines.com/history.htm) granted these machines are inferior to humans in the respect that they lack the sophisticated mechanism that allows judging of the usefulness of creations.
<><><><><>
The Musician article has added an interesting piece of the puzzle for me (7)-- though I still don't see that it helps attribute responsibility for action.
What I have of the puzzle:
(1)My thoughts are influenced by other thoughts.
(2)My thoughts are influenced by the physical world.
(3)1&2 are the only influences on thought.
(4)I did not choose my first thought.
(5)My thoughts can realize my thoughts.
(6)My thoughts affect the physical world through my actions
(7)My thoughts affect the physical world through (1)&(5) affecting the physical makeup of the brain.
(8) My actions originate from thoughts.
(9)-from 1,2,3&4- I cannot choose my thoughts.
(10)-from 8&9- I cannot freely choose my actions.
-JP-
I should have gone further with the "puzzle" and, after #8, added something to the effect of:
we choose our actions from our thoughts and our choice making mechism develops from the experiences that influence our thoughts
From this, I think, 10 is logically proven-- but what it comes down to is that, when a person makes a choice, there were (I believe) causes that lead to that choice. Thus, there is always an answer to the question "Why did X do Y at time t?" So if there is always an explanation as to why X did Y at t, then the question arises: Could X have done Z at t? Since there were causes that lead to X choosing Y, then it follows that--given the makeup of the universe(the movement of the "with-out" & "with-in") at time t--X could only have chosen Y; choosing Z would require that the makeup and movement of the universe be different in order for there to be a different string of causes.
Post a Comment
<< Home