Consciousness is overrated

[Adymus]

Not that consciousness is not a magnificent thing; it is, and it should be appreciated. However, many of us are still looking at our consciousness from a very over-glorified perspective.
I have noticed there is a lot of resistance to the possibility of the personality being a product of biological wiring. It seems most of this reluctance is not so much founded on lack of evidence, but the refusal to approach human beings in the way you would an animal. Personality traits can be observed even in animals; and interestingly enough, certain personality traits comes with certain breeds. This means it is possible to capture and develop personalities of certain mammals through breeding.

Considering humans have followed the same evolutionary path to developing consciousness as these animals, and they are using cognitive hardware that is almost exactly the same as ours. Shouldn't that mean that the personalities that human beings express are also a part of their genetic code?
So why do we look at animal consciousness as a product of biology, but we look at our own as if it was some magical amorphous power that bends at our every will?
Because when you suggest that our consciousness is just biological wiring and neurotransmitters, you take away the magic. Human beings stop being the chosen species with the divine spark, and start being what we actually are, animals.

Another problem people see with accepting this possibility is it means you cannot change your personality. Most of this skepticism is a misunderstanding, people look at themselves and think "I'm different than I used to be several years ago, so obviously I can change my personality." While their personality did technically "change", it did not shift into a different personality with a set of new cognitive functions. It just developed a stronger use of the cognitive functions that it already had. It is essentially the same thing as your body growing, you becoming taller, or grow stronger, but this is not turning you into a different person, you are developing what you already had.
So not being able to shift into a totally different personality is really no more of a limitation than not being able to shapeshift into another person.

Lastly, the belief that people are beings of biologically controlled personality, stifles the perception of individuality. This one scares the shit out of people. However, all that having a genetic personality really means is that people are all using the same cognitive tools. What you do with and how you develop these tools are entirely up to you, that part is infinite and variable. Again, it's essentially like resisting the belief that all people have hands because that will make you less of an individual.

This is why when I meet someone who says "I don't have a personality type, I'm unique" I say the same thing to them as I say to every other person with this attitude:

"Get over yourself. You're a human being just like the rest of us."

 

[Sparrow]

I concur.

 

[Adymus]

I concur.

You didn't even read the post!

 

[Beat Mango]

You're misguided if you think all the complexities of human mind and behaviour fit neatly into 8 types. Roughly, sure, but that's the beauty of art, literature and music - we can celebrate the subtleties and intricacies of each person's experience.

Consciousness is a good thing, in moderation.

 

[Adymus]

You're misguided if you think all the complexities of human mind and behaviour fit neatly into 8 types. Roughly, sure, but that's the beauty of art, literature and music - we can celebrate the subtleties and intricacies of each person's experience.

Consciousness is a good thing, in moderation.

Why?

Why do cognitive functions have to be more than 8?

We have five senses, two eyes, two hands, why should our cognitive functions be any different?

It sounds to me like you are just refusing to consider this out of pure ego. Having 8 cognitive functions only does not mean we all act exactly the same down to the very last detail. Furthermore, we are not talking about the entire mind, just the personality, which is for the most part the conscious mind.

I think you are the misguided one if you think clinging on to the ideal of the mind being too magical to understand is going to get us anywhere.

 

[Sparrow]

You didn't even read the post!

True, but I did read the title.

And I agree with everything you say...I mean come on...youre my idol.

 

[NeverAmI]

So why do we look at animal consciousness as a product of biology, but we look at our own as if it was some magical amorphous power that bends at our every will?


Another problem people see with accepting this possibility is it means you cannot change your personality.

Lastly, the belief that people are beings of biologically controlled personality, stifles the perception of individuality.

I think this will become more prevalent as psychology and neuroscience continue to bridge into a cohesive understanding of the human mind. I think science and the ability to test on lab animals and have it link back to our own minds definitely shows some level of proof of similarity between ourselves and other animals.

I don't see anything particularly wrong with observing similarity between ourselves and other animals. I do however dislike the idea that humans are prone to evil behavior or simple animals with an underdeveloped need for hedonistic behavior.

Certain societies, such as Native Americans seemed to have a pretty good understanding of animal behavior and their similarities to ourselves, even if through lack of science. They were called the barbarians but the settlers seemed to be the ones intruding and doing a lot of the slaughter.

Mental retardation, autism, Alzheimer's are all very interesting, although saddening, afflictions of the mind, I look forward to the day we understand these issues and are possibly even able to fix them.

 

[Beat Mango]

Actually I agree with your post more than I let on - humans are much more like animals, and vice versa, than is widely considered. And personalities are fixed around a certain point and predetermined. I just don't see the value in getting all uppety about types, as you and others did with boradicus in the intp>entp thread, which was a good example to me of a) obsessing about typology beyond it's practicality or relevance, and b) attempting to squeeze a whole bunch of traits and characterisitics into one umbrella type rather than accepting the differences and subtleties as they are. While types apply, I think they exist on a spectrum - actually, multiple and dynamic spectrums.

I'm not sure if this goes against what you're saying, I might have gone off on a tangent...

 

[Beat Mango]

You're right in your impression though - there is something that irks me about the psychological/deterministic approach to human mind and behaviour. I guess the term I should use to describe it is reductionist.

 

[NeverAmI]

I am not opposed to the idea of reductionism in itself, but I KNOW there are still variables of the mind that we don't see, otherwise we would already have all the answers and they would be without a shadow of a doubt. Quantum physics really adds a lot of potential for a deepened understanding of the human mind, whether that actually applies to the psyche or not I couldn't say.

Always good to keep in mind that correlation does not always imply causation.

Good posts!

 

[Adymus]

Actually I agree with your post more than I let on - humans are much more like animals, and vice versa, than is widely considered. And personalities are fixed around a certain point and predetermined. I just don't see the value in getting all uppety about types, as you and others did with boradicus in the intp>entp thread, which was a good example to me of a) obsessing about typology beyond it's practicality or relevance, and b) attempting to squeeze a whole bunch of traits and characterisitics into one umbrella type rather than accepting the differences and subtleties as they are. While types apply, I think they exist on a spectrum - actually, multiple and dynamic spectrums.

I'm not sure if this goes against what you're saying, I might have gone off on a tangent...

I am not sure what you mean by "uppity", but I think it is important that we have a strong understanding of how we function. Part of this is being able to recognize someone who is using what you have, and someone who is not. The practicality of understanding typology is limitless, as long as you have a good understanding of it that is. This is why I make sure to clarify everyone's understanding of it every chance I get, it could be an excellent tool for understanding other people and developing yourself as long as you have a thorough understanding of what you are doing. Also, the idea that a whole bunch of traits are squeezed into the same type might be MBTI's approach, but it is not mine. I agree completely that people are far more complex than a list of traits, but that does not mean it is not possible to understand how they will manifest the traits that they do have.

It would be inaccurate to call it a "spectrum", I think you are basing this off of basic MBTI, such as I-E, N-S, etc. You are going to either be stimulated by using certain functions or not, there is no in between. However, people being able to develop the use of different functions gives the illusion that they are sliding in a different direction on the personality spectrum. They are not, they are still being stimulated by the same functions and drained by the same functions, only now they have learned to use them more efficiently and more effectively.

 

[Adymus]

You're right in your impression though - there is something that irks me about the psychological/deterministic approach to human mind and behaviour. I guess the term I should use to describe it is reductionist.

What do you think would be the correct approach?

 

[Da Blob]

Only the unconscious are silly enough to state that consciousness is over-rated. I am conscious of God, so that makes all the presumptious assumptions presented in the Op as fact, rather droll and immature conjectures.

 

[Anthile]

It often appeared to me that people believe in things because they don't want the opposite to be true.

 

[Adymus]

Only the unconscious are silly enough to state that consciousness is over-rated. I am conscious of God, so that makes all the presumptious assumptions presented in the Op as fact, rather droll and immature conjectures.

No, that just makes you more concerned with your faith than you are with the revelations of science.

 

[wadlez]

Only the unconscious are silly enough to state that consciousness is over-rated. I am conscious of God, so that makes all the presumptious assumptions presented in the Op as fact, rather droll and immature conjectures.

Intpforums resident religious nut bar strikes again!

 

[Hawkeye]

I am overrated

 

[axemblack]

I'm not sure I even get the point of the thread. It sounds to me like the ranting of anyone who believes in their own paradigm about all the people who don't and why they're wrong. Not having access to the model you're working with, I can only talk about psychological typing according to Jung, who's purpose with developing a method of typing was only to help engage his patients with more understanding of where they were coming from, and I remember him stating that he did not "type" people upon meeting them and then proceed to treat them strictly within their "type".

Given the limiting nature of any system and Jung's repeated emphasis on individuation, it seems rather arrogant when you talk about how much human understanding and interaction could be enriched if people only understood the true method of typing. "You are going to either be stimulated by using certain functions or not, there is no in between" sounds a lot like "typing" someone in the same sense that Jung did not wish it to be taken. Of course Jung is not an absolute authority on present-day matters of psychology, it only seems strange to me when someone who is building on another's work decides to do exactly what the originator did not wish for it (although I suppose it's not really that uncommon of a practice.)

 

[Da Blob]

My point is simply this, no one can rate nor discount another person's experiences or consciousness. They have to remain in a state of ignorance about the states of consciousness they have yet to experinece. While i understand the need to discount my experiences and consciousness, because it upsets the worldview of many and my statements represent a threat to many belief systems, I simply am not exagerating that I am (or at least have been conscious) of God. It is not a mere belief in some kind of abstract theological concept, but an consciousness that involves a heightened sense of awareness...

 

[Irishpenguin]

I pretty much agree with everything you said in the OP. I have thought that individuality was one of the most valuable things a human can have, I thought it was funny how you mentioned that one of those approaches (which I have kind of thought of myself, though vaguely and not nearly as detailed as you put it) freaked the hell out of people as they would feel that it would shatter the belief of individuality. The reason I thought it was funny is because when I had my vague thought I remember actually talking to myself going

"Hey wait a sec, doesn't that kind of disprove individuality?.........nahhhhh....no way.....and even if it did, it would still take like an infinite amount of people to actually come across 2 of them that would be exactly the same as each other. So by that time would it even matter?.....nah.....whew...that was a close one."

Yea I think I had other thoughts while reading your post, but my mind started wondering off thinking how bad ass it would be if house hold dogs developed complex personality's and some different scenarios of how that would be cool chillin' out with a dog that well developed....hehe.

*Edit

what the hell that was my hundredth post?...I thought I was keeping track of that better...oh wells.

 

[Beat Mango]

^ yes, that was Jung's perspective, but I think Myer and Briggs took it further and actually were attempting to create a fixed typology.

What do you think would be the correct approach?

Correct approach to what, understanding of the mind? Well, given that strict evidence in the form of scientific knowledge of the brain and body is insufficient at the moment, I think the best approach would have to be an intuitive one rather than a systematic one.

And back to your first post, yeah I do find it bizarre how certains breeds have certain personalites, and we're even able to cultivate certain traits. I head on the radio that a guy who was breeding foxes for certain traits (traits more suited to domestication, I think) noticed that after a few generations, the foxes actually started to take on different physiological traits as well as behavioural ones (in this case, they developed rounder fluffier ears) So this shows of course the link between body and behavior - and people will resist this strongly. You look in media and pop culture and what not, and the general idea is to judge somebody by their character, not by their appearance. But if we tap in deep enough, the two are intricately related. The implications for this are pretty strong, eugenics in particular which has become a dirty word but was once considered an academically legitimate proposition.

 

[Adymus]

I'm not sure I even get the point of the thread. It sounds to me like the ranting of anyone who believes in their own paradigm about all the people who don't and why they're wrong. Not having access to the model you're working with, I can only talk about psychological typing according to Jung, who's purpose with developing a method of typing was only to help engage his patients with more understanding of where they were coming from, and I remember him stating that he did not "type" people upon meeting them and then proceed to treat them strictly within their "type".

Given the limiting nature of any system and Jung's repeated emphasis on individuation, it seems rather arrogant when you talk about how much human understanding and interaction could be enriched if people only understood the true method of typing. "You are going to either be stimulated by using certain functions or not, there is no in between" sounds a lot like "typing" someone in the same sense that Jung did not wish it to be taken. Of course Jung is not an absolute authority on present-day matters of psychology, it only seems strange to me when someone who is building on another's work decides to do exactly what the originator did not wish for it (although I suppose it's not really that uncommon of a practice.)

I assure you, the approach of the model that I have been pushing is not to box people into a single category, or label them. On the contrary, it is to honor them by being aware of where they are coming from, and understand this, as well as yourself better. Right now psychology is being plagued by notions of what is and is not normal, and how they should be fixed. Functional people who are using their cognitive functions in the way they were intended to be used are being diagnosed with disorders, just because it does not fit the convenient model society demands they need to fit. People are seeing others whose only crime is that their personality suits them for different talents as being irrational, stupid, abnormal, crazy, insensitive, uncreative, etc. These are mentalities we are trying to fix.

 

[Hawkeye]

^ yes, that was Jung's perspective, but I think Myer and Briggs took it further and actually were attempting to create a fixed typology.



Correct approach to what, understanding of the mind? Well, given that strict evidence in the form of scientific knowledge of the brain and body is insufficient at the moment, I think the best approach would have to be an intuitive one rather than a systematic one.

And back to your first post, yeah I do find it bizarre how certains breeds have certain personalites, and we're even able to cultivate certain traits. I head on the radio that a guy who was breeding foxes for certain traits (traits more suited to domestication, I think) noticed that after a few generations, the foxes actually started to take on different physiological traits as well as behavioural ones (in this case, they developed rounder fluffier ears) So this shows of course the link between body and behavior - and people will resist this strongly. You look in media and pop culture and what not, and the general idea is to judge somebody by their character, not by their appearance. But if we tap in deep enough, the two are intricately related. The implications for this are pretty strong, eugenics in particular which has become a dirty word but was once considered an academically legitimate proposition.

There was an interesting documentary that showed them domesticating foxes. They'd been doing it since the 50's. They bred the tamer foxes with other tamer foxes and even agressive foxes with agressive ones. The results were amazing.

The tame foxes began to change colour and ended up being completely suitable as household pets. The aggressive ones became 'monsters' literally. The trainer barely got her hand onto the cage before it lashed out and bit her hand.


It was an experiment testing how we could have domesticated wild dogs through the generations. To a certain extent Black people were bred as animals during the days of the slavery and certain traits were passed on down the generations.

I agree that we are no different from other animals other than we have a higher level of intellect. Our thought processes are very similar. Animals have dreams just as we do. I don't think the human mind is limitless and so it will be bound to certain variables. I think the MBTI systems works quite well based on what we currently know. I doubt there are many (if any) more traits to the human mind than the ones specified.

I don't like using the word unique when it comes to the mind.

 

[walfin]

Doesn't biological determinism make us each more unique?

You can never be me, and I can never be you.

My use of cognitive functions will never be the same as yours, because I am fundamentally different, even if we have the same basic processes.

 

[Da Blob]

Ho Hum, I don't mean to dis-rail this thread so this probably will be my last comment. Biological determinism is an obsolete, rather traditional worldview. Less than 10% of modern philosphers consider Determinism in any form to be a valid philosphy. LOL and those are just the old farts like me who are resistant to change...

 

[walfin]

Ho Hum, I don't mean to dis-rail this thread so this probably will be my last comment. Biological determinism is an obsolete, rather traditional worldview. Less than 10% of modern philosphers consider Determinism in any form to be a valid philosphy. LOL and those are just the old farts like me who are resistant to change...

Argumentum ad novitatem

 

[warryer]

I have to wonder then, how does ego even come into the equation? Is it created as a product of society or as a product of our genetics?

On one hand I can see where you are coming from in saying that this is purely biological. On the other hand I can see what Blob is saying in that this is something we were given (similar experience).

Since we aren't turning this into a religious debate, I'll stick with the op. Basically what you are saying is that we are self aware carbon machines with evolving software. We are behaving as we should per our programming so, how can anybody be at fault for anything? Yes I realize this is a deterministic view, enlighten me if you don't agree.

Perhaps it's the ego at work here hence my initial question. The ego is probably deep down a set of instructions (instincts) for the body to carry out. The main one being reproduction. This code operates differently depending on what kind of hardware/software combination a person has.

Other things I am wondering about:

Does this make us INTPs being as rare as we are in this world genetic malfunctions or the "next step?" Or is it that we are another cog in the grand machine of humanity? ....we only need a certain number of each "part" for the machine to function at its peak efficiency.

If we think of it in terms of evolution then that must mean there is some sort of (external?) stimulus causing these mutations. There must be something that the genetic code is working towards. Usually it plays out into making self survival easier. I wonder what this goal could be?

 

[boradicus]

I wonder about the possible corollary between the use of the German Cross as logo for the board and any of various agenda being promulgated by it..

 

[Adymus]

I have to wonder then, how does ego even come into the equation? Is it created as a product of society or as a product of our genetics?

On one hand I can see where you are coming from in saying that this is purely biological. On the other hand I can see what Blob is saying in that this is something we were given (similar experience).

Since we aren't turning this into a religious debate, I'll stick with the op. Basically what you are saying is that we are self aware carbon machines with evolving software. We are behaving as we should per our programming so, how can anybody be at fault for anything? Yes I realize this is a deterministic view, enlighten me if you don't agree.

Perhaps it's the ego at work here hence my initial question. The ego is probably deep down a set of instructions (instincts) for the body to carry out. The main one being reproduction. This code operates differently depending on what kind of hardware/software combination a person has.

Other things I am wondering about:

Does this make us INTPs being as rare as we are in this world genetic malfunctions or the "next step?" Or is it that we are another cog in the grand machine of humanity? ....we only need a certain number of each "part" for the machine to function at its peak efficiency.

If we think of it in terms of evolution then that must mean there is some sort of (external?) stimulus causing these mutations. There must be something that the genetic code is working towards. Usually it plays out into making self survival easier. I wonder what this goal could be?

I find it more likely that the Ego correlates to genetics more than it does to society's influence. Your main perception of yourself, you personal truth, and what it means all comes from your dominant function. The understanding of who you are that comes from the dominant function is not all that is in the ego, but a substantial part it.

I would have to agree with what you said about what we INTPs are, Cogs in the massive human matrix. I have been approaching typology with a certain philosophy very similar to this. The Amount of N's in the world are more or less the necessary amount, any more would just be redundant, and would create conflict from too much independent mindedness.

 

[NeverAmI]

Is there any scientific study/evidence showing any sort of ego/cognitive development based in DNA or any other sort of genetically transferable means?

Sorry, I am definitely not well-cultured in biology.

 

[Lithorn]

I have to wonder then, how does ego even come into the equation? Is it created as a product of society or as a product of our genetics?

On one hand I can see where you are coming from in saying that this is purely biological. On the other hand I can see what Blob is saying in that this is something we were given (similar experience).

Since we aren't turning this into a religious debate, I'll stick with the op. Basically what you are saying is that we are self aware carbon machines with evolving software. We are behaving as we should per our programming so, how can anybody be at fault for anything? Yes I realize this is a deterministic view, enlighten me if you don't agree.

In terms of personal responsibility, I don't think the ideas in the OP really negate free will. If our personalities cause us to operate and process things in a certain way, that's still all mental. We have control over actions that we take.

 

[warryer]

I would have to agree with what you said about what we INTPs are, Cogs in the massive human matrix. I have been approaching typology with a certain philosophy very similar to this. The Amount of N's in the world are more or less the necessary amount, any more would just be redundant, and would create conflict from too much independent mindedness.

Necessary by what measure I wonder.

How far back down the evolutionary chain you would have to go to see the first elements of the personality? It's very obvious to me that animals on my farm have their own personalities: cats, dogs, goats, ducks, llamas. Maybe the very first bacteria, by definition of being alive, has a rudimentary personality. And as a living organism evolves the expression of personality becomes more and more complex.

By this line of thinking I would assume far into the future- the various evolutions of humans will begin to see more an more complex expressions. Maybe adding third or fourth elements to the current binary MBTI categorization. So instead of E vs I you have three, four or more dimensions. There could be other letters attached beyond the current 4.

Then there would be the phasing out of current types. It would be really interesting if we could go back in time and type the cavemen (and farther back) to see how the data compares.

We simply cannot be the peak of evolution on the scale from beginning of time to the end of time but, a transition. Dinosaurs were once the peak.

This thread is really making me think.

 

[boradicus]

In terms of personal responsibility, I don't think the ideas in the OP really negate free will. If our personalities cause us to operate and process things in a certain way, that's still all mental. We have control over actions that we take.

I agree about freewill, however, I disagree with a propensity to type without latitude for change, growth, and even transcendence. I believe that we are all capable of changing our attitudes and behavioral patterns to a large extent if not completely; additionally, I am not sold on the idea that typing is not inherently preferential, or that typing is more genetically predisposed versus parentally and environmentally socialized. I sincerely doubt that most approaches to psychology would be inherently behaviorist at the core were the merits of behaviorism so inconsistent.

 

[Polaris]

I'm confused. Is it consciousness guiding our cognitive functions, or the other way round?

In meditation we are able to access consciousness without interference of thoughts, which are manifestations of pre-conditioned environmental (and/or genetic? I am open to this idea) learning and behaviour. From the basis of meditation, it is possible to alter one's perceptions and actions, and actually change and learn new behaviour. If one were to apply this technique over time, that is several generations, would this eventually change the genetic pattern?

I guess what I am getting at is that consciousness can influence cognitive functions, and is therefore will-driven?

Did I just repeat everything Boradicus said.......

It is an interesting problem that admittedly drives me a little insane......

 

[Agent Intellect]

I assume people are talking about the Belyaev silver fox experiment?

I think people have a slight misconception about the biology and evolution of the brain. I don't feel like posting all the links I've posted in several other threads again and having them go unread, but I'll just say that in evolution, there is not really any such thing as equilibrium. Everything is in flux.

From reading this thread, I see people talk about whether humans are like animals in our personalities or whether our personalities are genetically 'determined' or whether we are a transitional species or not, and it makes me wonder how people think evolution actually works.

The way our brains are structured is dependent on genetic and epigenetic influences. Genetics will make different parts of the brain, which have been shown to be directly correlated with different cognitive processes, grow to different sizes, have differing concentrations of various glial cells, astrocytes, and synaptic junctions. Epigenetic (ie environmental and social constructivist) influences determine long term potentiation and other synaptic plasticity developments - it does this through DNA methylation and acetylation, protein ubiquitination and ADP ribosylation, genomic imprinting, histone tail modifications, and numerous other effects.

The point being, these are modifications to the way genetics are expressed, even if it comes from an external stimuli (like social constructivist and other interpersonal and intrapersonal ways of neural plasticity, or even our diets, environments, and sleep habits).

And in evolutionary terms, the idea of humans being 'smarter' is a bit misleading. When discussing evolution, an organism fits it's niche. There is no direction to evolution - as I said, it is always in flux. There is a regularly calculated amount of genetic mutation, most of which is neutral (there is a certain level of redundancy in the genetic code, with several possible codons being used for a single amino acid, allowing for some 'mistakes' without fucking the whole thing up), some being negative, and others simply being different.

The latter one is the main point. No mutation is ever positive in itself, but only depending on the environment. Being a math or piano prodigy won't mean shit if you're born somewhere like Darfur or North Korea, and it certainly won't mean shit if you're lost out in the jungle where the so-called "lesser" animals like a chimpanzee will survive circles around us. Are humans transitional animals? Of course - there is no such thing as a plateau in evolution, even if there is a stagnant environment. But, if we undergo a sudden change in the environment, humans have enough genetic diversity that even if three fourths of our species goes extinct, those suitable to the new environment will survive and a new variety of genetics will arise.

Personality types are a variation in human genetics; that is what natural selection "acts" upon.

Comparing the personalities of humans and animals seems a bit bizarre to me. Sure, animals have different personalities among their own species and perhaps even genus, but the brain structure of say, a human and a dog, is so vastly different, having taken such different evolutionary paths, with such different selection pressures etc that it wouldn't even be a good "evolutionary idea" (for lack of a better term) for us to process information in the same ways.

The genetic determinism debate is a bit hackneyed. Anyone who thinks that something being biological meaning that it's a form of determinism only exposes themselves as being ignorant about how genetics and biology actually works, especially in an organism that is capable of introspection and self reflection (which, by the way, is a result of our biology).

Being human doesn't make us "break free" of our biology, and being biology ourselves doesn't doom us to a life of mindlessly eating, sleeping, and fucking, nor does it excuse us from acting like savages. If anything, evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology reveals to us why we process information in the ways we do and explains the urges we experience, which allows us to understand these parts of ourselves, being able to reflect on them, fix those aspects we want to fix and embrace the other parts (in others and ourselves). It's no different than just straight up MBTI theory, which doesn't constrain us to act a certain way, but allows us to apprehend what makes us tick - evolutionary psychology and neuropsychology simply lets us understand this from a physical, biological standpoint.

Sorry about the long post, but normally I would have supplemented it with links to make my points evident, but that generally isn't very effective.

 

[Lithorn]

Excellent post, Agent Intellect.
I've been thinking a lot about this thread and had some similar ideas whirring around in my head but had no idea how to express them. I did a little happy dance when I read that.

 

[Da Blob]

Sorry about the long post, but normally I would have supplemented it with links to make my points evident, but that generally isn't very effective.

That is true, those of us that have been around for a while know that you are careful about your facts, so we do not go to the links just to verify your statements. As for the rest...

However, once again i have to "bang the drum for the Humanities" The objective scientific POV is obviously valid, but the pseudoscientific is not... One really has to be a scientist to discern the difference between the two, sometimes. I can't help but "feel" that people are cheating themselves by constantly maintaining a view of themselves and all of humanity as Nothing-at-All, (but mere objects). We simply lack perspective to determine the answers to some questions about causality. Does changing the mind, the conscious produce changes in the brain, or does changes in the brain change the mind? Or is it not an either/or situation depending on the internal/external environment?

Carpe Diem!

 

[Irishpenguin]

Okaaaaaaaay....holy crap that was one hell of a post AI.

So now. I guess first I'll dive straight into this evolution talk. I won't try to act like I am a master when it comes to the theory of evolution, because I'm not and only have pretty basic knowledge on it. However I will admit that your post kind of shattered my thought on evolution which was the seemingly somewhat traditional view that:

"Evolution = Positive"

(I think I good example of this being a traditional though is the fact that the X-men getting there powers is pretty much based off of the mutants getting there powers from 'Skipping a step in evolution'. And who in world would think that having super powers isn't 'Positive' .Or maybe that's a horrible example.)

It shattered that thought because of the sayings about how evolution is not actually ever "positive" and really would only occur if for some reason the species in question's environment was changed and they were forced to adapt, and thus natural selection would ensue and all that good stuff.(?) However, I have a question to present. A common thing I have heard about evolution is something like "If someone is born who has a natural resistance to a certain disease, he/she would pass those genes on to their offspring and that would help to evolve the species". What you are saying would pretty much suggest that that "Someone" would never be born with.........okay I just seriously confused myself and am probably way off on everything I'm saying about evolution so just ignore most of that unless something that I said up their was actually going somewhere. Okay time for easier question.

Are you saying that personalities and cognitive functions in themselves will never "Evolve" but that people will simply be born with the more favorable personalities to fit their "niche"?

P.S. I'm not sure if this is terribly derailing the thread and is turning it into more of an evolution based thread, and that isn't what I want. But AI's post got me thinking...a lot. And I had to post my thoughts in order to get some type of closure.

 

[boradicus]

During periods, according the Meyers' and Jungs' theory, of being in the 'grip' of tertiary or inferior functions, we have the capacity to learn from these functions and to dynamically change the way that we behave. It is not therefore inconceivable that should a person feel sufficiently motivated to do so that he or she could in fact learn to operate efficiently out of these or perhaps even other preferences. For instance, I was once terribly spacey. Then when I took martial arts I began to develop a very strong Si side to myself - so much so that had I wished to do so I probably could have become far more sensing oriented than not. In fact, by the time I took the Meyers Briggs in college, I had a comfortable level of mastery with theory so that I was more drawn to empirical data for the purpose of substantiating ideas. This could have certainly remained a preference (as at the time I identified it to be and showed as ISTP as opposed to my more natural INTP preference) except upon taking a class in political theory, the theorist in me awoke and rose to the challenge and my former strength came readily to the fore.

The meditation argument seems also quite valid, as do experiments conducted on people using drugs that tend to diminish or increase the use of certain areas of the brain. Human beings (as indeed are all animals so some extent) are amazingly adaptable. People who have had brain damage and sensory damage learn over time to retrain their thinking and sensory apparati accordingly. I certainly have much faith in our species and equality based on equal opportunity to education and essential basic resources.

 

[Lithorn]

I can't help but "feel" that people are cheating themselves by constantly maintaining a view of themselves and all of humanity as Nothing-at-All, (but mere objects).

But is it really a matter of devaluing humanity, or just a rejection of Cartesian Dualism?

 

[Da Blob]

But is it really a matter of devaluing humanity, or just a rejection of Cartesian Dualism?

No it is a matter of exalting the Science of Man, above Mankind its Self. One does not maintain the POV of a human while wearing the hat of a scientist - in fact the more that one can pretend than humankind is one of the lower species, an alien species the easier it is to be objective.

The knowledge gained by real science can be used for purposes of applied science, a tool for the science of engineering. There is a lot of crap floating out there in the academic community that is not science at all, including evolutionary psychology. Pray tell what can be engineered from the unverifiable speculations that somehow are seen as science?

Human experience is the unit of Life and human experience is something that can never be put under a microscope. I think the point I am making is that human experience the stuff of our lives and necessarily is totally discounted by science because it pertains to subjects and not objects. There is a Subject that is you, a conscious sentient entity, within the Object that is your brain.

 

[NeverAmI]

I can't help but "feel" that people are cheating themselves by constantly maintaining a view of themselves and all of humanity as Nothing-at-All, (but mere objects). We simply lack perspective to determine the answers to some questions about causality. Does changing the mind, the conscious produce changes in the brain, or does changes in the brain change the mind? Or is it not an either/or situation depending on the internal/external environment?

Carpe Diem!

A good statement. I have a lot of arguments in my head about consciousness and the root of existence. The metaphysical debate in my own head revolves simply around the ability to experience. If I don't experience anything beyond this realm, then how can I attempt to comprehend or understand something that doesn't "exist?" Existence of course being subjective or relative in this sense.

As for causality, I don't pretend to know one way or the other. I am not saying anyone else could or couldn't know, how could I know that?

 

[Agent Intellect]

It shattered that thought because of the sayings about how evolution is not actually ever "positive" and really would only occur if for some reason the species in question's environment was changed and they were forced to adapt, and thus natural selection would ensue and all that good stuff.(?) However, I have a question to present. A common thing I have heard about evolution is something like "If someone is born who has a natural resistance to a certain disease, he/she would pass those genes on to their offspring and that would help to evolve the species". What you are saying would pretty much suggest that that "Someone" would never be born with.........okay I just seriously confused myself and am probably way off on everything I'm saying about evolution so just ignore most of that unless something that I said up their was actually going somewhere. Okay time for easier question.

I think, from the way this is worded, you are under the common misconception that all evolutionary change must be good - working towards disease resistance, or becoming smarter, or stronger, so that evolution is always an "upwards climb towards superiority". This, along with a goal-oriented evolutionary path (ie, evolution is attempting to make humans out of every animal or that evolution is trying to "fix" problems) are the two main misconceptions that people have.

Evolution is not directional. It shifts based on environments (the climate, terrain, other organisms including predators, prey, and disease) in what are called selection pressures. This, of course, is happening on a population level, too. Single organisms do not evolve, only populations of organisms - your genes will always be the same, but your childrens won't.

Genetic mutations, or the independent alignment and allele crossing over during meiosis, or sexual recombination, do not produce "positive" effects. They produce different effects. On the genetic level, all a mutation in a gene causes is a different way to code for a protein. For instance, people with immunity to AIDS have a pair of genes that cause them not to code for a proteine receptor on the surface of their white blood cells - it's merely an "accident" that this makes it so the AIDS virus can't infect their cells. The cells didn't try to stop producing this version of a protein receptor, and if it weren't for the AIDS virus, this mutation would have simply been seen as neutral.

The interesting thing is, if suddenly AIDS became a much bigger epidemic and all people without this mutation died, then a "new species" of humans would remain who do not have this particular protein receptor. It doesn't sound like a big deal, but tiny changes like this to our morphology over millions of years is what drives evolution.

Are you saying that personalities and cognitive functions in themselves will never "Evolve" but that people will simply be born with the more favorable personalities to fit their "niche"?

The cognitive functions you have will not evolve. They may go through developmental or neuroplasticity changes, but the underlying genes that code for your brain is what will be passed on to your potential children, and those are the genes that are subject to mutation and sexual recombination and many of the other effects during meiosis.

People will not be born with more favorable personalities. People will be born with the personality they get. How that is useful for them in their environment and in finding a mate is what is called fitness in evolution vernacular, and that will determine how well you can pass on the genes that are responsible for your personality - evolution will favor personality types within a population but not in a single person. It's evolution why there are only like 4% INTP's and 50% SJ's.

The difficult part is figuring out how much of ones personality is preserved through reproduction. Even if we don't consider mutations, just the random alignment of our chromosomes during meiosis gives us 2^23 different chromosome patterns that a single gamete could have, multiply that by 2^23 ways your mates chromosomes could align in their gamete and now you have almost 70 trillion different chromosomal alignments. Now, throw allele crossing over into the mix (where alleles transfer between two homologous chromosomes from the same loci) and the ways the potential zygote could differ are almost incalculable (figure about 30,000 different genes, maybe 80% of them are able to cross over without causing a miscarriage; you do the math). Then try throwing mutations into the mix...

For the most part, all any of that will do is 'randomize' things like blood type, hair and eye color, bone density etc. The point I'm making is that, the brain is coded for by many different genes. The likelihood that someones offspring will have all of the exact same ones is astronomically small, but that is where the "genes eye view" comes in - but I won't get into that, suffice to say that the human brain is not the goal of evolution, but that it is a product, built on top of other successful genes, all coding for their own survival. If becoming stupid became more suitable to survival, evolution would not "care" that what humans mistake for the pinnacle of biology would fall back into a more animalistic way of survival. Our brains are messy, cobbled together by what worked out in the past and not built for the purpose of unraveling it's own secrets.

 

[Lithorn]

No it is a matter of exalting the Science of Man, above Mankind its Self. One does not maintain the POV of a human while wearing the hat of a scientist - in fact the more that one can pretend than humankind is one of the lower species, an alien species the easier it is to be objective.

The knowledge gained by real science can be used for purposes of applied science, a tool for the science of engineering. There is a lot of crap floating out there in the academic community that is not science at all, including evolutionary psychology. Pray tell what can be engineered from the unverifiable speculations that somehow are seen as science?

Human experience is the unit of Life and human experience is something that can never be put under a microscope. I think the point I am making is that human experience the stuff of our lives and necessarily is totally discounted by science because it pertains to subjects and not objects. There is a Subject that is you, a conscious sentient entity, within the Object that is your brain.

But I think that you are conflating separate issues, and in effect contradicting yourself. One needn't be a scientist (or pseudo scientist) in order to reject dualism. And in fact, the acknowledgement of the inextricably linked nature of the body and the self just acknowledges our innate subjectivity.
If the brain/body is in fact the filter through which the soul experiences life, then the attempt to be purely objective is actually an attempt to find the pure soul.

 

[amorfati]

Somewhere along our evolutionary path some human/proto-human thought "consciousness = free will!" and it has stuck.

I don't think anything in the universe has ever quite vexed me as much as this unfortunate fact.

 

[Da Blob]

Somewhere along our evolutionary path some human/proto-human thought "consciousness = free will!" and it has stuck.

I don't think anything in the universe has ever quite vexed me as much as this unfortunate fact.

So why did you freely choose to be vexed by this, others aren't?

 

[Lithorn]

So why did you freely choose to be vexed by this, others aren't?

Umm...some others are.

 

[Lithorn]

I mean, what annoys me about it is the fact that it's accepted as a given. Two distinct concepts are automatically equated with each other and nobody ever questions it or asks for an explanation as to what makes them the same thing.

 

[Adymus]

During periods, according the Meyers' and Jungs' theory, of being in the 'grip' of tertiary or inferior functions, we have the capacity to learn from these functions and to dynamically change the way that we behave. It is not therefore inconceivable that should a person feel sufficiently motivated to do so that he or she could in fact learn to operate efficiently out of these or perhaps even other preferences. For instance, I was once terribly spacey. Then when I took martial arts I began to develop a very strong Si side to myself - so much so that had I wished to do so I probably could have become far more sensing oriented than not. In fact, by the time I took the Meyers Briggs in college, I had a comfortable level of mastery with theory so that I was more drawn to empirical data for the purpose of substantiating ideas. This could have certainly remained a preference (as at the time I identified it to be and showed as ISTP as opposed to my more natural INTP preference) except upon taking a class in political theory, the theorist in me awoke and rose to the challenge and my former strength came readily to the fore.

The meditation argument seems also quite valid, as do experiments conducted on people using drugs that tend to diminish or increase the use of certain areas of the brain. Human beings (as indeed are all animals so some extent) are amazingly adaptable. People who have had brain damage and sensory damage learn over time to retrain their thinking and sensory apparati accordingly. I certainly have much faith in our species and equality based on equal opportunity to education and essential basic resources.

There is a massive difference between developing your offside functions (adapting yourself to more rounded functionality if you will), and shifting them entirely in such a way that they become your preference functions. Nobody is claiming that your Tertiary and Inferior functions must remain limb and incompetent forever, They can develop and a person could become quite skilled in using them. But they are just functions that will always drain you, and never have very high priority in your overall functionality.

Also, I'm not trying to start any accusations again, But there is something that needs to be clarified. What you described sounds more like Se, not Si. Si has absolutely nothing to do with being more present, it's actually quite the opposite. Si is an internal function, we must actually withdraw from the present here and now in order to use it. Developing Si would not make an INTP more present, that is what Ne and Fe is for.
Se on the other hand takes in outside sensory data that is happening in the present. Unlike Si, Se is not based in time, it is adaptive and thus focuses only on the present details in the outer world.

 

[amorfati]

I mean, what annoys me about it is the fact that it's accepted as a given. Two distinct concepts are automatically equated with each other and nobody ever questions it or asks for an explanation as to what makes them the same thing.

EXACTLY!

And to daBlob, What point are you trying to make? Did I ever say I chose to be vexed by this phenomenon? All I said was I am vexed by this, not that I "chose" anything.