"Man's Mind: His Basic Tool of Survival

~~~

Overall, Seeker, I think researchers have done a good job of recognizing that we can only hypothesize about much of this, but what you've proprosed is in line with what I've read as well. It makes sense to me. Just as I suspect it "made sense" (of some sort) to Man's earliest ancestors to choose option A over option D when faced with a same or similar survival dilemma/choice after a number of times.

But then I also wonder about the "fluke" factor. Did our first ancestor just get lucky? Did we win the DNA lottery? Again, we can look at what we now know about DNA and speculate. kmguru's post sweetens the pot on this. Yet, the bottom line still appears to be the same: Man's mind is not only exceptional, it's essential to our survival.

If we are all in agreement about this, (granted, some may not be) including the concept that Man's Mind is an essential "tool," then is there any rational justification for abandoning or dismissing our own ability to survive, or thrive, as seems appropriate for our species as it has evolved thus far?

We don't expect an animal to abandon it's mostly instinct-driven methods of survival. When an animal doesn't behave in a pro-survival way, we consider its behavior abnormal. We study it or take it to the vet. We know that something is off.

When Man behaves in a manner that threatens his own survival, (abandons the proper use of his mind and lets others tell him what to think--or not to think at all) is it just a single man's survival that's at stake, or is it Mankind's survival that's at stake?

I see such an abandonment as a threat to both, even as I recognize that every individual has a choice.

For those that are interested, is there a real threat, and if so, to whom? Who or what poses the biggest threat to Man's survival?

~~~

Thanks,

Counterbalance

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Chagur!!

Hail, and well met, my friend!

(btw, a sadder tale of woe I have never heard. I'd invite you to join me on the virtual couch here in order to offer my commiserations, but methinks you could stand another dunk in ye ol' bathtub first--no offense intended, of course!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

But what's this? You claim me to be a cruel man?? Worse, a cruel, cruel man...?

Alas, had I known that my question would drive you to such depths of despair and, uh...impaired perception, I'd never have put the task to you. (Schroedinger's Cat?! Ye gods, man... what WERE you drinking? lol!) But yea... to think of all you've suffered over the holidays...what with partying, visiting with friends, and ruling the world everything, I suppose I was a smidge inconsiderate.

But hey! You seem to be back among the living now, so how about engaging that masterful brain once more? We have quests aplenty here on this thread. I, myself, have posted some new questions just today. As usual, you may contribute per your whim. (We can hardly expect more from the "Supreme Dictator of the World.") Indeed, 'tis an honour and a pleasure to digest your....errrrr... input!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The light remains ON, and until we meet again...

Happy Journeys!

(bowing respectfully)

Counterbalance

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Duh, hi (I think) ...

Please, my head still aches a bit ... and then to lay on me the following:

And all I can think is: Input? Output! Output??? Barrrrffffff!!!!!

Take care.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS Switched over to 'Human Science > The Nature of Thought'

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The survival of mankind is dependent on thinking. If we do not think, then we can not make proper choices. If we do not make choices then we can not analyze(learn), if we can not analyze, then we will not survive. How is this disagreeable?

If we abandon the proper use of our mind, and lose our thought, we lose our conscience. Once we have lost that, there is no telling what would or could happen. As far as I can see, it is happening, generation after generation, a bit of our conscience dies out. With no conscience it would be "okay" to kill, steal, and destroy. In the long run, that is the real threat to all living things.

 

~~~

Seems pretty obvious to me, kinamic, yet in order to justify some choices/actions, or non-choices, humans have made all kinds of attempts to deny this. This ties in with what I wrote on your thread regarding your choice of embracing a religion or some other form of "seeking." Some folk tend to let themselves be guided by their feelings. By doing this many will abandon their ability or choice to analyze a problem/situation. Their ultimate choice of what to do--or not to do--may be correct in some instances, but I equate "letting one's feelings be one's main guide" with an unjustifiable gamble. The same with the choice to allow "faith" to override our ability to reason.

We already have what it takes to make the most of our human survival. We have our brains, our minds, our human consciousness along with the rest of our amazing body. Throughout our history Man has been faced with one challenge after another to discount his own abilities--Man challenging Man. Rather than face up to this unfortunate truth, some men buy into philosophies that provide excuses for anti-man behavior; rationality that is truly not rational. Not in the long run; not in the bigger picture. Some do it in ignorance. Some know they are wrong, but take the easy way out.

It does seem at times that an overwhelming percentage of our fellow men have lost some or all of their consciences. Yet I think Man is entering a phase of history where we're actually standing on the brink of another age of enlightenment. The popularity of "spiritualism" has increased in recent years, but I think one of the primary reasons for this is because people are hungry for truth. In some cases, they're starving for it. Science has gained a stronger respect and Religion has had to combat that. The outcome of such a battle (in a war that has been going on for much of our history) creates a variety of causes that nudge people to question and to seek.

Still, irrational methods of "surviving" have been on the intellectual market for a long enough time that these seem to have at least some credibility. People have been given reasons to fear trying to live Life without being certain about various "unknowables." Such notions are embedded in our human culture. Some philosophies, particularly religions, claim to have enough correct answers to relieve what are actually unnecessary human fears--in my opinion.

Men living in our age have the benefit of more human history to reflect upon, and much improved abilities to communicate with the rest of the world, to do research. Thus, they have more to support their doubts, and are, I think, more skeptical than were the majority of people who lived a hundred years ago--and even as Today's Man encounters more counterclaims that abandoning the ability of one's own mind-tool is the way to go. These counterclaims just don't add up and larger numbers of Mankind appear to be coming to terms with this, albeit slowly.

Fear is an extraordinarily powerful tool. But I agree with all who've made the statement before: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Because we also have our wonderful minds which we can use to diffuse "fear" in all its anti-man guises.

Btw... for a more in-depth discussion about how the mind works, inasmuch as we understand it to work so far, there have been some very intriguing posts offered on the "The Nature of Thought" thread.

~~~

Thanks for the input, kinamic...

Counterbalance

 

Where do people's feelings originate? Isn't being guided by your feelings actually being guided by a mixture of the way you were brought up and your past choices? Choices require thought, and someone that brings you up tells you things based on their thoughts of what they "think" you should know.

 

People’s feelings can ‘originate’ from various causes. But are our feelings influenced by our upbringing? By our past choices?

My reply to both would be “yes.” A child who is taught that certain behavior or beliefs are wrong is likely to accept, for a while at least, that such teachings are true, or correct enough. Generally in the heads and hearts of the child’s parents, teachers or peers these ideologies are true. For the young to dispute what they are taught, to behave or believe differently than what is expected or desired, is typically perceived by the child as being too risky to attempt too often. The child stands to lose acceptance or approval by family members, friends or society at large if he doesn‘t conform. Most children fear falling out of their parent’s favor. Many would rather die than be considered too uncool by their peers. Instinct strongly suggests that we don’t bite the hand that feeds us (--or the hand strokes our egos as we like best. Pro-survival either way.)

Why this instinct came into being in the first place however likely had more to do with keeping our offspring from straying too far from their “family unit” and into harm’s way, and much less to do with guiding them in their choices about personal belief systems. Then again, there is evidence that as time passed early man (who by our standards was quite child-like) discovered or developed the concept of “spirits,” or of the supernatural. Depending on what any of these ideas entailed, the young could then have been instructed to “think as we think” for the sake of improving their chances of survival. (Not a good idea to anger the powerful spirits overseeing certain predatory animals.) Eventually, or even simulataneously, more clever men found it useful to “fear” their peers into following certain rules. Doing so seemed to aid the group’s survival in some ways, and often brought status or other rewards to the spiritual teacher, leader, or rule-maker. Doubtful that few (or any) at the time thought in terms of how such behavior might affect Mankind so far into the future. Their idea of "future" was probably quite different than ours.

The frequency of a tendency to accept what one is taught becomes part of the child’s personality, part of his own “method” of reasoning, though some children will question more than others, of course. (thank goodness) Depends on how necessary or how often it seems proper to the child to behave this way. Until or unless a child finds a reason to doubt that a claim is untrue, and then seeks to verify that his doubts are reasonable, then behaving ‘out of accordance’ with what he was taught was right in the first place is going to cause him to have unsettled feelings. Mind and body are then at odds. Coping with this can be very difficult. No one likes to be too uncertain about too many things at once. In many instances people will decide to stick with what has always been “comfortable” rather than risk a season or longer of uncertainty. It’s fear that underpins these feelings; fear or guilt stemming from the action of straying from the pack. If one has a strong desire for truth though, one can investigate the causes for whatever they’re feeling at such a point and very likely discover enough to be able to weed out irrational feelings from those proper to a questing human.

Our past choices?

Some past choices were made in error. Some choices were the correct choice at the time they were made. But we grow and learn, and in doing so we often discover perfectly valid reasons to make new choices. A good understanding of why we’re considering a choice, and of the consequences of a choice, are highly advisable, I think, though also with the understanding that we are usually just doing the best we can. No need to be unnecessarily hard on ourselves, just as it's foolish to be too lax. One person’s “best” will better than another’s. That’s the way it goes.

Regardless of any choices we’ve made in the past, I think we owe it to ourselves to be the best we can be--and according to our own standards of "best." Achieving this will often mean moving beyond or discarding past decisions while being careful as we handle new ones. Bottom line: There usually aren’t any valid reasons to rush to judgment once we‘ve determined that we are worth more than biblical dust after all.

~~~

Counterbalance

 

Well said Counterbalance(Your a very smart person)... I think this thread is about dried up. I hope everyone learned a little bit from it, I know I did. It was nice chatting with all of you.

 

Counterbalance....

Apparently you are an Ayn Rand reader. I certainly hope her teachings have landed you in the school of Objectivism. I appreciate your writing. I only stumbled upon it when looking for the exact verbiage of my favorite quote: "to be or not to be" for man, is "to think or not to think" words I was raised by. Anyhow, I do not know how old these posts are but refreshing nevertheless. A little something I recently told a friend who was vacillating between her own political beliefs and populous conjecture: PRINCIPLES ARE NOT A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE AND OUGHT TO BE ABSOLUTE! THEY ARE A MANS DEFINING IDEALS THAT WHEN ACTED UPON, ILLUSTRATION ONES TRUE SELF, THAT ACTION REVEALS ONES CHARACTER, ONES BEING AND DEFINES ONES LEGACY. So, I do not know how deeply you treasure Rand's works, her insight, her unapologetic correctness but I was pleased when typing in my Google search to find that I did not have to thread through her book to find the words as they are seemingly clearly and proudly displayed/quoted in abundance and from multiple sources on the web. Thankfully the lack of Rand exposure in academia has not stifled her voice. Best Regards, Kara

 

Mod Note:

j.galt,

The thread is 8 years old, which you can easily see by the post dates.
Thread necromancy is to be avoided. Next time, copy a particular post you'd like to respond to, and start a new thread.

Thread closed.