Rene Descartes was raised in the most elitist atmosphere available. The only pay he ever received was kept by him as a 'curiosity'. He was a supreme
egoist. The expression for which he was best known, "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think, therefore I am.), was a complete exposition of his character.
He believed that animals and everything else were merely machines. They were incapable of expressing any of the higher attributes of being. He
performed experiments with vivisection of live animals and was actively cruel in encounters with these biological 'devices' as he relieved himself of
any moral responsibility to act kindly toward them. Indeed humans were the only manifestation of consciousness and that this was by godly
His ability to argue and his support for dualism is omnipresent in his writings.
I do not decry his intelligence or mathematical reasoning. I state that he misused his perceptions to defend his chronic physical frailty and
religious persuasions. According to my professor, he also was abusive to his social inferiors. He was flawed and spoiled in his personality and his
resultant actions by our current standards of behavior. While understandable in his life's context utilizing his dualism has resulted in gross
stupidities expressed in much of science and philosophy. (Environmental issues come to mind. Us/Them tribalism, Win/lose, Yea/Nay politics, etc.)
He felt that dualism is the only way to approach anything. That knowledge had to be purified by clinging to the observable which he himself avoided
when he defended an omniscient, omnipresent and omni-benevolent god. A god which had to exist and formed all good, such as himself. He also, in
defining the brain-in-a-vat concept, spoke of how an evil spirit would have to use all of its powers to deceive him to think that this was false
universe of perceptions. A further strike against him as a person. How could he actually think that an evil spirit needed to utilize all of it's
faculties to confuse his single self? Meh.
This is a summary of why he was such a poor exemplar of humanity to have such influence over US.
Much of philosophy's efforts has been arguments about his segregation of spirit and body, pro and con. I consider this, in light of current verified
science, to be the musings of sheepherders about astronomy. Historically interesting but no guide to understanding the fundaments of what is being
We, in the main, no longer consider animals to be without consciousness. That egalitarian concepts serve us best. Inclusion is better than exclusion.
That actions impact more than the immediate object affected. That 'truths' are difficult to discover and NEED to be discarded when they do not fit the
preconceptions they postulate.
I am of the persuasion, expressed in my other thread, that the Universe is Conscious. That its awareness of itself is expressed in everything
observable and is actively demonstrated when interactions occur in the physical reality we dwell in. That the Quantum Foam is the interface between
that realm and this NOW. In this creation I am using Tom Campbell's thoughts but carrying them a little further. I do dismiss the Buddha of only the
now and that we are only represented by this current beingness. A greater whole is being played out here like the Shadows in the Cave. We are not a
simulation, this is not a simulated Universe. This is as real as it gets which then still begs the question, "Why are we here?" (Note that I said we.
Like it or not this is the Ark.)
We (all inclusive) are allowed free will at every level within the bounds of statistics. Then this is not a mechanistic reality but one which is
adaptable and fluid. I use ONE primary premise which is observable in every case to generate a model. This Universe wants to evolve. Olaf Stapledon
used this in one of his Science Fiction novels. He did use god as his basis for creation. My thought is that a god, as a Prime Mover, a distinct and
separate entity, is unnecessary.
That we are part and parcel of both the background field of consciousness supporting our 'now' and that this now is a platform for change, changes
abetted by our (remember inclusive) behaviors, is conceptually sound.
Descartes by pressing us into a mathematically determined Universe, ruled by a god, failed to consider that statistical analysis presents itself and
disputes him at every turn. Now we are faced with Mandlebrot fractals which descend all the way to the Planck limits, Quantum weirdness, an
unexplained Euclidean flat geometry Universe killing most of current Cosmology models, aberrations in timed perceptions of events, etc.
It occurs to me that this is a result of now falsified models. Nobody has a fully functioning, all inclusive concept available. This caused me to
look for a valid construct by, much like Descartes, sharply winnowing down to core Universal behaviors. His Universe is not inclusive, mine is. The
title of a SF compendium, "We Think, Therefore We Are", and using a Universal we is pretty much a summary of my direction.
How can a Bell Curve exist in a purely deterministic Universe? How can we allow for the outliers? Why does everything return to the mean? What could
possibly be preordained with absolute certainty? The answer is nothing. Using pure mathematics it can be asserted that the Earth IS the center of the
universe. You can do it for the Moon. Math has NO overriding superiority to reasoning derived from observation. It can prove anything if misused. Its
use requires an external examination to see if it fits. The QTs, QMs modelings are proving deficient and seem to have side tracked us into spur with
no exit. Every time it has failed in predicted observation, a new and more complex, ineffable set of proofs are generated. Once again you can use math
to prove anything but a mathematically sound proof MAY have value. No guarantee of this.
Due to my being an uncertified poster, see next entry. (If you want!)
edit on 5-6-2014 by largo because: Clarifying, grammar