It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

DesCartes is the originator of our current problems

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:13 PM
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 ordination.
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 revealed now.

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

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 02:47 PM
a reply to: largo

Occam's (Ockham's) Razor, logic, reason and curiosity commit us to finding a better solution than peer reviewed, unsustainable points of view.

If we conceive of a Purpose, beyond mere hedonism, to our existence, we're forced to display the best of our analytic abilities. Kurzweil (a mechanist) states our ability to recognize patterns is the preeminent and most evolved portion of our human expression. He even feels that this is mostly absent in animals. (This does not help explain their mourning, anticipatory joy, tool use and bonding into communities for a common purpose. While weaker it's still present.)

He believes that we are foci and that we can duplicate this form of 'mind' strictly by physical tools. I agree but they will no longer be machines, no more than we. When Quantum events can readily interact with a machine's thinking they will not be a Descartian lower form. They will have a 'spiritual' (same entanglements as us to the base field) aspect. This is no different than a GM'ed human's standing in a Conscious Universe.

Another portion of a Conscious Universe is our wondering why we are it's tools and why it employed these methods to reach an outcome. Not so much what we are for but why it felt a need to do anything? At this point only speculation is available. Is it looking for a new home? One where it can manipulate things more easily? Is it looking to complete itself? Are we a way for it to flex its muscles, to stay in shape? Is it looking to improve efficiency in some device? An engineering exercise? Currently unfathomable to those of us who lack the conviction of 'faith' and unprovable by any other means. .

I assign no motivations to the Universe only that it exhibits certain regularities. I do state that we are of an expressed continuum. That discreteness is a result of poor perception and insights. That this Universe seems to demand and shows a regular form of action. That this action is omnipresent. That our abilities allow us to discern this 'desire' to evolve. That it seeks a stable enough NOW to allow for a platform to progress toward greater complexity. That this observable evolving necessitates statistical regularities which allows for free will. That it uses the Quantum Foam to manifest this NOW. That it will adjust the now to maintain structure. That the observations 'I' am aware of fit this model better than others.

I will respond to any comments that are not based on belief and maybe even those if they are not merely Cartesian Circular arguments (The only GOOD concept in Philosophy due to him.). If unfamiliar with the basis for my reasoning please look at my other thread on a Conscious Universe. I understand it's a slog but, hey!, it ain't easy to do this. If you feel I should be forgiven for being obtuse, thanks. If you feel I should be castigated for this, remember to read a few of the ancients meanderings. This is a least briefer.

edit on 5-6-2014 by largo because: Clarifying, grammar

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:13 PM
Descartes died in 1650, 364 years ago....that pretty well explains his irrelevance in science, philosophy, and general ideas of living.
edit on 5-6-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:30 PM
a reply to: jimmyx

It's our misfortune that the results of his philosophizing has resulted into justifying horrors in society. He justified his positions through belief while decrying belief as a proper format for reason.
See neo-cons, elites, abuse of animals, all of winning and losing. Anyone who 'believes' is a stone in OUR shoe(s). This includes the cores of entire fields of study that need to have at the LEAST an examination of his influence.
Heck. if some are stones, this dude was broken brick on our so(l)(u)es.

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:30 PM
Nah he was a realist. They were discredited by the empiricists. Newton and Locke destroyed a lot of the philosophy. Kant eventually gave the world a philosophical revolution with his ideas (to this day are powerful revaluations). Decartes was a great thinker but it's been argued against by much more modern philosophy that has poked plenty of holes in His theories. Empiricism is where most of our modern ideas come from especially political so I don't see how the realists would have caused the worlds problems. a reply to: largo

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 03:33 PM
'A song from somewhere below
Deadly and slow begins
Both sickly and sweet
Now picking up speed
Ushering in the world's end
And the ghost of Descartes screams again in the dark
"Oh how could I have been so wrong?"
But above the screams still the sirens sing their song'
edit on 5-6-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 05:41 PM
a reply to: largo

I must commend you on your post, and analysis.

However, I think you are wrong. Much described as modern effects attributed to Descartes I would simply attribute to human nature.

top topics


log in