UPDATE: The Forum has been RESTORED! See announcement here. Welcome back everyone!



Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Mobile Theme


The case against reality

Discuss science and technology topics here.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Post Reply
flowerthief00
Freshman Poster
Posts: 408
Joined: January 11th, 2017, 5:14 am

The case against reality

Post by flowerthief00 » November 30th, 2019, 9:19 am

This is long but goes into really deep fascinating territory. A quick take-away is the finding that evolution does NOT select for the organism who understands reality. It seems to be the case that it could be a survival advantage to be dead wrong in your beliefs.

I am reminded of a study that found that people who have an accurate view of themselves are more likely to suffer from depression. Conversely, the people with unrealistically inflated opinions of themselves are happier in life.

Which leads to an interesting dilemma: Is it better to be happy? Or is it better to be right?
Evolution would suggest that you take the blue pill.



*

User avatar
Neo
Junior Poster
Posts: 523
Joined: June 28th, 2018, 7:27 pm

Re: The case against reality

Post by Neo » December 1st, 2019, 1:06 am

It's better to seek the truth. Then a person should be able to act accordingly. To believe in delusion is to live life according to lies, which is a horrible way to live. Self-delusion leads to conceit. Although they may be happy, this type do not conduct themselves according to truth. Who can trust a person who lies to himself about the nature of reality itself?

God created humanity.
Salvation is the free gift of God simply for believing that Jesus is the Son of God, and it can't be lost; the only repentance necessary is the change of mind from unbelief to belief, because salvation is not about turning from sin because it is without works. Jesus, the Savior kept all the commandments in absolute perfection for us, ∴ salvation is without works, and He died for our sins, taking the eternal penalty for us.

User avatar
andrewfitzpatrick
Freshman Poster
Posts: 9
Joined: February 22nd, 2018, 11:40 pm

Re: The case against reality

Post by andrewfitzpatrick » January 22nd, 2020, 5:09 am

flowerthief00 wrote:
November 30th, 2019, 9:19 am
This is long but goes into really deep fascinating territory. A quick take-away is the finding that evolution does NOT select for the organism who understands reality. It seems to be the case that it could be a survival advantage to be dead wrong in your beliefs.

I am reminded of a study that found that people who have an accurate view of themselves are more likely to suffer from depression. Conversely, the people with unrealistically inflated opinions of themselves are happier in life.

Which leads to an interesting dilemma: Is it better to be happy? Or is it better to be right?
Evolution would suggest that you take the blue pill.



*
Thanks for posting. Enjoyable video. I've been watching Tom Campbell on youtube recently since I like his views on consciousness. This is another viewpoint on that same theme.

User avatar
Shemp
Junior Poster
Posts: 903
Joined: November 23rd, 2014, 4:45 am

Re: The case against reality

Post by Shemp » January 22nd, 2020, 6:32 am

https://aeon.co/essays/the-voice-of-sad ... f-its-sane

Rationality is definitely non-fit and strongly selected against. In particular, sacrificing yourself for a grand cause is highly irrational. But back in days of hand to hand combat, armies composed of men who were rational (and thus focused on self interest) would have been crushed by armies of true believers. Rational soldiers would all try to avoid the front lines. Race to the rear would soon turn into a rout. Which implies that people with strong tendency towards rationality probably mostly exist in marginal lands, where they never faced competition with other humans but rather population was held in check by difficulty of eeking out a living. Think hunter gatherers in sparsely populated scrub deserts.

Longer a group has been living in rich lands, where the chief threat is not Mother Nature but rather other humans, greater the tendency towards irrational thinking. In some cases the selection pressure is made extreme by a binary choice every generation: irrational true believers into group A, rational indifferent skeptics into group B. After many generations, group A will have very strong tendency towards batshit craziness. This describes Askenazi Jews, where every generation had the choice to remain a Jew and suffer persecution, or convert to Christianity so as to escape persecution. Converts blend into the surrounding population, whereas true believers become more are more highly selected for tendency to fanaticism.

Above reasoning requires that tendency to rational or irrational thinking is hereditary, either genetic, or programming that can be passed from one generation to the next, or combination of genes and programming. I think it's mostly programming towards irrationality (which opens the possibility that a person raised to be crazy can later learn to be sane), but probably a genetic component with people like Dan Cilley.

I absolutely do NOT believe that rational, reality-based thinking necessarily leads to depression. It only does so in stupid people who actually are not totally rational, but merely more rational than average. Truly rational people are like me, cheerful amoral monsters who don't reproduce much (if at all) and hence are always uncommon.

User avatar
Cornfed
Elite Upper Class Poster
Posts: 7526
Joined: August 17th, 2012, 5:22 am

Re: The case against reality

Post by Cornfed » January 22nd, 2020, 8:57 am

Shemp wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 6:32 am
Rationality is definitely non-fit and strongly selected against.
Only if you draw an arbitrary boundary around your physical body. There is no rational reason to do this.

User avatar
Shemp
Junior Poster
Posts: 903
Joined: November 23rd, 2014, 4:45 am

Re: The case against reality

Post by Shemp » January 22nd, 2020, 4:33 pm

Cornfed wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 8:57 am
Shemp wrote:
January 22nd, 2020, 6:32 am
Rationality is definitely non-fit and strongly selected against.
Only if you draw an arbitrary boundary around your physical body. There is no rational reason to do this.
First you start with goals, then rationality means acting in a way to achieve those goals, irrationality the opposite. If your goal is to expand the Mongol empire and glorify Genghis Khan, then sacrificing yourself in battle is rational. However, such a goal is not reality based.

Reality based goals are based on the physical reality of the body: satisfying fundamental bodily desires for self-preservation and reproduction. The reproductive urge is actually a sexual urge, then mother strongly bonds to her children during childbirth, plus both men and women less strongly bond to other bodies with which they have close physical contact, especially sexual contact. Thus in practice, sexual urge inevitably results in reproduction and child-rearing (absent modern technology like contraception and abortion).

So let me rephrase. Rationality applied to reality based goals is fit and selected for as long as humans are primarily struggling with the rest of Mother Nature for survival. Once humans start primarily competing with other humans (the case in most of the world for past 5000 years at least), rationality applied to reality based goals becomes unfit and is selected against.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Science and Technology”