Is cognition a form of psychosis?

Post Reply New Topic

Is cognition is a form of psychosis? In our beastial form we were of want for nothing but perseverance. This is the whole of our purpose. To linger for so long as we are able. As our minds overdeveloped we became disconnected with our natural place in the world and perceived ourselves as separate from the world. We ever more reject ourselves as part of a system. Even as we compartmentalize our scientific understanding of where we come from we become further alienated by the concept of where it all will lead us. Ignoring finality in our ambition to pursue a meaningful future by which we may collectively cheat our useless existence followed by complete death. Cognition is the flawed tool by which; we see ourselves, in many different forms; we see the universe, with many different purposes; and we see the future, with many different outcomes. In the end the only use of the human mind is self-indulgence. Even as one can argue our mind has put us at the top of the food chain now, our dominating and patriarchal clutch on earth will end. Nature will restore itself, and ecological order will put us back in our place. So what more is cognition than a form of psychosis that took over our evolutionary ancestors? A psychosis that unnecessarily convolutes the liminal skills required for us to survive on earth.

Cognition is a necessary function for our survival until we can reproduce our kind., Which is why cognition evolved among certain species of land animals. See how long you would live without cognition. You probably would not survive your first day since your nurturing adult lacks cognition and could not take care of you.

ruveyn

Cognition is really too broad a term for the question I'm trying to convey. I mean the human cognitive traits that persists beyond our most basic requirements for survival. And more specifically I am referring to our development of consciousness and the natural manner in which it separates us from other species. My question of this separation is in its extended usefulness. That is, are we not better off as simple beings, innocent of subjectivity? For instance our knowledge of death does nothing to prevent it insofar as animal instinct can protect one from danger. Are we not better off constrained by a smaller more direct framework of reality rather than unlimited foresight. Concerning survival, our evolutionary response to it is naturally occurring. We became more intelligent to to overcome more and more obstacles. But the extent of our self-awareness goes well beyond what's necessary. And so we are disillusioned by a false percept of reality that places each one of us at the center of our own universe. Is this not a fault in our cognitive abilities? The inability to control it's range to that which is required for us to simply survive.

The almighty Robert Trivers (Peace Be Upon Him) suggested that human intellect evolved in an evolutionary arms race between cheaters and cheater detectors. One of the reasons why they slapped a Nobel Prize on John Forbes Nash.

http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/ ... _recip.pdf (see page 54)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_arms_race

It is therefore quite plausible that humans have "more" cognition than actually necessary for simple survival. Survival just wasn't simple in the Pleistocene.

From the perspective of macroevolution, it may thus at first glance seem odd that humans have such a high brain-to-body mass ratio, but if we need to be smart in order to be good at backstabbing others while avoiding being stabbed in the back by others, then it suddenly makes much more sense.

Simplicity itself!

Interior phrenology...

What do you mean by 'better off'? By 'purpose'?

Better a pig satisfied than Socrates dissatisfied?

Could very well be a happy/unhappy accident (delete as applicable).

I don't think it's a psychosis.

I think that you dont mean "cognition".

What you mean is "consciousness".

That's and interesting point. How I mangle it in my head is that it's by disharmonious volition that we form reason, and by reason I see this disharmony. The significance of this is in its inescapability, that is, if you assume truth in it. Which returns me right back into futility. Pyrrhonism keeps leading me into nihilism. So I'm right back to where I started, what is the point of these cognitive tools other than to either cop-out (Camus) or chase my tail end?





Added to my reading list, thanks.




Pretty much, but I look at consciousness being the result of our flawed cognition. The issue to me occurs in lack of restraint in our cognitive function.




By better off I am reflecting my personal concerns with the question. But I don't consider myself alone in existential concerns. In that sense, right you are that it is a happy accident. But I do look at it as psychosis, although words are inert. In this sense I can also extend the meaning to be a complete delusion of our nature. All reason is therein a byproduct of our essential being, to eat, drink, f**k, and flee.

I am *utterly* insulted by the fact that Jean Baudrillard is mentioned in the same thread as Robert Trivers. It's like comparing Lamarck or Lysenko with Darwin.

Who brought up Baudrillard?

The quote by Jean Baudrillard that I posted is purely philosophical. It has nothing to do with his contributions in the field of sociobiology or any other scientific discipline. When trying to scientifically explain the subjective mind, there will always be a gray area that can only be defined by philosophical ideas. The validity of these ideas can be supported by theories or empirical observations but they can never be proven or disproven because they are creations of the subjective mind and not part of the objective universe. Greater understanding of science can contribute to greater understanding of philosophy and vice versa, but there is no direct correlation between the two. Robert Trivers had philosophical ideas as well, but as to who was the greater philosopher is a question of opinion. Most of Robert Trivers' quotes are much shorter and would be much more difficult to argue with, but they don't present as broad of an idea as this quote by Jean Baudrillard.

As for the question on whether cognition is form of psychosis, I'd say that it isn't, but psychosis can't happen without it. Cognition can never be given up because it is part of our human existence. Our desires are the only things we can change to affect the subjective mind. The question of whether it is better to follow your desires and resist the natural order, or to give up your desires and make peace with the natural order is a philosophical question, and there is no correct answer. Human existence cannot backtrack to the way it was in primitive times nor would it be good if it did. Humans have created a much better existence for themselves with the power of cognition.

I think you should get a Nobel Prize for this idea

Are we at the top of the food chain? I mean, we can still get eaten. True enough, it's not likely I'll be taken down by a lion and chomped on today - least I f*****g hope not - but in that sense we are the top of a food chain, other food chains being available.

I don't think there is a 'proper' (in the sense of 'natural') place for us, except wherever we find ourselves.

If we look to evolution for a 'purpose', we have to be radically anti-teleological. Aspects/traits of ourselves (physical or otherwise) arose. Sometimes they found a usefulness in our direct survival, sometimes not, sometimes they would sit there quietly until they did find a use, generations down the line. A beginning/budlike form of a trait may be used for something, but when it 'flowers', the resultant trait may be used for something else. Etc.

I always try to be mindful that any answers we try to find to questions have to be helpful and meaningful. If you're with John, and he says he's off to the post office to get some stamps so he can send a birthday card to his Nan, and Jane comes in and asks 'what's John doing?', it would be quite true to give the answer by, say, describing his trip to the post office in bio-mechanical terms. It wouldn't be very helpful or meaningful, though.

If you see our 'essential being' as to 'eat, drink, f**k and flee', then cognition and consciousness may seem an unnecessary burden. If you take cognition and consciousness as part of our 'essential being', it might change your perspective.

And it may just be semantic, but something nags at me about the idea of something that normally includes within it our ideas of psychosis and non-psychosis itself being a psychosis. That's something I need to think about more, for sure.

It is for this very reason I look at it as psychosis. There is no pinnacle of truth. We, each and every one of us, define our lives as we see fit. And there is no right or wrong ultimatum except death. We importunately fill in the gaps of the "why" and "what is" in our journey through life for selfish justification of our irrational actions. Irrational is, of course, my opinion, which I see as a result of this very need within us to define the world. More elaborately, by sequential (I choose not to use the word 'logical') delineation we reduce the world to cold individual pieces of a complex puzzle (Descartes) then try to re-assimilate these pieces into mechanized but meaningful cohesion. Doing all this is just mental masturbation, self-indulgence is therefore our biggest trait. Don't get me wrong, I like to have fun too, but this self-indulgence is necessary and also.... insanity. As the saying goes, idleness is the mother of all vices, so it is that humanity may never sit still. Our unceasing curiosity will always look for the next problem to contemplate, then, unfortunately resolve. This insatiable need to to understand and constantly stroke our ego manifests itself into a search for meaning where no (more) meaning may be found. This is by nature of our subjective view on life, and while we may be able to look into and define objectivity, this skill of reason provides no supreme causal destination. The psychosis of consciousness, therefore, is defined in that we try to superimpose an intricate labyrinth of reason on the simple fact that this world is, and no more is there a need to complicate this world than is there a need to simply survive. But even survival is just a penultimate truth of life, and it is no more necessary outside of instinct than is our subjective need to garner deeper understanding of the world.


Thank you, but that's too generous, I would settle for a smiley. As it stands, it was posted in caprice. Very evident in my choice of words. As already pointed out, the thread should be call "Consciousness is a form of psychosis" But that leaves plenty of gaps to fill for a more thorough and interesting conversation.



On the subject of food-chain, I do see we have a domineering effect of earth. Honestly, I'm more worried about bacteria or an Andromeda Strain so to speak than a lion. My argument lends itself more to romanticizing animal cognition as opposed to human cognition (well really condemning human cognition). So in that sense I'd say we are irrelevant, or separate. Truly in the mindset of "proper" or "natural" as you rightly termed it, we are no more out of place than any hadron throughout the 'verse.

Teleologically, I'd argue that consciousness is in full fruition. Of course this is a mere baseless assumption, and by the very same ignorance I would argue that anything beyond mere human consciousness would have to be borne outside of ourselves. That is, Artificial Intelligence, or dare I speak such babble, even metaphysical intelligence. It is said that since behavioral modernity the human mind has made no further developments, I'd still like to understand how they came up with that conclusion. If it's true, it would be somewhat supportive of my idea that our mind is in it's stasis summum bonum. And in a sense, we will be trapped with this very mind for the rest of our species. I don't know of any empirical evidence to argue either which way truthfully.

I completely agree that the answers we need are those that are helpful, but to what end does this help need to divulge before the it goes into the realm of mental fodder? In my question of consciousness, no further than what's necessary for us to find water. Of course I know this contemplation that has enveloped into this very conversation is a part of our essential being, but the question really beckons the legitimacy and necessity of not just our essential being, or our collective nature, but of our species in it's very state of existence. And right you are again to question the very nature of words themselves. "Proper", "legitimacy", "psychosis" symbols that are all comparative terms, they serve to purport a reductionist view on the world. I suppose all I'm really trying to say is that we as humans, are disconnected from the world by this very reduction of the sensuous. Whether or not you see it that way or if it matters is up to you to decide. And in deciding you are exercising your essential being regardless of whether or not that being is relevant in this chaotic world.

Fascinating......got a bit complicated, but still.... I'll have to read it again.....

Fascinating! Brains made for more social interfacing and networking in the first place. And then living in society became a Darwinian Challenge that required even more brains. And so it goes. If the theory is true, we should be getting smarter and smarter over the eons.

ruveyn