The "thought is a parasite" movement

So I recently stumbled across this guy. Telling us that thought is a malign parasite.

But it's not just this guy. Whether it's Peter Watts suggesting that selves and consciousness are things our species might do well to eventually outgrow, Susan Blackmore telling us that consciousness is an illusion created by memes, Balsekar telling us to become perfect machines, I've noticed an often Buddhist-inspired desire to evict the ghost from the machine.

Personally, I think the whole idea seems a bit off. But maybe we can finally get utopia!

Assuming that anything has to exist, my perfect world would be one in which everyone has experienced the annulment of his or her ego. That is, our consciousness of ourselves as unique individuals would entirely disappear. We would still function as beings that needed the basics—food, shelter, and clothing—but life wouldn’t be any more than that. It wouldn’t need to be. We would be content just to exist. There’s only one problem in this world: none are content with what they have. We always want something else, something “more.” And then when we get it, we still want something else and something more. There is no place of satisfaction for us. We die with regrets for what we never did and will never have a chance to do. We die with regrets for what we never got and will never get. The perfect manner of existence that I’m imagining would be different than that of most mammals, who feed on one another and suffer fear due to this arrangement, much of it coming at the hands of human beings. We would naturally still have to feed, but we probably would not be the omnivorous gourmands and gourmets that we presently are. Of course, like any animal we would suffer from pain in one form or another—that’s the essence of existence—but there wouldn’t be any reason to take it personally, something that escalates natural pain to the level of nightmare. I know that this kind of world would seem terribly empty to most people—no competition, no art, no entertainment of any kind because both art and entertainment are based on conflict between people, and in my world that kind of conflict wouldn’t exist. There would be no ego-boosting activities such as those which derive from working and acquiring more money than you need, no scientific activity because we wouldn’t be driven to improve the world or possess information unnecessary to living, no religious beliefs because those emerge from desperations and illusions from which we would no longer suffer, no relationships because those are based on difference and in the perfect world we’d all be the same person, as well as being integrated into the natural world. Everything we did would be for practical purposes in order to satisfy our natural needs. We wouldn’t be enlightened beings or sages because those ways of being are predicated on the existence of people who live at a lower epistemological stratum.

Isn't the obliteration of the self and consciousness essentially the same as suicide? Why not just do that? Seems much simpler.

That said, I thought Blindsight wasn't a total indictment of consciousness, but that might be me projecting my own biases onto it.

EDIT: I think there may have been a teensy bit of this attitude in Stephen Baxter's Manifold: Space, in which IIRC, a character gives up his sense of self in order to direct a construction project which required non-reciprocal altruism.

edited 6th Oct '10 3:13:12 PM by snowbull

Maybe we should all become like Meursault.

Now thats what you call anti-intellectualism!

So we would all be like tang but without the explodey melty bits and keeping our own bodies?

No. Wait. This is worse. What an...empty existence that would be. How are we human if we don't question, don't try to innovate, don't strive for creating new things?

edited 6th Oct '10 4:40:56 PM by Accela

The idea is that all those things are the problems that lead to true suffering.

From the title, I thought this thread would be about Inception and meme theory.

^ Neat quote.

You are a parasite infesting a body that would be healthier and better off without you.

No, really.

Forgive me if I don't have much empathy for a hypothetical being without feelings.

Higher thought processes are a necessity for our technology to exist and continue. Striving for something more is the key to innovation.

Also, I find it rather ironic that so many of those espousing this anti-thought point of view are philosophers. Their very existence is due to higher thought and the perceived benefit thereof. Rejecting it makes even less sense than a blogger who hates microchips.

It makes more sense if you've struggled with depression.

Which I have, so I can see where they're coming from.

It also provides some useful ammunition to use when arguing with hyper-rationalists.

Can't quite understand some of that stuff, but can I accurately say that it's basically this?

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

I doubt that Hillary Clinton has a point, the universe is not so badly designed.

The idea itself is nonsense, the human ability for creative thought, and using that though well because of the individual's own self intrest, is why it is at the top of the food chain.

edited 6th Oct '10 9:56:14 PM by deuxhero

Can't quite understand some of that stuff, but can I accurately say that it's basically this?

It's close, but I'd say that to characterize it as such would be misleading.

oh and btw

It makes more sense if you've struggled with depression.

Which I have, so I can see where they're coming from.

Me Too!. I think the highs are worth it, though. At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. That, and caring about things and working on them is the thing that really helped me survive through the worst bits.

Also, this reminds me a lot of Snow Crash, where sentience turned out to be an infectious meme.

Also, I find it rather ironic that so many of those espousing this anti-thought point of view are philosophers. Their very existence is due to higher thought and the perceived benefit thereof. Rejecting it makes even less sense than a blogger who hates microchips.

The basic premise is that consciousness doesn't make you happier, in and of itself. It does create things like technology and "progress" but the only reason you care about those things is because of consciousness. It creates a feedback loop which ultimately lends itself to accidentally wanting useless things (everyone does). Even the Buddhist desire to not desire is pretty useless. It's basically a huge waste of energy in our brains, assuming that happiness is the goal.

The kneejerk reaction to say "hey, I like consciousness!" or "this only makes sense to depressed people" is missing the point entirely. The reason you're thinking these things is because of consciousness itself. The fact that you're thinking these things is the entire problem that would be addressed by removing consciousness.

That said, I don't really have strong opinions either way. If I was a hardcore Utilitarian I might, but I see nothing wrong with leaving things in a merely "okay" situation.

I'd say this only makes sense to the heartbroken and the hopeless.

Besides, what's so bad about suffering, anyway? It's not death. It's adversity, it's the trial through fire, and it is the tempering of steel.

Suffering is neither a "good" thing nor a "bad" thing, simply a destructive thing at times and a constructive thing at others.

Why deny it? Why not accept this?

edited 7th Oct '10 12:36:07 AM by krrackknut

As our thoughts are basically our personal expressions of ourselves (As in a part of us we produce) does that mean we're parasites of ourselves?

Because seriously, this is the weirdest idea I've heard in a while. And anyway, I think there are probably a lot of people out there that are satisfied with what they have, or have found a middle way they're happy with. This man assumes that everyone is consistently miserable and never able to find a balance for themselves when that's just not true.

False. It requires exactly one instance of someone being dissatisfied with their lives, ever, to make consciousness worse in general than mindless happiness. Purely in terms of happiness, there are no benefits to consciousness. It it theoretically impossible for consciousness to make you happier than otherwise. The very idea makes no sense to me.

Your consciousness assigns value to itself, but that means nothing. All you have is a circular argument.

False. It requires exactly one instance of someone being dissatisfied with their lives, ever, to make consciousness worse in general than mindless happiness.

Please clarify the following term: mindless.

To my understanding, conscious but mindless happiness is not the same as consciousnessless happiness.

Your consciousness assigns value to itself, but that means nothing. All you have is a circular argument.

In the absence of consciousness, no assignment of value is done, and thus no comparison is made. The circular argument is the only one on the table thus far that is not self-refuting.

edited 7th Oct '10 1:37:28 AM by Noaqiyeum

I was using mindless as a short synonym for consciousnessless. I realize it has slightly different implications but I had hoped context would reveal what I was talking about.

As for the other bit, happiness is a chemical reaction in your brain that influences your decisions. This is the case with or without consciousness. It is, by definition, the "desirable state". While I certainly assign value to happiness, even without value it would still be the "desirable state". Even if it was assigned negative value it would still be the "desirable state". Because that's all it is.

Consciousness on the other hand is not a desirable state by definition. It's a neutral state. The only value it has is that which it assigns itself. Something without consciousness does not desire consciousness. Something without consciousness does desire happiness, insofar as it can desire anything.

edited 7th Oct '10 1:45:05 AM by Clarste

While I certainly assign value to happiness, even without value it would still be the "desirable state". even if it was assigned negative value it would still be the "desirable state". Because that's all it is.

What you have done is collectively rounded up a number of mental states and tagged them all as "happiness", then defined "happiness" as the "desirable state". As only a conscious mind is able to categorize objects in this manner, I fail to see how this dodges the bullet of self-refutation.

I was using mindless as a short synonym for consciousnessless. I realize it has slightly different implications but I had hoped context would reveal what I was talking about.

It's all right, I suspected this was the case anyway.

My point being, the happiness of a conscious mind seems to me to be a good deal greater than the happiness of an unconscious mind.

edited 7th Oct '10 1:53:19 AM by Noaqiyeum