Thanks - I may comment later, but for now do you have any reading/lecture recommendations for someone trying to start out learning about the mind and the topics you touched upon.
All the books mentioned in this thread are good choices. Especially “Thinking Fast and Slow”. Other terms you should look into are embodied cognition, and cognitive behavioral therapy; for anything on mood, at least for what I was getting at, just read up on bipolar disorder and treatment of it.
Before these though, and since I don’t know your background, I would recommend “Understanding Objectivism”. Not because it has something specific to say about psychology, but because it’s some philosophical grounding to think about how we should deal with these sorts of concepts. The way I think of it, the idea of a primitive mind is an overemphasis on rationalism, rather than keeping in context that even though we can distinguish between rational thought and nonrational thought, in a concrete way, they operate together.
On 12/13/2018 at 5:56 PM, Nicky said:
That is the key here: they’re not just controlling physiological functions the rational mind has nothing to do with, and occasionally reminding the conscious mind about these physiological problems. They’re recognizing outside events that DO NOT PHYSICALLY AFFECT US, and reacting in a prescribed manner, in a muted version of the way the primitive, non-rational ancestor’s brain used to react to them before we developed a rational ability.
The question is if the result of the action you are describing is in fact rational and moral. If there is an automatic recognition and always a morally valid reaction, then it would go against Objectivism, since it would indicate you can know without thinking.
As mentioned, the issue of Tabula Rasa is primarily applicable to the area of concept formation, in particular relating to ethics. Rand drives home the fact that concepts are not intrinsic within reality, rather a conscious effort is needed to create and validate them. Complicated concepts like free speech, rights, etc. require focus and figuring out. Evolution did not provide them. The moral way does not simply appear, it has to be created from within.
Some sort of focus and figuring out is necessary to conceptualize. Concepts are not created by instinct. The area where concepts are stored is initially blank, Tabula Rasa. The primitive mind, or remnants of genetic mutations would reasonably be effecting us. Tabula Rasa does not mean absence of automatic reactions. Tabula Rasa requires automatic reaction (perception etc) as the basis of conscious actions.
But a blank slate is not applicable to moods or tendencies, automatic attractions and repulsion. We can be born with them. We may all have a fear of falling as babies or discomfort from a spider, jump when we hear a sudden loud noise. Tendencies can be good or bad depending on the situation. An excessive tendency toward eating sugar is not a VALID ethical guidance that sugar is good. Sometimes sugar is good and sometimes it is bad, it has to be determined by thinking. In that sense, a primitive mind pushes toward a direction, if one is not actively watching where one is going, the inclined direction will be incessantly and excessively adhered to. Therefore a mood or tendency without any conscious checks and balances is immoral.