"{:-])))" <...@...> wrote in message
news:t7dvc4p27g39douv44k5clgkj0kaio4ukm@
4ax.com...
> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote:>>"marika"
gmail.com> wrote in message>>> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote:> [...s]
>
>>>> It's not simply a "belief". It's a considered judgment.
>
>>> Maybe they have more efficient egos and we just don't get it and lock
>>> them
>>> up because it interferes with our concept of what egos should be doing.
>>
>>All of them? Or only some of them? As I say, "mental illness" covers a
>>wide variety of problems. It's incredibly simplistic to try to lump all
>>of
>>them together. Is there any one particular person who you would like to
>>cite as an example of how a "more efficient ego" gets one locked up as
>>mentally ill?
>
> Efficiency might be defined somewhat
> as the path of least resistance.
>
> Somebody who speaks his or her mind,
> does as impressed to do, and gets locked up,
> might be following such a path.
Still nobody in particular. You're still stuck on overly simplistic
generalizations.
> It isn't necessarily bad.
No, it's not "bad" to have a mental illness. It's also not "bad" to get
locked up. It is often troublesome, though. And sometimes tragic.
>>> How come animals didn't develop ego as a survival mechanism, or did they
>>> and we just can't talk good enough to determine that they did?
>>
>>I'd say that any animal that is aware that it exists has an ego. Some
>>animals, when seeing themselves in a mirror are unable to recognize that
>>the
>>image they see is their own reflection. Others can. So far, only magpies
>>have been shown to have this trait among birds. Chimpanzees display this
>>ability in about 75%% of the subjects studied. Other ape species succeed
>>less often. The trick is in the development of the fore-brain.
>
> People may extinguish themselves.
> If that happens, maybe a big brain
> wasn't such a good idea.
Go ahead, then. If you can't handle having a big brain, extinguish
yourself. It's nothing to brag about, though.
A big brain that is so dysfunctional that it is impelled to destroy itself
is in no way superior to a big brain that does not have that impulse.
>> Birds and
>>apes developed their forebrains differently, but in some respects they
>>seem
>>to do pretty close to the same things. In humans, the forebrain is
>>drastically larger and more complex than in any other species, which
>>accounts for the drastically more complex egos we display.
>
> It's possible that life impels itself,
> developing strategies for survival,
> in some unconscious drive to be
> better than the next life-form.
>
> To say that an animal developed something
> as a survival mechanism might suggest a
> conscious effort on the part of the animal.
No, it doesn't. You're putting the cart before the horse. Animals without
survival mechanisms don't survive. Therefore, any animal that *does*
survive has some mechanism that works to help it survive. Birds did not
develop wings because they thought, "Hey, flying is a really good idea! I'm
going to invent wings!". The wings came first (from mutations in the
forelimbs or ribs) and then, because they happened to be a good survival
mechanism, the animals with wings survived. No assumption of intentionality
is necessary. Nor is there any need to assume that forms adapted to a
particular environment are "better" than animals who didn't adapt to that
particular environment. When the environment changes, the animals least
able to adapt to the changes die, no matter how much "better" someone
thought they were.
> To think wings grew as a survival mechanism
> might be to overlay the situation with a paradigm.
I'm not claiming that wings "grew as a survival mechanism". Wings *are* a
survival mechanism. That's a simple fact. The mystical assumption that
they formed intentionally is not a fact.
> Survival might be the only thing.
> Then again, survival might simply be a thing.
>
> To think life exists to survive and that all of
> its efforts are going in that direction
> might be a narrow way to track thoughts.
Life exists *because* it survives. If it did not survive, it wouldn't be
"life".
> As life explores all possibilities,
> if survival is what it seeks, then all growths,
> be they wings or anything else, are a
> survival mechanism.
Life doesn't "seek" anything. Life is not a person. Stop
anthropomorphizing.
