"{:-])))" <...@...> wrote in message
news:mj02d4hgeuhn1plmtacnjgd9227kr353b3@
4ax.com...
> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote:>>"{:-])))" <...@...> wrote in message:
>>> "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.
>
> Actually,
> I was thinking of somebody in particular.
But not saying anything in particular. Here are the particulars:
Who is this "somebody"?
When this "somebody" "speaks his or her mind", what does he or she actually
say?
What exactly was this "somebody" "impressed to do"?
Who or what "impressed" him or her and how was he or she "impressed" into
some action?
Where was he or she 'locked up"?
For how long and by whom was he or he "locked up"?
>> You're still stuck on overly simplistic
>>generalizations.
>
> I'm not the one to whom you were speaking.
But you're still stuck on overly simplistic generalizations nonetheless.
> Maybe you're stuck in a paradigm.
> Shifting them may be difficult for you.
Define "paradigm". Do you even know what the term means? Lots of people
who use this cliche don't. Now, it won't be enough simply to quote some
definition you just looked up on Wikipedia. Tell me what it means in this
particular case in your own words.
>>> 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.
>
> Indeed. But this does not preclude
> how one who does those things or is
> involved in such events is not following
> the line of least resistance.
Yet you brought up the term "bad" as if someone had made that evaluation.
Particulars again. Exactly who made that "bad" evaluation you were
protesting and exactly where did they make it? If you are going to try to
attribute it to me, you should quote exactly what I said as well as when and
where I said it. If you cannot, then it is reasonable to conclude that
you're tilting at windmills.
>>> 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.
>
> Lots of people do.
> Perhaps people as a species will.
Probably not. Most people are not self-defeating whiners.
>>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.
>
> Given the way you express it,
> people as a species that extinguishes itself
> would find that their big brains were possibly
> the reason why. Too smart for their own good.
Name me any group of people who actually died out because they were "too
smart for their own good". Particulars again.
>>> 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.
>
> Perhaps simply sloppy wording then.
Then you should neaten up your words.
> To speak in such a way might suggest, ... .
> It doesn't have to suggest anything,
> but it might.
But since I told you directly that it doesn't, then you have no argument.
>> Animals without
>>survival mechanisms don't survive.
>
> Animals with survival mechanisms don't either.
Yes, they do. Not forever as individuals, but for a sufficiently long
enough time to reproduce successfully, which is what "survival" is.
However, any given survival mechanism may be insufficient to cope with some
environmental change. No survival mechanism is completely successful in all
imaginable situations. The notion that something is useless because its not
perfect is a silly one.
Animals with survival mechanisms appropriate to their environment survive.
If they don't, they did not have survival mechanisms appropriate for their
environment.
>> Therefore, any animal that *does*
>>survive has some mechanism that works to help it survive.
>
> If that's how you want to set things up.
If you want to set it up differently, let's see what you've got. Be
particular again.
> So-called animals
> that live long enough to reproduce
> have lots and lots of "mechanisms"
> as if they are machines of some sort.
The term "mechanism" refers to a structure in which parts work together to
produce a certain effect. This structure may be a contrived machine or a
naturally occurring system. It is the mode of operation of a process.
Living systems are processes in which parts work together by which certain
outcomes are obtained. Thus they have structures by which these processes
are carried out. These structures are "mechanisms". The term "machine" as
you are using it suggests something non-living, an insensate contrivance,
and thus is an inapt comparison.
> Machines with mechanisms struggling to survive
> in a hostile environment, for the sake of, well,
> passing on their mechanisms to others.
>
> Maybe you can't see your own paradigm.
Since that's not my paradigm, it appears you're barking up the wrong tree.
> The line of least resistance is not interested in
> surviving or not surviving. It simply links.
> The line flows and curves and swirls.
Sort of like your idea of a machine that operates to only pass on its
mechanisms to others? A machine isn't interested in surviving or not
surviving either.
> You may want to insist on survival as basic.
You're clinging to the notion that I'm making some assertion of
intentionality here, even though I've pointed out to you repeatedly that I
made no such assertion. Survival is an *outcome*, not an *intention*. A
survival mechanism is a structure that results in survival, not a structure
developed intentionally in order to survive.
>> Birds did not
>>develop wings because they thought, "Hey, flying is a really good idea!
>>I'm
>>going to invent wings!".
>
> Probably not.
> Nor, perhaps, did they think, I gotta get food
> cuz I gotta survive to pass on my urge to
> survive to survive to keep on keeping on.
But they still find and eat food and they still reproduce, which results in
the same thing. Calling it a "line of least resistance" is just another
label for a "survival mechanism", but a not very useful one all in all since
it doesn't do a very good job of describing anything.
>> 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.
>
> There might not be any need to assume
> anything, unless you are trying to prove something
> to arrive at some conclusion or other.
You keep bringing up terms like "bad" and "better" and then trying to
attribute those evaluations to me. They are yours, not mine. If you don't
like the fact that you keep thinking in terms of "good-bad" and
"better-worse", go argue with yourself. I've got nothing to do with it.
>> When the environment changes, the animals least
>>able to adapt to the changes die, no matter how much "better" someone
>>thought they were.
>
> Given such a set up,
> it sounds as if the environment deselects
> or kills off stuff that works the worst.
Well, that's what you keep imagining and then trying to unimagine again.
I'm not asserting intentionality, but you keep trying to read it into what
I've been saying anyway so that you can argue against it.
