Hi Mary, I put to you the question:
> > > Is the ego a biological creation or a socially created pattern? > > Because I > > put forth that it is only socially derived and created. > > > > [Mary Replies] If by socially derived you mean at the Social Level, I would > ask you to clarify that. Do dogs, for instance, have a Social Level? I'm > pretty sure my dog has an ego, the chickens, horses, and goats I used to > have did too. > > Dogs very definitely understand and create social patterning. That's one reason they blend so well with us, they, like us, are social carnivores. Makes us rarities in the animal kingdom. Horse are extremely socially aware, as you know. And so are goats. Chickens I'm not too sure about. I mean, they congregate and have herdlike behavior manifestations, but they have no emotional affect I can relate to. Their facial expression never changes. My hypothesis is that social patterning arises with the infant nurture found in mammals. Socialization starts with nursing and weaning and implants that self-other dichotomy more deeply than intellect can dig out. But without this fundamental self-realization, no self-awareness has ever, nor can ever arise. That's the crux of my argument against the artificial intelligence idea. > > > > > > > Ego developed as a self-preservation mechanism at the Biological > > Level. > > > If you lacked an ego, you would not value your own continued > > existence. > > > If you did not value your own continued existence, you would not > > defend > > > yourself, so you wouldn't survive, would you? > > > > > > > > > > If you had no conception of self to defend, you would not know how to > > defend > > it. Therefore, before the proper attention to the biological > > exingencies of > > existence can be maintained, the boundaries of self vs. other must be > > created or defined. > > > [Mary Replies] Yes. The concept of ego is very old. > > > There are human bodies we can maintain at a functional level, but we > > deem > > the "self" to be absent. We call them "brain dead", but what we really > > mean > > is that we can no longer interact with them on any level, and thus > > since > > they have zero social meaning, they must not be really alive. > > > > This shows that sense of self is a social construct. Emotions are > > social > > intelligence. > > > > > [Mary Replies] I'm not clear how it shows that. > > > Let us conjecture a person, trapped in a coma with seeming "brain death". That is, all the machines that detect mental life indicate there is none, but according to our conjecture, the person is aware, but not able to respond in any way whatsoever. That is a person whom we most all agree, we "pull the plug". Because personhood isn't defined intrinsically as something possessed by the person, but relationally and socially by the others in charge of his/her care, and what they detect of his signs. We define personhood by social communication. A point Turing made as well, I believe. Very pragmatic, when you think about it. My rotisserating thoughts are done. Smiles all around. John Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
