Let’s hear them.
Here are a couple of mine that I can think of right now:
1. Everything physical aspect of yourself has a corresponding mental/psychological aspect. If you have allergies, for example, that will be expressed also as a psychological correlate. If you are physically allergic to certain substances (your body perceives something as a threat that is really harmless), you probably perceive certain people or things as threats when they really aren’t. Men and women on average are different physically, that also corresponds to differences in psychology and perception of the world. Those are just a couple examples.
2. There is no such thing as a positive or negative quality or trait. A lot of mental illnesses that we deem “bad” (depression, anxiety, psychopathy) are merely the negative polarity of something that could be equally as positive in the other direction, but is just unexpressed. For example, someone with chronic anxiety is also very perceptive of the world and may be able to see things that others cannot. Emotionally numb psychopaths who have no ability for empathy could be so sensitive and feel so deeply that they have no choice to shut down in the face of overwhelming life circumstances. Etc, etc, etc.
This implies that the cop-out, implied victim mentality of “it’s just genetic” is wrong. If psychopathy and anxiety are the negative expressions of qualities that can be equally as positive, then the gene expression of these would be neutral, and the surrounding environmental circumstances would play the role in determining which way those neutral qualities are expressed (For example: as an extremely anxious person who doesn’t know how to cope, or someone who is extremely perceptive and who notices things that others don’t). The same gene that made Charles Manson a cold killer could have made Ghandi into a revolutionary hero.
And no, I don’t have any evidence for these things. But just because there’s no evidence, and just because most people would disagree, doesn’t mean they aren’t true.
If you want to discuss these ideas, feel free. I’d also like to hear your own.
Yezzur. There is always a fine-line in everything. I think we aren’t that advanced yet to look at these issues in great detail, or the approach we have in modernity is proving itself to be inefficient.
@mikeyw829 Nice topic. Nice post.
Everything in this Universe that has ever, or will ever, exist has a purpose for being here, or it wouldn’t exist. You and I, matter, energy.. everything.
This just seems to resonate with me on some deep level.
Purpose is connotative and anthropomorphic, I’d use the word function, everything has a function, wether it suits us or not. Purpose automatically suggests will and intelligence, although that is possible, it is committing to more than you need to.
Function is still a very profound phenomena; it is ultimately what makes everything more than the sum of its parts.
Nice topic. In relation to your second point, I find the “nature vs. nurture” discussion to be very interesting. It sounds to me like you’re saying that “conditions” (I guess that’s what they’re considered) such as depression, anxiety, psychopathy, etc. are strictly the result of nurture. Just for the sake of the conversation, I’m going to disagree for a couple of reasons:
First, if the “gene expression” of these conditions is always neutral, then would there even be a reason for these genes to exist at all? If every single human that’s ever existed had the same genetic predisposition to depression, anxiety, psychopathy, etc., then why would genetic code for it even be necessary?
Second, I think the most likely reality is that these conditions are determined by a combination of both genetics and surroundings. In my opinion, it seems a bit overly simplistic to assume that there is only one gene that controls “depression,” one gene that controls “anxiety,” one gene that controls “psychopathy,” etc., especially because, in general, “depression” is an umbrella term used to indicate a number of possible issues. My guess would be that many different combinations of many different genes, i.e. the “nature” part of the argument, make some people more vulnerable to these conditions under certain circumstances, i.e. the “nurture” part of the argument. This is to say that, in some cases, it could be strictly genetic. In others, it could be strictly environmental. And, in others, it could be a balanced or unbalanced combination of the two.
Just my two cents. Hopefully others can offer their insight and opinions, as well, since I think it’s a really intriguing topic.
“If every single human that’s ever existed had the same genetic predisposition to depression, anxiety, psychopathy, etc., then why would genetic code for it even be necessary?”
-I’m not saying that these conditions are all nurture. Nor am I saying that everyone has these genes when I say the gene expression is neutral. What I’m saying is that there is a gene we normally associate with depression or anxiety or psychopathy or probably even autism could be expressed negatively (as the conditions just described) OR positively depending on the environment that the child then is exposed to. So not everyone has this certain gene, say, for anxiety or depression (and their reciprocals, which are a keen sensitivity to surrounding and maybe a deep understanding that something isn’t right in the world).
“I think the most likely reality is that these conditions are determined by a combination of both genetics and surroundings.”
Well that’s exactly what I’m saying. The genetic part is the neutral gene (neutral in the sense that it depends on the environment to determine if its expression is positive or negative), the surroundings part determines how that neutral gene will be expressed. So for example, only a small percentage of the population has the genetic potential to be a psychopath. But it’s only potential, not an absolute. This person wasn’t born a psychopath. He was molded into one by his life experiences. If he has positive experiences, he would have manifested the positive aspect of this neutral gene and maybe turned out like Ghandi or something.
This implies that for as many crazy psychopaths there are, they’re only their because our society fosters and condones those behaviors. As I said, positive attributes of psychopaths could be that they are so emotionally sensitive that they have no chocie but to numb themselves of all feeling in our modern dehumanized society. If we lived in a society that nurtured them and nurtured feeling emotions and didn’t seek to turn people into zombies, they could have the potential to express what is currently called psychopathy just as extremely in the positive direction.
But we live in a culture and society that cultivates the negative reciprocal of these neutral genes for the most part. .
And this doesn’t mean that there’s only one gene for anything. Conditions like depression and anxiety are just labels. They are different for everyone, and they arise because of different genes in everyone. I know a lot of things are determined by a whole bunch of genes. Just that the idea that there is a gene solely for a negative or positive trait is wrong. I’m saying all genes are neutral, so that the severely anxious person and the person who is acutely perceptive get these abilities from the same gene. But not everyone has all genes, and it’s up to the environment to determine which direction (positive or negative) those neutral genes are expressed. So depression could arise from the sum total expression of a whole bunch of different genes. Same with any other condition.
But then depression is negative because it affects quality of life. By definition, any illness is as such.
Also psychopaths undermine society and hurt people. What is your point, since you’re making a lot of thin assumptions?
So you’re saying that quality of life is bad? Or that conditions shouldn’t be treated?
Yeah. Or disease in general is the bodies intelligent reaction to something. If people realized this it would revolutionize the way we look at health. If insanity is a reaction to something being wrong, then it isn’t “negative” at all. It’s the bodies intelligence at work. It means you’re healthy…to a degree.
I think there are levels, insanity being like a middle ground between blindly ignorant normality and actual sanity. But it sucks because those labeled insane are usually being “treated” by people who aren’t even on their level and are just seeking to renormalize them into an insane society that caused the problem in the first place.
The assumption from the healthcare system is, “You are defective. There is no positive reason for your symptoms. The problem is with you, not the system. Since the system is basically correct, we just need to fix you so you can fit back into the system.” It completely invalidates people’s unconscious knowing that something isn’t right that is expressed through neuroses or “insanity.”
Most people who are “socially adjusted” and all that have just found effective ways to compartmentalize and suppress their neuroses.
Ok so we’re all agreeing that we’re on this big round thing that’s spinning and travelling through a void, right?
But what if we’re not really ON it, but INSIDE it. And what if it’s not spinning through the VOID, but ROLLING along a HILL.
What if this round thing is not really a ROCK, but a big damn PEACH?
What if the GODS are actually a bunch of INSECTS?
What if the WORLD was made of other WORLDS combined into a WORLD just like the WORLD you started with?
Well, it’s the truth and don’t you dare question it.
I know, I know, I just blew your minds and made you 100x enlightened, don’t mention it.
Also, donate to the temple.
so you’re legitimising psychopathy?
Also your point is interesting, but then it references that genes have opposite functions. I’m not an expert in genetics, but then I always thought that each gene in a species’ genome had a given function. So in humans, our genomes contain genes for bipedalism, a complex brain, language capability, etc.
Also, it could be that psychopathy results from a bad experience, or a person is actually born that way due to brain damage or faulty neural wiring.
My theory is thus:
– Sapience exists in grades, and humans simply are the highest grade.
– All species with sufficiently developed brains have their own grades. So humans are grade 1, the great apes grade 2, felines, canines, horses, etc. grade 3, birds and reptiles grade 4, etc.
– I say this since most if not all traits believed to be uniquely human are seen in animals (apart from extended bipedalism), just as lower levels of use/development. We’re not the only species with language, reasoning, abstraction, etc.
– Thus, the old idea of humans being so wildly different from other species is not true, we’re just as the top of the chain but it’s a chain of degrees and not absolutes.
What if we’re actually the bottom of the chain? Since (from what we know) most animals don’t have the prefrontal cortex responsible for our thoughts and simulations of what MIGHT happen, this gives us our curiosity and takes us out of the present, into our minds.
Maybe animals are living in the now and are looking down at us poor sods.
It’s just my thoughts. As far as we know, it may hold. If you take offence, that’s really your own business…
Reality is subjective in the sense we subjectively perceive it.
Nothing is objective.
The multiverse theory isn’t so much talking about unseen spooky places as is it is talking about all of the sentient creatures like @desifemilove mentioned. I think that each creature is it’s own world with it’s own energies spinning and attracting and repelling other worlds-creatures.
Also, I really like the “Do unto others as you would do unto yourself” rule. Pretty solid.
I like the “energy travels through the path of least resistance.” I think that ideas are energy too and they have to travel through the path of least resistance, that is the human who most apt to receive and act on an idea.
Re: Mental Illnesses
I agree with you but I want to put it in different words towards my perspective.
In Buddhism, I learned that there are many different minds, and all these minds work together to create a “picture” for us of our environment enabling us to think, understand, and react. In my meditations, I am slowly realizing the truth of the “multiple minds” theory.
How many minds are there? More than I know, but I will simplify to how I understand it currently. Each sense is its own “mind”: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. Perception, how all that information is analyzed, is its own mind. The imagination is its own mind, and so forth. The brain, with all this raw data, then codifies it as sensations on the body, our “picture”.
Now, I am defining sensation broadly from what we normally think. When I say sensations, we normally think sense of touch. Really, I am saying sensation to include *everything to which we are aware*. When we look at the street corner, all the corners, objects, shapes, and colours are sensations manifesting on our body, which we call sight. Then, the perception mind, when it analyzes this current information to past data, creates a sensation on the body that is an analysis of our environment. This sensation tell us we are seeing (hearing, feeling, etc) so we know what a stop sign is, to our danger level, to whether or not we see our friend.
Our perception is a sensation our brain creates! With everything we are aware as a sensations, I see mental illness in the same manner — its all about sensation and awareness. For example, a person has schizophrenia. One of the minds is so powerful it is creating images (sensations) on that person’s body so that they see something, hear something, or feel something that is not really there.
How does this process work and why? Well, the short-hand answer I can come up with is this schizophrenic has deep attachments or aversions so powerful that one of their minds are creating sensations on the body that override the other minds (sight, hearing, touch, etc).
If you do not know, attachment is when you crave something that is not as it is currently, and aversion is when you do not want something that is currently. For example, when we lose a loved one we feel sad because we want them with us, but we know that cannot happen. This event is attachment. Aversion is the opposite, like feeling angry towards arthritis pain because you know cannot change it. Together, attachment and aversion are called *Sankaras* — which is defined as a conditioned response to sensations, which we wish to be different.
When sankaras run deep, we are not aware of them and are ignorant. When we are ignorant to these deep sankaras, the minds simply continue to work with a “business-as-usual” attitude. This means for a person who is schizophrenic, one mind may continue to override the other minds and create sensations body, so a person sees things that are not there. They are simply not AWARE of their deep sanakras.
My next question then is: are many (not all) mental illnesses really as simple as ignorance to deep sankaras, which then override normal human awareness?
After the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum and its ramifications, it sheds a new light on afterlife and reincarnation. As we know energy is not wasted so it is easy to infer that our souls do return here. In what form I do not know. The bible calls hell a lake of fire and lucifer sounds a lot like the word illuminate or light. When the bible was written the only source of light came from fire; for instance they carried candles and lanterns. Therefore, it makes sense that hell would be metaphorically expressed this way. Anyway, the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum has shown us that reality is light and everything is not physical, merely dense vibrations of light that we decipher in our heads. So simply put when we die, according to multiple world religions, we do return to this plane unless we have been ‘good’ and ascend to another plane.
I’ve never seen any studies on your first theory, and i would have to disagree. allergies are severe bodily reactions to foreign substances. Our bodies react to foreign substances any time we get hurt, get a sliver or paper cut, etc. To suggest that an individuals cells registering those antigens from biotic or abiotic molecules would cause the same person to be hypercautious of others… Im not saying your theory is wrong! I would agree to a point. but the allergy thing seems like a bad example….
great thoughts though!