Home | Community | Message Board

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < First | < Back | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | Next > | Last >
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix] * 1
    #18831392 - 09/12/13 07:32 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
It doesn't matter if that is what you are referring too, especially considering you didn't define territorial.

My point stands.




No, your point doesn't stand. Your point doesn't make any sense.
I don't need to define territorial - it's a word that already has a definition. :lol:

Your counterpoint that "aggressiveness doesn't implicate ownership" is garbage when we're talking about territoriality, and not aggressiveness. :smirk:

Maybe you observed that certain animals are aggressive in their territoriality. Big deal. :lol: It's irrelevant. Territoriality and aggressiveness are different things. :thumbup:

:themoreyouknow:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: blessed]
    #18831518 - 09/12/13 08:09 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

blessed said:
Say like a creator and a creation :thumbup:




Or to catch a pinch hit requires a ball and a mitt. We could do this all day. :naughty:

Quote:


By the Big Bang/Evolution standpoint, it, that is, what caused/(is) the Big Bang/(universe) to happen, and the process of evolution to unfold (expand), IT has made man and land and Stan (the Lion). These three (of many things) can not then claim "true" ownership over each other, for they exist only because of the "force" that caused the Big Bang and the process of evolution. Am i right or am i wrong?




It seems like you're wrong, but I don't know what you're implying by "'true' ownership". Ownership is ownership. The fact that something beyond the entity and object in question caused the Big Bang to occur doesn't negate the possibility of ownership. In fact, the fact that the universe was brought into existence supports that possibility.

Quote:

teknix said:
Man (as far as we can tell) is the only animal/creature/created being that seems to have the ability to think and reason, not that other animals can't, but no where near to the level that we can. It is in this ability, that we claim lands, and animals, and do all that we do, good or bad.




Long before humans could be considered to have the ability of reason and thinking, to a level beyond the one you're presuming animals are left at, humans were already claiming lands, animals, and essentially doing what it is that humans do. That is, of course, if you want to stick within the framework of evolution. :wink:

Quote:


But, if you truly believe in the Big Bang/ Evolution? then as stated above, and i think the point that teknix post is about, is that we are part of the dish, the spaghetti sauce can't say to the spaghetti "i own you", for evolution made the whole dish.




I'd wager that the reasoning behind this conclusion is faulty. I hinted at this above when I doubted that the fact that what we can for the purpose of this debate refer to as the "force" that caused the Big Bang, thereby spurring the process of evolution, negates the possibility of ownership. To go further in examining this potential faultiness in reasoning, I'd ask you a question posed in the spirit of your analogy - is the melting of the parmesan cheese once scattered across the steaming noodles and sauce an excluded phenomenon simply because someone whipped up the tasty dish and threw it all together on a plate? I'd suggest that it's not excluded. Why would it be different in the case of ownership?

Quote:


If you (the spaghetti sauce) think yourself above the (spaghetti) Then in you are in fact agreeing with the Creator Of The Universe (The God of the Bible)




I wouldn't know about the creator of the universe or the god of the bible, but I do know that ownership doesn't imply thinking that one is "above" that which is owned. There very well may be some people who think this in regards to what they own - but that doesn't speak for the concept of ownership itself, nor the phenomenon that we've symbolized with this concept. :wink:

In order to be a bit more clear in conveying my point, I'll elaborate. Thinking that one is above that which one owns isn't due to ownership itself - it's a mixture between ownership and a sense of superiority. It's like how tehnix earlier confused aggressiveness as being territoriality itself - when what he was seeing was actually aggressive territoriality. :grin:

Quote:


The only one that can truly think/say this is the creator of all things, if part of the creation (say us humans), then no, none can say so




How do you know what the creator of all things can truly think or say? :strokebeard:

Quote:


My understanding of what you are saying is that, i take a tree (or more) and make a chair(s).  Now i have (by man's ability to think/reason) made/created this chair, which i now own (in my mind and in the minds of others), but this is only in our minds, and the chair that i "own", in fact still belongs to the universe (Big Bang/Evolution or God), and i have just fashioned it to my liking but, it still ultimately belongs to one of the two forces that made allthings and im just borrowing it/using it, so to speak.




I think that your understanding of what ownership means is more of a misconception than anything. Ownership is a relative description of a relationship between objects and entities. It doesn't require to any degree at all a sense that somehow the entity or the object is separate from the universe, or god, or nature, or from oneself, for that matter. Ownership exists, and it doesn't mean any of that.

Quote:


In the end it's like two children fighting over lego blocks, one says " it's mine give it back!!!!" the other says "NO!!!!!!!!!!! it's mine", At which at the same time the mother pokes her head in the room and says "really?, well the fact is, it's mine, and im just letting you two little spoiled brats play with them, no me, no blocks, comprendea???"

At which point one of them gets what the mother is saying, and says to the other kid "here you go" :grin:




Is it really like that, or do you just wish it were like that? :wink:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rahz]
    #18831528 - 09/12/13 08:13 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
Ownership is a noun derived from the verb own. A verb describes an action. In this case all that's needed is to establish some type of exclusive use. A lion is obviously guarding the land for it's exclusive use in regards to other lions. You can call it whatever you like, but it's exhibiting ownership by it's actions. 

The confusion stems from the idea that because humans use language and have discreet words that somehow it changes the meaning in some way that would qualify humans for 'special use' of the word. Lions don't own land in the same way they can't murder anyone. They kill, they possess. Humans do the same thing we just have a larger variety of words to describe the nuanced qualities of our actions. Lions probably aren't as complex in their reasoning but their actions aren't totally foreign to ours either.

I'm perfectly fine saying lions possess a territory rather than saying that 'lion own the savannah'. The thing is, when we talk about owning something we're talking about possessing it, holding it for exclusive use. We can get nuanced about the social network supporting our claims of ownership (which provides it with a more human like connotation) but the basic idea is the same. The lion is possessing the land. This describes an active relationship between the lion and the land. Whether we call it ownership or not is a minor semantic issue.

As I have said, ownership IS an inference of independence from nature and I have mentioned the paradox of a unified reality creating it's own friction. By teknix logic eating isn't natural. Why would nature eat itself? If there is nothing outside nature, there is nothing for nature to eat. Therefore a lion eating a buffalo infers an independence from nature! And I agree, it does infer an independence from nature. The reality may not be the same as the inference, but it doesn't need to be. Look around and bask in the paradox of existence. Tell me it's not happening. Just close those peepers and maybe it will all go away.




Great post. :thumbup:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix] * 1
    #18831550 - 09/12/13 08:22 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Yeah, great circular argument there buddy, the entire premise is that they don't own anything, so you can't claim they are owning it before it has been found to be true, and then use that claim that they are owning as evidence of ownership.




Lousy response to that great post. :thumbdown:

In case you weren't aware, using the definition of a word in the way it was intended isn't a "circular argument". :smirk:

Quote:

teknix said:
First, show evidence that a lion can conceptualize, then show he conceptualizes ownership.

Goodluck . . .




It's not necessary for a lion to conceptualize ownership in order for a lion to engage in ownership. Therefore, your request for evidence of such conceptualization is completely meaningless.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18833418 - 09/12/13 05:29 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:
Quote:

teknix said:
It doesn't matter if that is what you are referring too, especially considering you didn't define territorial.

My point stands.




No, your point doesn't stand. Your point doesn't make any sense.
I don't need to define territorial - it's a word that already has a definition. :lol:

Your counterpoint that "aggressiveness doesn't implicate ownership" is garbage when we're talking about territoriality, and not aggressiveness. :smirk:

Maybe you observed that certain animals are aggressive in their territoriality. Big deal. :lol: It's irrelevant. Territoriality and aggressiveness are different things. :thumbup:

:themoreyouknow:




I am defining it more accurately, are dictionaries to you like the bibles are to Christian fundamentalists? (Dogmatically set in stone?)

Why do you think they are constantly being updated and changing?

:lol:

IE; if they haven't been found to have ownership then you can't use ownership in the definition when describing them unless it is found to be true, before hand.

Aggression in no way implicates ownership, if so how?

Evidently they didn't consider the ramifications of the definition deeply enough. Yet we did, imagine that.

Another thing you might want to keep in mind is that Correlation doesn't imply causation.


Edited by teknix (09/12/13 05:47 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
    #18833494 - 09/12/13 05:51 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sse said:
What infers independence, just that definition of nature? And human concepts?

I'm confused about the logic myself. Existence wouldn't be nature, water wouldn't be nature, nature wouldn't be nature, nothing we could explain would be nature.

As far as I know, everything we view could only be relevant to our selves, for whatever reasons. I may or may not be able to tell you it isn't happening if I had a different vantage point, or an objective vantage. But for now this is how we've evolved, this is the world view that we have been conditioned to see and experience. Though I may not be able to speak for everyone.




Consider Anatta, and then tell me how you or anyone can own anything (obviously you still have some work to do in Buddhism):

Quote:


In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्) refers to the notion of "not-self" or the illusion of "self". In the early texts, the Buddha commonly uses the word in the context of teaching that all things perceived by the senses (including the mental sense) are not really "I" or "mine", and for this reason one should not cling to them.

In the same vein, the Pali suttas (and parallel āgamas, both referred to collectively below as the nikāyas), categorize the phenomena experienced by a being into five groups ("khandhas") that serve as the objects of clinging and as the basis for a sense of self. In the Nikāyas, the Buddha repeatedly emphasizes not only that the five khandhas of living beings are "not-self", i.e. not "I" or "mine", but also that clinging to them as if they were "I" or "mine" gives rise to unhappiness.





You would argue against the Buddha, Rofl. (delusion)

:lol:

Just try to LOOK without thinking or conceptualizing it, because your thinking is holding you back imo.

What is being "I" or "Mine" to own?

Where is this "I" ?


Edited by teknix (09/12/13 05:57 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18835597 - 09/13/13 03:56 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
I am defining it more accurately, are dictionaries to you like the bibles are to Christian fundamentalists? (Dogmatically set in stone?)




Actually, I'm a strong supporter of the fluidity and flux of the meaning of words. It's a natural course that is taken as humans evolve. I have every respect for this process; I think that the meaning that words denote should be refined and reformulated. Not to mention that I have personally, actively engaged in this process myself, bending, shaping, and honing the sense of particular words as it reasonably seems fit. I advocate for this, and there is nothing wrong with attempting to define a word more accurately in and of itself.

However, whether or not it makes sense for this to happen in a particular case isn't simply "the meaning of words should change". No, there's more criteria than that.
The line of reasoning behind such a change can be flawed and misguided, as I consider yours to be regarding this particular matter. I reject your attempt to change the meaning that the word denotes not because I fundamentally adhere to a sense that words have objective meaning that cannot be changed or altered, but rather because the rationale behind your attempts to suggest that the word should refer, in fact, to something other than what it is commonly considered to mean is bogus and groundless, based only on faulty and incorrect considerations. :wink:

Quote:


IE; if they haven't been found to have ownership then you can't use ownership in the definition when describing them unless it is found to be true, before hand.




Yes, but this is an irrelevant lens through which to view the point of contention because the difference in opinion is simply the result of a different set of criteria by which one determines whether or not ownership is present.
Case in point: You suggest that ownership cannot be detected to be present without identifying whether or not the entity in question considers themselves to be engaging in ownership. Your criteria is that there must be present a concept of ownership in order for there to be ownership.
From this point of view, you then conclude that ownership is not natural because it only exists as a concept, which is entirely a derivative of man.

Conversely, I suggest that ownership is not measured by the presence of a conceptualization of ownership in the entity, but rather that the question of whether or not an entity is engaging in ownership is evidenced by their behavior. My criteria is a set of behavioral relationships between the entity and the object in question.

Therefore, it isn't a matter of circular logic.

Quote:


Aggression in no way implicates ownership, if so how?




I never suggested that aggression implies the presence of ownership. I suggested that territoriality is, in fact, ownership.

Quote:


Evidently they didn't consider the ramifications of the definition deeply enough. Yet we did, imagine that.




No, I think they did just fine. Ownership describes how an entity relates to an object as though it were its territory, it describes how the entity has associated that object with itself. I've suggested that this phenomenon does not originate from the level of conceptualization, but rather from a more primary, instinctual level, which does not operate as conceptualization. As a result, I deny that your attempt to redefine the word ownership has any rational basis.

Quote:


Another thing you might want to keep in mind is that Correlation doesn't imply causation.




I keep it in mind always, actually. If there's a specific point in regards to which you think I haven't kept in mind, feel free to specify it.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineblessed

Registered: 07/16/11
Posts: 1,085
Loc: ation: Tasmania Flag
Last seen: 13 days, 23 hours
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18837736 - 09/13/13 04:57 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Rahz said:
What I claim is that the apparent behavior is akin to what we would call ownership. And though there is nothing outside nature this doesn't prevent nature from clashing with itself, eating itself, fighting itself. To own (an inference of independence from nature) is a natural occurrence. It's all just part of the big swirling yin yang pie of life.



Your "big swirling yin yang pie of life" could also be looked at this way;

N.A.T.U.R.E = The whole universe and all it contains. Thanks to the Big Bang/Evolution or God (the two major possibilities that caused/made our existence)

The fact that "T" can kill "R" is all within the confines of the total N.A.T.U.R.E. Without the whole, there can be no part, and man is (from/formed by) nature, the land/lion is (from/formed by) nature too.  How then can nature ( or it's byproduct, man) own nature (it's  other byproduct, land/lion)? This is possible only in our minds imo. but then i ask myself, isn't our thinking minds a byproduct of this nature? yes!!! Im getting a headache!!!!

Evolution or God made (U.S), Therefor .U. and .S. is owned/made by evolution or God. in this context ,.U. can't truly own .S. because it's owned/made by evolution or God it's maker/former/creator, or reason for why it exists and is..

This is the context i understand teknix's use of the word own* to mean. * (Something he could have maybe defined more from the beginning)

What i've understood teknix's point to be is, that without the whole "N.A.T.U.R.E", or as you call it "the big swirling yin yang pie of life" there is no .T., or .R., or .U., or .E. (true?)

So then how can?

.U. say it owns,
.N.? what was
.A. thinking (or drinking) when it said (or think) that it owns
.T.?
.U. must have been on drugs when it claimed "this is mine!!!" referring to it moving into
.R. While
.A. just sits there like me and says "nobody loves me" unwanted, and unclaimed
.L. ady's and Gentlemen, this is what i believe teknix's point is all about.


To make infers an independence from nature.
To own infers an independence from nature.

the problem lies with the word "own", teknix's use of the word is one side of the coin, the lion possessing the land is on the other, but at the end it's still the same coin.

Own = make/possess = Own


The question is, who made the coin and who owns it? :shrug:

right now you may be doing this, :thisisterrible:

:smile:


Quote:

teknix said:
I think you got it bro!

:thumbup:

:bearbreakdance:



Cool, thankyou :kenthumbup:

To fireworks_god,
Does this post answer the questions you asked me, or would you still like an answer on each of those points?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18838465 - 09/13/13 07:56 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

fireworks_god said:

However, whether or not it makes sense for this to happen in a particular case isn't simply "the meaning of words should change". No, there's more criteria than that.
The line of reasoning behind such a change can be flawed and misguided, as I consider yours to be regarding this particular matter. I reject your attempt to change the meaning that the word denotes not because I fundamentally adhere to a sense that words have objective meaning that cannot be changed or altered, but rather because the rationale behind your attempts to suggest that the word should refer, in fact, to something other than what it is commonly considered to mean is bogus and groundless, based only on faulty and incorrect considerations. :wink:






I'm not even changing the meaning, I'm using the biological definition and elaborating on it, which the biological meaning is the one being referenced according to the context of the argument. :grin:

Quote:


I never suggested that aggression implies the presence of ownership. I suggested that territoriality is, in fact, ownership.





Yes you suggested that on the grounds of animals being aggressive, what other evidence to you have to much such an accusation.

You can't say territorial implies ownership when ownership is up for question in the first place, and your only evidence for that claim is that territorial uses the word ownership in the definition when aggression would be more apt, which you admitted isn't in fact evidence, so try again. :wink:

Correlation doesn't equate to causation.

Are they being aggressive because they think they own it, or only because that's how they are programmed?


Edited by teknix (09/13/13 08:01 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: blessed]
    #18839011 - 09/13/13 09:39 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

How then can nature ( or it's byproduct, man) own nature (it's  other byproduct, land/lion)? This is possible only in our minds imo. but then i ask myself, isn't our thinking minds a byproduct of this nature? yes!!!




Agreed.

As far as your 'evolution/God' argument goes it would be nice if there was some logical way of explaining the paradox of existence but that doesn't seem to be the case. It seems nobody 'made the coin'. Nature didn't make nature, God didn't make God. It all just is as far as I can tell, and that's the paradox. Nothing truly owns anything as it's all part of the same stuff. However, shit happens. Galaxies collide, dogs fight, and humans are just another type of animal playing out an exertion of self preservation and mating. There is purpose in it but it is not reasonable/logical on any fundamental level as far as I can tell.

Humans do have superior conceptualization powers but I wouldn't guess feelings and thoughts of ownership were born from a humans 'higher brain functions' or some crazed desire to do something un-natural. Ownership is basic stuff. The fact that humans have hands and can make things, can carry things inside of other things, can devise alternate forms of transport for things, all the things and stuff certainly changes the ball game at least on the surface. But it still comes down to territory, food/water accessibility, mating and other social interactions of the human or cat world. All the other things and stuff are useless except that some things may be useful for procuring other things that are desired. And there's a whole spiritual question there about the desirability of material possession. How one approaches that, considering life isn't reasonable, who is to say what is right? Roam the world naked proclaiming the evils of ownership for all I care. It's natural enough I suppose. :smile:


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18839016 - 09/13/13 09:41 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Ownership implies aggression. :shrug:


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rahz]
    #18844326 - 09/15/13 12:10 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
I'm not even changing the meaning, I'm using the biological definition and elaborating on it, which the biological meaning is the one being referenced according to the context of the argument. :grin:




In fact, in your attempt to elaborate on the meaning, you in effect change it, the reasoning behind which I disagree with.
Territoriality isn't aggression, and it changes the meaning of the word to suggest that territorial behavior is simply the result of aggression or is actually just aggression itself. This much should be obvious when one simply looks at the definition of the word and sees "defend". What do you think is the relation between the word defensive and the word aggressive? 

Quote:


Yes you suggested that on the grounds of animals being aggressive, what other evidence to you have to much such an accusation.




No, I didn't suggest it on the grounds of animals being aggressive. Again, aggression ≠ territoriality.

Quote:


You can't say territorial implies ownership when ownership is up for question in the first place...




I didn't say that territoriality implies ownership; I stated that territoriality is ownership. So, I jolly well can say it.

Quote:


, and your only evidence for that claim is that territorial uses the word ownership in the definition...




:lol:
I never suggested that the claim is evidenced by the fact that the word territorial uses the word ownership in its definition. :smirk: Does it even use it? :lol:

My evidence is the evolutionary history of the human species as it pertains to human behavior and as it relates to animal behavior.

Quote:


when aggression would be more apt...




No it wouldn't. A quick glance at the meaning of the words "aggression" and "defense" would clarify that matter for you.

Quote:


which you admitted isn't in fact evidence, so try again. :wink:




What are you talking about? :wtf:

Quote:


Correlation doesn't equate to causation.




Nice catch-phrase. Sounds smart. Once again, if only you indicated to what it is in reference to. :tongue2:

Quote:


Are they being aggressive because they think they own it, or only because that's how they are programmed?




First off, animals display territoriality in different circumstances in different ways, and aggression is only one of those ways.

Secondly, the question is irrelevant to the matter of ownership. It doesn't require conceptualization for it to happen.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: blessed]
    #18844336 - 09/15/13 12:14 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

blessed said:
To fireworks_god,
Does this post answer the questions you asked me, or would you still like an answer on each of those points?




No, as far as I can tell, you only repeated certain things you said before, without really answering any question or providing new information about your point of view.
Anyhow, it's your choice if you want to answer the questions or not. :wink:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18848485 - 09/16/13 10:52 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


In fact, in your attempt to elaborate on the meaning, you in effect change it, the reasoning behind which I disagree with.
Territoriality isn't aggression, and it changes the meaning of the word to suggest that territorial behavior is simply the result of aggression or is actually just aggression itself. This much should be obvious when one simply looks at the definition of the word and sees "defend". What do you think is the relation between the word defensive and the word aggressive? 





Then I guess you will just have to find another word, because you can't use ownership to describe their actions until it has been found to be true, or you'll just create a circular argument.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18848512 - 09/16/13 10:58 AM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
Then I guess you will just have to find another word, because you can't use ownership to describe their actions until it has been found to be true, or you'll just create a circular argument.




Actually, I can, because I've specifically presented the criteria by which I'm finding it to be true. :tongue2:
Not only have I presented that set of criteria, but I'm prepared to provide argument as to the validity of this criteria in determining if it is a case of ownership, and I'm likewise prepared to provide argument in support of the notion that this set of criteria has been met.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
    #18851065 - 09/16/13 08:23 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Lol, then provide the evidence already. :smirk:

(I think we both know that you are running on fumes.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18851311 - 09/16/13 09:10 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Can we agree that the pretense of the word ownership may vary? I think we've already shown that though we cannot know the level of cognitive though a different species might experience, we can show that the results of their brain activity result in behavior that is similar to what humans would call ownership. I won't attempt to anthropomorphize them but I also wouldn't suggest they're genetic robots.

It's all a side issue anyway. We're trying to establish what is natural and what is not natural. If there is nothing outside of nature then are thoughts of independence a part of nature? If so then they are natural. Either humans manifest natural things (which supports your theory) or they manifest un-natural things, which as far as I can tell has no explanation to back it up without appealing to the mystic, which usually entails one of the big religions to flesh out what is natural and what is not as part of their hocus pocus system.

It's also worth noting that natural is not a de facto stance on whether it's groovy or not. Decrying something because it's 'not natural' is a way to hide the true reason for the distaste.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rahz]
    #18851466 - 09/16/13 09:42 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Yeah, but we can't misconstrue the two and say that the correlation is evidence for causation.

All I see is an aggressive animal, and don't have any reason to think it is owning anything.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
    #18851475 - 09/16/13 09:44 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

Same with humans though right?...


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rahz]
    #18851489 - 09/16/13 09:47 PM (10 years, 4 months ago)

No,  humans can and do communicate their thoughts with one another.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < First | < Back | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | Next > | Last >

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* man v. nature
( 1 2 3 all )
DividedQuantumM 2,707 42 03/05/18 07:46 PM
by pineninja
* The nature of self-serving beliefs
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 7,500 28 10/13/02 12:12 AM
by johnnyfive
* The Ownership/Theft Paradox Anonymous 1,718 14 06/23/03 02:45 PM
by Sclorch
* Is the physical world independent of consciousness?
( 1 2 all )
Divided_Sky 3,765 27 08/25/04 11:11 AM
by Zahid
* Natural vs. synthetic drugs skaMariaPastora 2,857 16 03/19/02 01:31 AM
by rum
* Independent Verification
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Swami 10,628 162 09/05/03 07:28 AM
by tak
* Let's define the word "natural"
( 1 2 3 all )
Dogomush 3,866 40 12/11/02 10:29 PM
by andrash
* Independent Truth- a road to greater empowerment and freedom
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 2,974 25 09/04/04 06:59 AM
by Simisu

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
25,823 topic views. 3 members, 11 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.