|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18851642 - 09/16/13 10:20 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yea like "I want this". Simple desire. You're suggesting animals don't experience desire?
-------------------- 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
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rahz]
#18851696 - 09/16/13 10:34 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Research information theory .
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18851843 - 09/16/13 11:11 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Way to dodge the question.
-------------------- 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
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rahz]
#18852245 - 09/17/13 02:23 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said: Yea like "I want this". Simple desire. You're suggesting animals don't experience desire?
It doesn't matter nor is it about what I think, there is no evidence for it.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



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]
#18852587 - 09/17/13 07:47 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Lol, then provide the evidence already. 
(I think we both know that you are running on fumes.)
I already have provided my evidence. It isn't my fault that you failed to respond to it. I stated that my evidence is behavior; animal behavior, human behavior, compared and contrasted. I also stated that, from this standpoint, every single behavior that humans exhibit that we consider to be related to ownership is similarly exhibited by animals, in the same type of situations. Much, much, much earlier in the thread, I elucidated on these specific behaviors. A lot of this consisted of points of contention that you abandoned responding to. 
That is the proper criteria for analyzing the presence of ownership - behavior. The reason this is the proper criteria is because it is a phenomenon that originates from a more primary level than that of conceptualization. The question of whether or not a particular entity can be considered to display ownership is therefore irrelevant. First the phenomenon existed and then it was symbolized in the form of a concept. Therefore, it is natural.
You can fantasize all you want about how much vital force remains within my argumentation, but I don't think such a fantasy is going to make a difference in what you'll continue to see from my end of the debate.
--------------------
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
|
Sse
Saṃsāra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18853618 - 09/17/13 01:51 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
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)

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" ?
What does any of that have to do with it being natural or not?
You keep telling me to look without conceptualizing. If I were to do that then there would be nothing to define or label. Your point would vanish because it is completely dependent on our human ideas. Imo your point contradicts itself.
Just because self is built by our conditioned responses/imputations doesn't mean a person can't still own within the context of their lives. I can own and not cling, I can own without the slightest bit of unhappiness caused by the owning or loss of anything. I don't think it would be healthy for me to abolish ownership. I've got to look out for me and mine, just because the concepts may be only self relevant doesn't mean I should lose them; that wouldn't be healthy. Buddhism imo is all about building a healthier balanced, less attached self, a mind that doesn't fixate anywhere or cling to anything. Imo it is possible to build that mind frame within the context of our world. I can still own and defend what is mine without taking any of it to heart.
I look at no-self like this, everything I could think of as being me, isn't anything fixed or concrete. I am not who I think I am(example: I'm a horrible greedy person, I suck, I'm a sad pathetic asshole, I'm a judgmental prick, I'm never going to change, I'm the worst person in the world, I can't stand that, that causes me to suffer, I find that unpleasant, I hate myself). "I" is ever changing, there is no concrete entity/reactor. How I view myself and how I react to everything around me has been conditioned by past imputations. How I react and view continues to undergo conditioning. Each and every moment counts, every reaction counts towards building a less reactive/rigid persona. Towards developing a healthier and more opened minded ever changing self. I don't know if I could completely abolish my self as a self because of the world around me and certain necessities that need to be fulfilled in order for my being to continue being healthy and alive. I can change how I relate my self to this ever changing conglomeration. To develop a mind that clings to nothing. To realize I am not who I think I am, its all ever changing. I am a gradual process. Experiences but no concrete experiencer, thoughts but no concrete thinker, embracing everything that happens and flows while I play the unbiased third party.
Edited by Sse (09/17/13 03:36 PM)
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18855098 - 09/17/13 07:30 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
Rahz said: Yea like "I want this". Simple desire. You're suggesting animals don't experience desire?
It doesn't matter nor is it about what I think, there is no evidence for it.
It does matter. Ownership is the product of desire. Desire is wanting something, owning it is what happens when it's had. It's as simple as that.
But again, what's the point in discussing other animals? I could care less if a lion feels entitled to his turf. It has little to do with whether human thoughts and feelings of ownership are 'natural'. If as you say there is nothing outside nature, then you will admit that nothing is un-natural? If not, surely you can explain what qualifies something as un-natural.
The word nature applied to everything but humans is an arbitrary definition created by humans, as Sse points out. The original definition was simply pointing towards the essence of a thing, not some universal applicability. Knowing the nature of something was akin to knowing 'what it is like'. I haven't been able to track down the etymology of the change in usage but will guess the distinction between man and 'everything else' holds it's origins in monotheistic religion. That thar be the legacy of the word nature in the way you're using it.
Unless you can prove that what's natural and what's un-natural is objectively quantifiable, you don't have an argument to win here. As I pointed out way back near the start of this thread, why not just talk about the negative aspects of ownership? There's no need to define something as un-natural in order to have a problem with it.
-------------------- 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
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18856206 - 09/17/13 11:47 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
teknix said: Lol, then provide the evidence already. 
(I think we both know that you are running on fumes.)
I already have provided my evidence. It isn't my fault that you failed to respond to it. I stated that my evidence is behavior; animal behavior, human behavior, compared and contrasted. I also stated that, from this standpoint, every single behavior that humans exhibit that we consider to be related to ownership is similarly exhibited by animals, in the same type of situations. Much, much, much earlier in the thread, I elucidated on these specific behaviors. A lot of this consisted of points of contention that you abandoned responding to. 
That is the proper criteria for analyzing the presence of ownership - behavior. The reason this is the proper criteria is because it is a phenomenon that originates from a more primary level than that of conceptualization. The question of whether or not a particular entity can be considered to display ownership is therefore irrelevant. First the phenomenon existed and then it was symbolized in the form of a concept. Therefore, it is natural.
You can fantasize all you want about how much vital force remains within my argumentation, but I don't think such a fantasy is going to make a difference in what you'll continue to see from my end of the debate.
Yeah, and I exposed the correlation as the logical fallacy that it is.

Try again.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rahz]
#18856209 - 09/17/13 11:48 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said:
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
Rahz said: Yea like "I want this". Simple desire. You're suggesting animals don't experience desire?
It doesn't matter nor is it about what I think, there is no evidence for it.
It does matter. Ownership is the product of desire. Desire is wanting something, owning it is what happens when it's had. It's as simple as that.
But again, what's the point in discussing other animals? I could care less if a lion feels entitled to his turf. It has little to do with whether human thoughts and feelings of ownership are 'natural'. If as you say there is nothing outside nature, then you will admit that nothing is un-natural? If not, surely you can explain what qualifies something as un-natural.
The word nature applied to everything but humans is an arbitrary definition created by humans, as Sse points out. The original definition was simply pointing towards the essence of a thing, not some universal applicability. Knowing the nature of something was akin to knowing 'what it is like'. I haven't been able to track down the etymology of the change in usage but will guess the distinction between man and 'everything else' holds it's origins in monotheistic religion. That thar be the legacy of the word nature in the way you're using it.
Unless you can prove that what's natural and what's un-natural is objectively quantifiable, you don't have an argument to win here. As I pointed out way back near the start of this thread, why not just talk about the negative aspects of ownership? There's no need to define something as un-natural in order to have a problem with it.
Correlation doesn't equate to causation, ffs man check your fallacies.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1][dead link] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18856516 - 09/18/13 01:21 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
You've been slinging around fallacies with authority but you got nothing. Instead of being vague or quoting my entire post, how about pointing out out the logical fallacy, that way we can have a look and see if you are right. As it stands, nobody but you knows what you're talking about.
-------------------- 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
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



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]
#18856675 - 09/18/13 03:34 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Yeah, and I exposed the correlation as the logical fallacy that it is.

Try again.
No, you uttered twice "correlation is not causation" without ever seeking to endeavor to explain in any sort of way how the phrase actually relates to the point of contention at hand.
Quote:
fireworks_god said: 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.
Quote:
fireworks_god said: Nice catch-phrase. Sounds smart. Once again, if only you indicated to what it is in reference to.
So, then, what precisely is the correlation that isn't causation? For the third time now: can you specify it?
--------------------
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
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18859915 - 09/18/13 07:25 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
What is your argument?
That animals have ownership because you can correlate certain aspects that we use for ownership to them? But only a few of them right? Not the important ones which are conceptual.
Man, I can't believe this requires more explaining.

If you really have something then lay it out plain and simple. Without using a couple similarities and thinking that is evidence for your claim, while the most important factors are not correlated at all.
Show your evidence, not your B.S.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18859982 - 09/18/13 07:43 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Layout your evidence in points, void of the bullshit explanations.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18860771 - 09/18/13 10:39 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
That animals have ownership because you can correlate certain aspects that we use for ownership to them? But only a few of them right? Not the important ones which are conceptual.
I wouldn't claim that animals have the same mental process going on because they don't have human brains, but "to own" is a verb. Owning is the act of possessing. We can only wonder, but I would guess animals feel desire in much the same way we do. Their tiny little brains probably don't worry themselves as much as humans do, but in whatever way it's profitable to animals to feel desire, whether to build a nest and guard it, or roam the plains looking, they want things. You may think perhaps that animal brains aren't capable of wanting things, but to hold this view necessarily suggests animals have no desire at all, as if they were genetic robots. There is no proof humans are inherently different in this regard! It's true, we're much more nuanced but it's on you to prove it's something more than a fancy variety of what's already going on. Until this is proven it's just a mystical claim that humans are special in some way that allows us to go against nature in ways that other life forms can not.
Which brings us back to the question of what is natural. Even if we were to concede that animals didn't own, you would still need to prove that ownership wasn't natural. You would have proven only that it wasn't normal.
-------------------- 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
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Rahz]
#18861385 - 09/19/13 01:47 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Rahz said: I wouldn't claim that animals have the same mental process going on because they don't have human brains, but "to own" is a verb.
Ownership is a concept created by man even more than it is a verb which is also a concept created by man and language using conceptual thought.
Quote:
We can only wonder, but I would guess animals feel desire in much the same way we do.
I don't care about your opinion, I'm looking for objective evidence.
Quote:
Their tiny little brains probably don't worry themselves as much as humans do, but in whatever way it's profitable to animals to feel desire, whether to build a nest and guard it, or roam the plains looking, they want things.
Blah, blah, blah, probably doesn't count when it is dependent only on your opinion rather than actual evidence.
Quote:
You may think perhaps that animal brains aren't capable of wanting things, but to hold this view necessarily suggests animals have no desire at all, as if they were genetic robots.
What I think is of no consequence here, neither is your opinion, stick to facts.
Quote:
There is no proof humans are inherently different in this regard!
Yes there is, look at the evidence you provided of humans conceptualization, and even the language we use created by humans, which is by definition not natural.
Quote:
It's true, we're much more nuanced but it's on you to prove it's something more than a fancy variety of what's already going on. Until this is proven it's just a mystical claim that humans are special in some way that allows us to go against nature in ways that other life forms can not.
My position is the null position, you don't get to ask me to prove there is no god, just like you don't get to ask me to prove there isn't ownership in the nature.

Quote:
Which brings us back to the question of what is natural. Even if we were to concede that animals didn't own, you would still need to prove that ownership wasn't natural. You would have proven only that it wasn't normal. 
Natural was already defined pages ago. Have fun with your little circle arguments, slippery slopes and shifting the burden of proof bullshit.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18861556 - 09/19/13 03:34 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It's not like we thought up ownership and then started owning things. Perhaps a human built a tool. It was useful so he made it a point to keep it around. Another human sees him using the tool and attempts to take the tool while the human is away but he sees this and becomes angry, grabs rock, chases the other off and keeps the tool for him self. Hmm, perhaps we can think of a word for that behavior! Now we have a concept as well. So what? Someone desires something. Conceptualizing that relationship is different than the behavior itself.
And that doesn't fundamentally change the game or make it 'un-natural'. Nature has not been defined in this regard to my satisfaction. In fact in most of my replies I've tried to direct you to the question of what is natural but you seem to prefer to talk about animals.
As I've already stated less bluntly, nature is a made up word. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. And if we agree on something, that doesn't signify anything special except that we both agree on the somewhat arbitrary definition we have created. That might be fine if there was some utility in it except you're also saying there is nothing outside nature. Your position cannot be null because you need to prove it's possible to say or do something un-natural. A position that's based on the idea that humans are unnatural by virtue of being human is either based in mysticism, or is a 'circular argument'.
-------------------- 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
Edited by Rahz (09/19/13 04:18 AM)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



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]
#18861588 - 09/19/13 04:07 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: That animals have ownership because you can correlate certain aspects that we use for ownership to them? But only a few of them right? Not the important ones which are conceptual.
No, my point is that animals and humans alike manifest exactly the same behavior, the behavior which we've conceptualized as ownership. Your value judgment that the conceptual aspect is important is baseless because it has absolutely no bearing on the manifestation of the behavior, as the behavior itself manifests from a level that precedes and operates independently of the ability to conceptualize, both in humans as well as in animals.
animals own. The fact that humans symbolized ownership doesn't mean that ownership only exists as a symbol. There is absolutely no difference between human ownership and animal ownership. It's exactly the same thing. The fact that humans have represented it as a concept could never change that. 
So, there you have it. Ownership is natural after all.
--------------------
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
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18861606 - 09/19/13 04:28 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
teknix said: Yeah, and I exposed the correlation as the logical fallacy that it is.

Try again.
No, you uttered twice "correlation is not causation" without ever seeking to endeavor to explain in any sort of way how the phrase actually relates to the point of contention at hand.
Quote:
fireworks_god said: 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.
Quote:
fireworks_god said: Nice catch-phrase. Sounds smart. Once again, if only you indicated to what it is in reference to.
So, then, what precisely is the correlation that isn't causation? For the third time now: can you specify it? 
Fireworks, you like to live in your own little fantasy world where you debate about topics that weren't even originally the topic at hand..
Like our trust your rationality debate, in which I was talking about how most people believe themselves to be acting, thinking and reasoning rationally when in most cases that turns out to be false, and that on a long enough time-line, most "rational" beliefs tend to be completely proven wrong.
And you kept defending the process of rationality, we were arguing about two completely different things, and you, like now, were so blinded by your need to be right that you didn't even realize it.
Ban me, idgaf, tytoz and johnm as mods fucking ruined this subforum.
hTx, please note that the forum rules require you to debate the topic and leave the individual poster out of it. Fireworksgod's personal qualities aren't relevant here. Please stick to the topic.
-johnm214
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
Edited by johnm214 (09/19/13 10:32 AM)
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: hTx]
#18861607 - 09/19/13 04:30 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Although I agree with you on this, that all is natural, it is rather arrogant to think that anything we humans do isn't natural.
We are on and of planet earth, an alien species studying us wouldn't call what we do or own "independent of nature".
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: hTx]
#18861611 - 09/19/13 04:35 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The fact that we believe ourselves independent from nature or that ownership of anything isn't natural is pretty off-base as most everything we tend to 'own', on a long enough timeline, ends up not being owned by anything or anyone. It goes through the natural process of change.
Therefore nothing is really owned at all, just our egos tend to think so.
Ooooohhhh
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
|