|
Memories



Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18864735 - 09/19/13 07:41 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Computer crashed, I had to retype what I wrote before so re-read it.
Humans own by claiming ownership as a right, and other humans tend to agree and enforce anothers owners, that isn't true in nature. I already said all of this before anyway, go back and read.
It boils down to evolution by natural selection and instinct built into their DNA, not ownership.
I see what you are saying though. Using ownership to describe what an animal does is kind of an awkward use of the word.
Edited by Memories (09/19/13 07:41 PM)
|
dodgem
Learner



Registered: 08/04/11
Posts: 2,683
Last seen: 7 months, 7 days
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Memories]
#18865797 - 09/19/13 11:53 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think of it more as "the things you own end up owning you". The more you think you own something, the more control it takes over you. You have something that you adore and cherish, don't want anyone to have and would do anything to protect it and keep it in your custody. If you look at it from the other side, that thing has you around its finger, you protecting it against all invaders and allowing no harm to come to it.
--------------------
Walk where you like your steps
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: hTx]
#18866296 - 09/20/13 05:56 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: tl;dr
--------------------
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: dodgem]
#18866304 - 09/20/13 06:04 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- .6th and 7th sense theory .Now is forever. .ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞTheﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞUnseenﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ is seenﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ by the blindﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ eye.ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ.When the inevitable time comes, go with your head held high,without regret or remorse, in your subconscious mind. ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ ﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞﱞ
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18866379 - 09/20/13 07:09 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Your missing the conceptualization of calling something mine, and having the majority of others agree with that assessment.
The definition of the concept "ownership" does not require that a majority of other people agree with the fact that owner is actually owning.  Whether or not the society of a particular species recognizes to a greater degree a particular act of ownership as compared to the society of another species has absolutely no bearing on whether or not ownership actually exists, either.
Quote:
The natural society doesn't agree that a pride is his, other lions strongly disagree. They don't even consider themselves a lion afaik.
You state that, as far as you know, lions might not even consider themselves to be lions, but yet, miraculously, you somehow do know that the "natural society" doesn't agree with the fact that a particular pride belongs to a particular lion, you somehow do know not only that other lions disagree, but that they disagree strongly.  Do you think it helps your case to employ a selective bias in the assumptions you draw regarding what you can and cannot know about how other species' view things?  All of it is irrelevant anyhow, as the fact that an act of ownership can be contested by others has no bearing on whether or not ownership itself exists. By definition. 
Quote:
Let alone consider themselves owning something, which that is the entire point, ownership requires a conceptualization to identify the item as belonging to a mental construct. Without that construct, created separate from nature, an item isn't being owned.
Nope, no such conceptualization is required. It is instinctual. The relationship between the entity and the object that results in ownership manifesting in behavior does not need to be mentally symbolized in order for it to exist.
Quote:
A lion is one with nature, he doesn't get to choose where the pride or land goes when he dies.
This is of no relevance whatsoever. "Choosing" what happens to something owned after an entity perishes doesn't reflect in any way, shape, or degree on whether or not the entity owned the object before perishing.
Quote:
Still your not providing any evidence of their ownership, where is your evidence? Any evidence you have provided was a slipery slope and not enough to justify any ownership.
A slippery slope fallacy, eh? Providing insufficient evidence, as you are claiming here, has absolutely nothing to do with a slippery slope fallacy. Slippery slope refers to claiming that taking a particular action, small in size or scope, will inevitably lead to a chain of larger, unavoidable consequences. It does not pertain in the slightest to a matter of how much evidence has been provided, or the question of whether or not the evidence provided can be considered sufficient. 
I've provided sufficient evidence - the definition of the word ownership and referencing the fact that territoriality is an animal instinct.
Quote:
That doesn't negate that it could only exist as a symbol either . . .
Nope, but there's other stuff for that. The definition of the word ownership and the behavior that animals and humans alike exhibit.
Quote:
The only link you have is that aggressive animals seem to defend a certain area.
Aggression ≠ territoriality.
Quote:
That is where the slippery slope comes in, when you think aggression is enough to give animals conceptual thought of ownership or even ownership in general.
No, I think that neither animals nor humans require conceptual thought in order to engage in acts of ownership. Conceptual thought is not a requirement for ownership to exist, by definition.
Quote:
Again you fail to provide any evidence and just repeat your opinion after you make a bare assertion. Sif your opinion is evidence, lol. So do you think that your assertion is evidence for your opinion and your opinion is evidence for your assertion?
No, I think the evidence that I provided is evidence. I think my opinion is my opinion, which I've based upon the evidence that I've provided.
Quote:
Nice logic bro.
It's yours, not mine. I wouldn't touch that logic with a ten-foot pole.
--------------------
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
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Memories]
#18866395 - 09/20/13 07:16 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Memories said: I see what you are saying though. Using ownership to describe what an animal does is kind of an awkward use of the word.
Only in the sense that, as humans have evolved, both their conceptualization of the phenomenon of ownership and the way in which they engage in it have evolved as well. They're still the same thing, though, we just tend to describe it in animals as territoriality to reflect how far we've grown ourselves.
--------------------
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
|
Memories



Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18866773 - 09/20/13 09:12 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Memories said: I see what you are saying though. Using ownership to describe what an animal does is kind of an awkward use of the word.
Only in the sense that, as humans have evolved, both their conceptualization of the phenomenon of ownership and the way in which they engage in it have evolved as well. They're still the same thing, though, we just tend to describe it in animals as territoriality to reflect how far we've grown ourselves. 
You guys are just using different definitions of ownership. How did this turn into pages of debate?
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Memories]
#18866830 - 09/20/13 09:27 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Memories said: You guys are just using different definitions of ownership. How did this turn into pages of debate? 
I have no doubt that we're using different definitions of the word ownership - the problem is that his definition doesn't have any relation to what actually happens in reality.  More than that, however, he's also alleging that his definition is the standard definition, when it is isn't, and is trying to use the fact that he distorted the definition as fodder for proclaiming that ownership itself doesn't actually exist but as a concept, when it exists as behavior, a natural phenomenon, independent of conceptualization.
--------------------
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]
#18867109 - 09/20/13 10:49 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
The definition of the concept "ownership" does not require that a majority of other people agree with the fact that owner is actually owning. 
You just admitted it was a concept, rofl, and therefore not natural.
Good Game.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,252
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18867139 - 09/20/13 10:59 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
It's a concept and a behavior. There's a concept of running... therefore animals can't possibly run because they can't conceive it (if we assume animals are unable to conceptualize at any level).
-------------------- 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: teknix]
#18867140 - 09/20/13 10:59 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
FWG is trying to correlate how an animal acts to mean they are thinking they are owning, when the phenomena is called evolution by natural selection. I think most of us can agree that animals are the way they are because of evolution, not because of concepts. (excluding humans)
What behavior constitutes ownership, that isn't simply instinct ? ?
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix] 1
#18867228 - 09/20/13 11:23 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: FWG is trying to correlate how an animal acts to mean they are thinking they are owning, when the phenomena is called evolution by natural selection. I think most of us can agree that animals are the way they are because of evolution, not because of concepts. (excluding humans)
What behavior constitutes ownership, that isn't simply instinct ? ?
Well cats marking territory in response to another cat marking overtop of the original cats marking. It's a pissing contest, not unlike this thread.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Memories



Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18867319 - 09/20/13 11:44 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
The definition of the concept "ownership" does not require that a majority of other people agree with the fact that owner is actually owning. 
You just admitted it was a concept, rofl, and therefore not natural.
Good Game.

We seem to be using different definitions for what is natural too. I understand that a distinction between man-made things and those not man-made can be useful, but at the same time, i think we are part of the natural processes, so every action we take is natural. For what could exist outside of nature? Nothing IMO.
|
Memories



Registered: 05/09/12
Posts: 10,484
Loc: Suwannee River
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: fireworks_god]
#18867348 - 09/20/13 11:50 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
Memories said: You guys are just using different definitions of ownership. How did this turn into pages of debate? 
I have no doubt that we're using different definitions of the word ownership - the problem is that his definition doesn't have any relation to what actually happens in reality.  More than that, however, he's also alleging that his definition is the standard definition, when it is isn't, and is trying to use the fact that he distorted the definition as fodder for proclaiming that ownership itself doesn't actually exist but as a concept, when it exists as behavior, a natural phenomenon, independent of conceptualization.
I looked in Merriam-Webster, and one definition of 'own' included maintaining control of or having power over.
I would agree that the way you are using 'ownership' is most definitely valid according to Merriam-Webster.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Memories]
#18867462 - 09/20/13 12:28 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Then look at it this way, if nature does own then everything you think you own, was stolen from nature. The house you live in, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, everything was stolen from nature then right?
Also according to that definition, if you steal something then it is rightfully yours. Is that really how ownership works among humans? The biggest baddest guy can take what he wants unless you can stop him and then it is rightfully his?
Quote:
own·er·ship (nr-shp) n. 1. The state or fact of being an owner. 2. Legal right to the possession of a thing.
Quote:
pos·sess (p-zs) tr.v. pos·sessed, pos·sess·ing, pos·sess·es 1. To have as property; own.
a. To have or possess as property:
Edited by teknix (09/20/13 12:40 PM)
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18867503 - 09/20/13 12:35 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Then look at it this way, if nature does own then everything you think you own, was stolen from nature. The house you live in, the clothes you wear, the food you eat, everything was stolen from nature then right?
Also according to that definition, if you steal something then it is rightfully yours. Is that really how ownership works among humans? The biggest baddest guy can take what he wants unless you can stop him and then it is rightfully his?
It's all about not falling more than three years behind in back property taxes.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: LunarEclipse]
#18867522 - 09/20/13 12:37 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
You're just renting it or using it for a time. The land you think you own isn't really yours if you have to pay for it every year, huh.
All the definitions break down at have and possess, they form a circular argument using each other to define each other.
Quote:
have (hv) v. had (hd), hav·ing, has (hz) v.tr. 1. a. To be in possession of:
So what is it that is having?
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18867567 - 09/20/13 12:43 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Looks like we humans like to use a double (or even multi-) standard when it comes to ownership.
|
teknix
𓂀⟁𓅢𓍝𓅃𓊰𓉡 𓁼𓆗⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18867653 - 09/20/13 01:00 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
All of the food you earth and liquids you drink, most will be crapped and pissed out, some of it will be absorbed through the intestines and the molecules will be used by the body for a time, until you decay and die and it goes back to the earth, so how is it yours? What is really owning other than a thought?
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,252
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18867851 - 09/20/13 01:48 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- 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
|
|