Philosophy Now Forum

It's a fool's errand to anthropomorphize anything other than a human being, only human beings have the characteristics that make us human.

thedoc wrote:It's a fool's errand to anthropomorphize anything other than a human being, only human beings have the characteristics that make us human.

Wouldn't agree with that, there are great variation of human behaviour, some are hippies others are psychopaths, some are leaders ..some are followers.

Many pet owners will say that their pets are more human than other humans, because pets are loyal, gives unconditional love, and often will defend their master to the death, etc.

HexHammer wrote:

thedoc wrote:It's a fool's errand to anthropomorphize anything other than a human being, only human beings have the characteristics that make us human.

Wouldn't agree with that, there are great variation of human behaviour, some are hippies others are psychopaths, some are leaders ..some are followers.

Many pet owners will say that their pets are more human than other humans, because pets are loyal, gives unconditional love, and often will defend their master to the death, etc.

and most are 'normal' right thinking people who stand in huge crowd and point to the 'hippy' look he is not us .
BURN HIM

Andy Kay wrote:

Bernard wrote:

Andy Kay wrote:Are you making a case for or against an ontological division between living and non-living things?

Between aware things and unaware. But it's not a dualism. Everything around us is composed of either aware entities of some nature or other, or else are unaware structural components of aware entities that may or may not be connected to aware entities, but certainly derived from them or involved in the processes of forming aware entities. Simple example: a feather that falls from a bird is not an aware entity, but while still connected to a living bird it is not necessarily an isolated object but may be considered a function of the bird and infused with the birds awareness to such an extent as to make it indistinguishable from 'aware bird'.

I have to try to work out how you're using the word 'aware' in this case. Would you say that the engine management system of a car is 'aware' of the engine temperature and the driver's use of the accelerator pedal?

The engine isn't aware

The bird is not self reflective enough to have self pity, but awareness is not self reflection. Self reflection is a trait of human awareness.

Bernard wrote:

Andy Kay wrote:I have to try to work out how you're using the word 'aware' in this case. Would you say that the engine management system of a car is 'aware' of the engine temperature and the driver's use of the accelerator pedal?

The engine isn't aware
The bird is not self reflective enough to have self pity, but awareness is not self reflection. Self reflection is a trait of human awareness.

Then I'm not sure what difference you're driving at when you say that the engine management system isn't aware but the human is. Both respond to environmental stimuli through the intermediaries of sensors or sense organs, so what more do you mean by 'aware' than this?

Well that is simply about volition in the system and whether or not volition provisions are internal or external to the system

Bernard wrote:Well that is simply about volition in the system and whether or not volition provisions are internal or external to the system

Your original quote was "Matter isn't the fundamental basis if the universe, awareness is."
You then said that you were making a distinction "between aware things and unaware."
And now you're saying that the difference between aware and unaware is one of 'volition'.
Does that make your original quote now read: "Matter isn't the fundamental basis of the universe, volition is"?

Andy Kay wrote:

Bernard wrote:Well that is simply about volition in the system and whether or not volition provisions are internal or external to the system

Your original quote was "Matter isn't the fundamental basis if the universe, awareness is."
You then said that you were making a distinction "between aware things and unaware."
And now you're saying that the difference between aware and unaware is one of 'volition'.
Does that make your original quote now read: "Matter isn't the fundamental basis of the universe, volition is"?

Volition
the will to... is not of rocks or stars.
Rocks and stars dont choose.
we do
we have volition
does we include all life? no, ants have no volition .
whales and apes. yes
Most human beings do their very best in practice to be rocks, thinking is work
religion as packaged belief system relies on this.

Volition is i believe why a designer set this verse up with the rules it has. some 15 billion year later we ask.
why am i here?

We are here to take the universe and make it ours. 2 millennia from now we will have 100 galaxies under our great ships.
the Kennedy and Carlin cruising galaxy 103..... laugh? [the brits call their ships the ajax an Achilles 2 millennia post]
Find a world at year 2000 tech and development. the locals are horrified and launch little rocks [nucs] at 1400 km long gscc Kennedy. the military believes it can
deflect somehow the wave of ravenous aliens their media has imbued to any such event.
oh the joy


We take over all broardcasting and say in 60 seconds.

Greetings. peoples of tanda. you cannot war with us because we are peaceful and this ship is powered by a binary pair or neutron stars. the atom devices you launched are forgotten
toys always are
We come in peace. from a galaxy far away. Any who wish to emigrate to our ship should be holding up arms in open i hour from now.
if the world tanda wishes to join with the greater cluster, make this wish known. We are so happy to have found you .
Our mission is to explore and discover to go where no being has gone before.
The ship population is in near hysteria to meet your species. in all the records you are only 7th in 3700 of your years
peace and love

//click/

who is talking.. the MI that 'is' the kennedy.
housed in cubic km of special tech. the mind of kennedy
has in core an old digital vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DbhTwahqPg salvaged from archives in wreckage of Washington 2102

HexHammer wrote:

thedoc wrote:It's a fool's errand to anthropomorphize anything other than a human being, only human beings have the characteristics that make us human.

Wouldn't agree with that, there are great variation of human behaviour, some are hippies others are psychopaths, some are leaders ..some are followers.

Many pet owners will say that their pets are more human than other humans, because pets are loyal, gives unconditional love, and often will defend their master to the death, etc.

Since when are those 'normal human qualities'? What planet are you from? Those qualities in a pet make them less human.

Hjarloprillar wrote: We are here to take the universe and make it ours. 2 millennia from now we will have 100 galaxies under our great ships.
the Kennedy and Carlin cruising galaxy 103..... laugh? [the brits call their ships the ajax an Achilles 2 millennia post]

I suggest the Sagan and Mauritania would arouse less hostility.

thedoc wrote:

Hjarloprillar wrote: We are here to take the universe and make it ours. 2 millennia from now we will have 100 galaxies under our great ships.
the Kennedy and Carlin cruising galaxy 103..... laugh? [the brits call their ships the ajax an Achilles 2 millennia post]

I suggest the Sagan and Mauritania would arouse less hostility.

very true. but exploration is by nature invasive
The gscc fleet has a Darwin and an Einstein niknamed The big A after discovery of species Aluxa genis in galaxy 47.

btw earth is now a pristine garden world
157 trillion tons of industry orbit it
, a new constitution class vessel comes online every 2 years sucking up 200 million pop. earth pop q. 1.7 billion
[200 million on aship? stand on zanzbar humanity fits there that tiny island]

thedoc wrote:Since when are those 'normal human qualities'? What planet are you from? Those qualities in a pet make them less human.

Those are "ideal" human qualities, which is very desireable in humans, something most would value and many will falsely claim that they have to feel good about themselves.

In which way does it makes pet less human by having such qualities? Seems like u'r usual nonsens to me.

Volition and awareness are inextricable Andy

H... Stars are unimaginably aware, and so is the earth. There is no rational way to apprehend such things though. And, no, It is not my 'believing' that allows such statements. It is experiential in ways I would need a lifetime to explain and still get only most of nowhere. Its enough to hopefully point out that life is incredible beyond belief and reason.

Bernard wrote:Volition and awareness are inextricable Andy

H... Stars are unimaginably aware, and so is the earth. There is no rational way to apprehend such things though. And, no, It is not my 'believing' that allows such statements. It is experiential in ways I would need a lifetime to explain and still get only most of nowhere. Its enough to hopefully point out that life is incredible beyond belief and reason.

Okay, I'm just trying to get a handle on how you're using certain words here. So, in your lexicon, is there a difference between claiming that "Matter isn't the fundamental basis of the universe, awareness is" and claiming that "Matter isn't the fundamental basis of the universe, volition is"?

Bernard wrote:Volition and awareness are inextricable Andy

H... Stars are unimaginably aware, and so is the earth. There is no rational way to apprehend such things though. And, no, It is not my 'believing' that allows such statements. It is experiential in ways I would need a lifetime to explain and still get only most of nowhere. Its enough to hopefully point out that life is incredible beyond belief and reason.

What you really seem to describe is complete madness.