[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And what you meant to say is:
Life is a process.
An individual is a living expression of that process.[/quote]
No, I meant what I said.
The individual is a collective of quarks arranged in a way we label them human and in a chemical reaction we call life all in the general process of the physical universe. The individual is a process.
How are “your” quarks different that a “bear’s” quarks?[/quote]
The word individual implies a distinct life form.
That we share the same particles is irrelevant because the way those particles are arranged and function are different.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And what you meant to say is:
Life is a process.
An individual is a living expression of that process.[/quote]
No, I meant what I said.
The individual is a collective of quarks arranged in a way we label them human and in a chemical reaction we call life all in the general process of the physical universe. The individual is a process.
How are “your” quarks different that a “bear’s” quarks?[/quote]
The word individual implies a distinct life form.
That we share the same particles is irrelevant because the way those particles are arranged and function are different.[/quote]
I get thats what you think, you’ve repeated it several times. I’m once again asking for the reason for the distinction. So far the distinction is only arbitrary. How is it different?
So the basis for the distinction is the ability to argue? I don’t get it.[/quote]
I would suggest the ability to utilize more than one center of intelligence, individually or simultaneously.
And the capacity to not utilize any. That, too is free will, the will not to act.
Bears cannot help but be their nature and react to nature around them.
Man can chose not to react to either himself or his environment.
[/quote]
Not true. There is no more scientific reason to believe the free will of man, than animal. Rationally we are just an ape with a brain that is highly adaptable and trainable. there is nothing physically unique about our abilities. There is no rational reason to believe such things.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The distinctions between humans and other species and objects are numerous and would take eons to account for.
I am not sure why you question it. If you disagree with me then this argument becomes a circular one as far as your position is concerned.
Can you deny that humans are not unique?[/quote]
Technically all quarks are unique. How does a human being unique from a bear give us any more “right” than a bear being unique from a human?
But from a rational perspective, no, humans are not in any way unique than any other matter in the universe.[/quote]
Do you not believe in the soul?
The notion that all is just a sea of endless infinitesimally small bits of material shifting between various transient, meaningless configurations is one increasingly backed by empirical proof and theoretical analysis.
That said, we will never survive as a race if we do not from time to time willingly and tactically disregard that possible reality. Morality must exist even if we have to play make-believe in order to justify its existence.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The distinctions between humans and other species and objects are numerous and would take eons to account for.
I am not sure why you question it. If you disagree with me then this argument becomes a circular one as far as your position is concerned.
Can you deny that humans are not unique?[/quote]
Technically all quarks are unique. How does a human being unique from a bear give us any more “right” than a bear being unique from a human?
But from a rational perspective, no, humans are not in any way unique than any other matter in the universe.[/quote]
Do you not believe in the soul?
The notion that all is just a sea of endless infinitesimally small bits of material shifting between various transient, meaningless configurations is one increasingly backed by empirical proof and theoretical analysis.
That said, we will never survive as a race if we do not from time to time willingly and tactically disregard that possible reality. Morality must exist even if we have to play make-believe in order to justify its existence.[/quote]
Never said I don’t. Lifty said he doesn’t.
And if it is a reality, you don’t truly even have beliefs about it, much less the ability to resist its pull. Our “struggle” would be nothing more or less than rust rusting.
So the basis for the distinction is the ability to argue? I don’t get it.[/quote]
I would suggest the ability to utilize more than one center of intelligence, individually or simultaneously.
And the capacity to not utilize any. That, too is free will, the will not to act.
Bears cannot help but be their nature and react to nature around them.
Man can chose not to react to either himself or his environment.
[/quote]
Not true. There is no more scientific reason to believe the free will of man, than animal. Rationally we are just an ape with a brain that is highly adaptable and trainable. there is nothing physically unique about our abilities. There is no rational reason to believe such things.[/quote]
In that we disagree.
But since you mentioned I am a brainy ape…I can’t wait for the new Planet of the Apes movie coming out in the summer.
And I would challenge that belief, even in the absence of scientific proof.
My sexual prowess and experiences, and abilities are both superior and unique compared to the female gorilla at my local zoo.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The distinctions between humans and other species and objects are numerous and would take eons to account for.
I am not sure why you question it. If you disagree with me then this argument becomes a circular one as far as your position is concerned.
Can you deny that humans are not unique?[/quote]
Technically all quarks are unique. How does a human being unique from a bear give us any more “right” than a bear being unique from a human?
But from a rational perspective, no, humans are not in any way unique than any other matter in the universe.[/quote]
Self ownership. Do you own yourself? If so then you must have the right to take care of it and as a corollary other people must be afforded the same right.
So the basis for the distinction is the ability to argue? I don’t get it.[/quote]
I would suggest the ability to utilize more than one center of intelligence, individually or simultaneously.
And the capacity to not utilize any. That, too is free will, the will not to act.
Bears cannot help but be their nature and react to nature around them.
Man can chose not to react to either himself or his environment.
[/quote]
Not true. There is no more scientific reason to believe the free will of man, than animal. Rationally we are just an ape with a brain that is highly adaptable and trainable. there is nothing physically unique about our abilities. There is no rational reason to believe such things.[/quote]
In that we disagree.
But since you mentioned I am a brainy ape…I can’t wait for the new Planet of the Apes movie coming out in the summer.
And I would challenge that belief, even in the absence of scientific proof.
My sexual prowess and experiences, and abilities are both superior and unique compared to the female gorilla at my local zoo.
[/quote]
Pics or it didn’t happen.
And it has to be good enough to justify the bestowal of rights.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The distinctions between humans and other species and objects are numerous and would take eons to account for.
I am not sure why you question it. If you disagree with me then this argument becomes a circular one as far as your position is concerned.
Can you deny that humans are not unique?[/quote]
Technically all quarks are unique. How does a human being unique from a bear give us any more “right” than a bear being unique from a human?
But from a rational perspective, no, humans are not in any way unique than any other matter in the universe.[/quote]
Self ownership. Do you own yourself? If so then you must have the right to take care of it and as a corollary other people must be afforded the same right.
A bear cannot make such claim.[/quote]
Nor can many people. But ownership itself is abstract. It isn’t a component of the physical universe in any way shape or form. The idea of it isn’t rational.
And it has to be good enough to justify the bestowal of rights.[/quote]
LOL.
And that is my proof right there on the difference between your superior brain and that of an ape - the male ape would never request for proof, in pictures.
So you are just going to have to keep free willing…
Nor can many people. But ownership itself is abstract. It isn’t a component of the physical universe in any way shape or form. The idea of it isn’t rational.[/quote]
I agree that most people are not even aware of their ownership as an individual.
They simple are not able to perceive themselves as persons in their own right. That is why there is so much blame going around; it reflects a failure to accept personal responsibility.
Ownership of self is not an idea, it is a perception and, to me it has nothing to do with the rational but maybe due to a lack of emotional development - just my opinion.
