Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
No poster has said this. All have explained to you why these words are not applicable to nature.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
Yes sorry, your post was:
"Nature can no more intentionally invent something than it can be intentionally cruel or compassionate. Nature has no needs."
But I read in actual sense, since perceived, that it can be. Without it, it may be difficult for it to sustain. Parents, Children, companion etc. behavior should suggest nature's compassionate nature. Self, inimical, friendly, family, competition, symbiotic(many types), ego, creation, destruction etc.opposing behaviors exist in nature.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
No, it really can't. Only conscious entities can be intentionally cruel or compassionate. Nature is not a conscious entity. A very small part of nature has achieved conscious awareness, and that part has no control over the laws of nature. The most we can do is try to mitigate their effects.
Why you consider conscious entities are not part of nature? When we say nature, we include all its parts- living, non living, conscious, non conscious, things and beings etc. So whatever will be the attributes of these those will also be attributes on nature.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I specifically said that conscious entities are part of nature.
Then we should say that all forms/parts of nature are nature only so whatever they do, nature also does that. Say: if conscious entities are doing something
consciously, it can mean nature is doing that thing consciously.
However I am bit doubtful that, if any non-conscious being really exist in nature. Eg plants.
Plants offer pulp, nectar, pleasing touch & colors, changed colours, good smells etc. of its ripe fruits and flowers, intentionally for the purpose of pollination and seed dispersal. Why can't it be considered an a conscious compassionate act on their part?
Some flowers trap inside for whole night, I think some consume also, why can't it be taken as cruel conscious act on their part?
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Because to take it as such would be extremely ignorant, stupid and childish.
It can be just running away without giving justification. So same.
All purposeful acts done or happen in nature should come within the scope on Conscious acts by Conscious entities. Plants do changes color,smell and their attachment with them, when they want to disperse their seeds. Flowers colur, pleasing touch, smell or nectar offerings also suggest same. You can say, it is their nature then I can say whatever we say as conscious act by so called as conscious entities is also their nature.
fagin
Philosopher
You would be wrong, as usual. Plants don't have brains Kumar.
You can and do say whatever you want. Most (and I'm being generous) of the time you are wrong.
You can and do say whatever you want. Most (and I'm being generous) of the time you are wrong.
Why can't consciousness be the result on any other mechanism than brain? Don't fishes have brain?
Why I look wrong because I tend to go to A&F level. Rest
now, I do not mind your language, consciously.fagin
Philosopher
Kumar, concious can mean two things.
1. The state or condition of being conscious.
As opposed to being unconscious, ie. asleep or knocked out - animals, when awake are conscious
2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group:
This meaning requires a higher level of brain activity - the ability to be conscious of self. Animals do not have this ability.
Conscious in the context of this thread is definition 2.
Plants have no brains at all.
1. The state or condition of being conscious.
As opposed to being unconscious, ie. asleep or knocked out - animals, when awake are conscious
2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group:
This meaning requires a higher level of brain activity - the ability to be conscious of self. Animals do not have this ability.
Conscious in the context of this thread is definition 2.
Plants have no brains at all.
No. it means, whoever it have--may that be by any biological mechanism. Many beings can have just one sense i.e sense of touch. They react to this sense. This will also be called at consciousness in them. Eg. Touch me not plant, pollination by touch etc.
fagin
Philosopher
No Kumar. That's just something you made up.
The whole idea is, when we tend to achieve A&F, it can attract MPOVs and very difficult to achieve it(very near to impossible). So for practical purpose, we should not base it. We can just base partial truth and conditional predictions. It is very well explained in the theory of one faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada
In above consideration, we can use any part. Mango tree example, which I gave in many topics in the forum, is very good explanation of it(made by me only). My view is, no A&F demand on either side.
fagin
Philosopher
A&F is bollocks.
Religion is bollocks.
Anekantavada is bollocks.
Your mango tree stuff is bollocks.
Your view is bollocks.
Got anything else?
Religion is bollocks.
Anekantavada is bollocks.
Your mango tree stuff is bollocks.
Your view is bollocks.
Got anything else?
fagin
Philosopher
By "too", what do you mean?
Other senses are Non-traditional senses like modern people made many many Non-traditional things, so got confused.
You and yours?
fagin
Philosopher
Which just goes to show how archaic and pointless religion is. It's called dogma, Kumar.