Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Fireplace

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old 12-03-2013, 07:55 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default



Yes, yes of course I purchased that down jacket at the Sally Ann's just so you could curl up in it, Meika...

Heaven forbid she figures out it's full of feathers, and not merely fluffy and warm.....
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-03-2013, 07:57 AM
ColorsWolf's Avatar
ColorsWolf ColorsWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdt26417 View Post
Well ultimately, I suspect that we're all like spiders: a composite product of our genes and our environment (and how our genes, and memories from past environments, prod us to respond to our present environment). Uh-oh, I've been caught not believing in free will -- D'oh.

From this atheist's point of view, emotions are ultimately chemical animals, and so I suppose it's very possible a spider experiences the emotion we call "the thrill of the hunt" when capturing its prey, as well as "the satisfaction of knowing that lunch is at hand." These would be motivating emotions that would direct the spider's actions.

Anyway, the one thing we (think we) do know is that we don't really know anything; therefore everything we assert is just an educated guess.

Interesting follow-up questions:
  • Do plants have feelings?
  • Do planets have feelings?
I'll leave those riddles for others to ponder but may tackle the questions personally myself at some point.

Regards,
Kevin T.
I have seen an interesting study documentary actually a little bit dated but still shocking to me none the less that proved that plants are actually telepathic to an extremely sensitive degree.~

According to the study: thoughts and emotions are waves, and plants are capable of fully receiving these "waves" to the point of being able to be aware of other's emotions and might even be able to "feel" them as well like an empath.~

Plants are one of the oldest living species on this planet thought to have long pre-dated Humanity and all other animals, it logically follows that by evolutionary standards that Plants would be one of the most dominate species on Earth.~

Are we Humans truly the most "dominate" of this Planet?~

I remember a TED Talk that comes to mind, here it is along with a quote of a previous discussion I had with some one else a long time ago:

"I think you might find this video interesting.~

(video link) :http://colorswolf.tumblr.com/post/44...lants-eye-view

Personally, I think the fact the you ignore the ability of plants to grow and change and even breath to call them non-living organisms is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.~ Just because something is different from you in a way that you refuse to understand because you refuse to change your perspective to any other than your own, doesn’t mean it can’t possibley feel things in a manner similar to your’s nor does it make it inferior. In fact, plants have been on this planet far longer than any animal found, who’s to say that we are superior, perhaps the plants have simply evolved in manner that is far beyond or different than our comprehension to understand.~

Here is something else you might find interesting, there is apparently a religion in India called Jainism that teaches and literally means, “Non-violence” to be without limits including eating not of most plants because it would involve killing them."


Honestly when it comes to us Humans and this Planet or any Planet actually I have thought of "us" as being "fleas" and the "planet" being a "Human": sure we are annoying and we may even cause some noticeable damage like a rash or two, but according to many theories of the actual composition and size of the Earth itself (the majority of this planet is actually a huge space of liquid magma, the part that we live upon is actually a tiny thin layer that is more than 100 times smaller than the huge space of liquid magma): we LITERALLY are just living on the very surface or the "skin" of this planet, riding upon the skin and hanging on to the pores of the back of this creature that we can barely even begin to comprehend.~



Here is a quote of myself talking about this subject further on my OkCupid.com profile:

"This planet that we call Earth is a living breathing creature that we ride upon the back of, moving, growing, and changing. Size and consciousness is relative. Can you capture the wind in a bottle only for yourself? Can you steal the rays of the sun so that none but you may ever feel their warm caress? Can you stand like an ant on a dirt hill and claim that all you see before you is for you and for no others ever? Can you contain all the force of a river and declare yourself its' master?

Not for long. Wind will die in a bottle or escape, the rays of the sun will burn through, and water will only be delayed. Humans are the most amusing, like a child playing in the sand they create and shape everything their hearts desire and claim it as their own and no others' forever, only to see it crumble and slip in-between their fingers returning to what all once was."
__________________
Love yourself, you are beautiful!~ ^_^

*Believe in yourself, you can do anything*!~ ^_^

Appreciate every thing, every thing is precious.~


Last edited by ColorsWolf; 12-03-2013 at 08:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-03-2013, 08:42 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

They recently found some fossilized fungi ranging upwards of 6' and millions of years predating the first plants.

You ask me, mushrooms and mould, along with bacteria and yeasts, are the dominant species on Earth. Plants are too sensitive -- a few degrees temperature, a slight imbalance of CO2 or O2 levels, and they die right out.

That, and those creepy angler fish at the bottom of the ocean. Man those things are scary. I don't think they're particularly resilient, but they win points just on sheer ability to invoke terror.

Oh, and cockroaches. Gotta respect anything that's been around for millions of years, virtually unchanged. They pretty much perfected evolution right of the hop, and then coasted through ice ages, warm ups, nuclear meltdowns, famine and drought... Did you know they can live months with no head? Crazy!
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-03-2013, 08:54 AM
ColorsWolf's Avatar
ColorsWolf ColorsWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat View Post
They recently found some fossilized fungi ranging upwards of 6' and millions of years predating the first plants.

You ask me, mushrooms and mould, along with bacteria and yeasts, are the dominant species on Earth. Plants are too sensitive -- a few degrees temperature, a slight imbalance of CO2 or O2 levels, and they die right out.

That, and those creepy angler fish at the bottom of the ocean. Man those things are scary. I don't think they're particularly resilient, but they win points just on sheer ability to invoke terror.

Oh, and cockroaches. Gotta respect anything that's been around for millions of years, virtually unchanged. They pretty much perfected evolution right of the hop, and then coasted through ice ages, warm ups, nuclear meltdowns, famine and drought... Did you know they can live months with no head? Crazy!
Hehe, that's why I said "one of the most dominate species on Earth", there are many things that pre-date Humans.~

Interesting to think about isn't it and may be very humbling?~
__________________
Love yourself, you are beautiful!~ ^_^

*Believe in yourself, you can do anything*!~ ^_^

Appreciate every thing, every thing is precious.~

Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-03-2013, 09:39 AM
SchrodingersCat's Avatar
SchrodingersCat SchrodingersCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColorsWolf View Post
Hehe, that's why I said "one of the most dominate species on Earth", there are many things that pre-date Humans.~

Interesting to think about isn't it and may be very humbling?~
Humans are crap. We're good at adapting our surroundings, we're terrible at adapting ourselves. Sooner or later we'll botch something and somehow figure out a way to destroy all our technology, then we'll be back in the stone age. Worse, because who knows how to knap a flint knife anymore?
__________________
Gralson: my husband (works out of town).
Auto: my girlfriend (lives with her husband Zoffee).

The most dangerous phrase in the English language is "we've always done it this way."
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-03-2013, 12:03 PM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 837
Default

As for insects and arachnids, it has to do with their brain and nerve cell makeup. I cannot (cannot cannot) wrap my brain around the fact that they don't feel pain the way we do (it's all reflexive, nothing more), since they don't have the nerve cells needed in order to do so.

I haven't found a dry, awful study to cite, but there's an expert Q&A site that answers the question in the way I had it explained to me: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Entomolog...-feel-pain.htm

There have been studies with bees that measure aggression, as well - and have made for some interesting questions regarding how we define "emotion" in non-humans. Not big on citing Wikipedia, but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion...mals#Honeybees

The link between pain and emotional response is an interesting, and extremely confusing (for this non-entomologist) one, but people far more learned in the field have concluded that spiders and insects do not feel emotion or pain in the way we do, unless you want to conclude that any reflexive negative action constitutes and emotional/pain response (which isn't their definition of it).

And SC, it looks like you might need a new jacket for yourself.
__________________
Dramatis personae:
Me: Mono. Divorced, two kids (DanceGirl, 13; and PokéGirl, 10), two cats, one house, many projects.
Chops: My partner. Poly. In relationships with me, Xena, and Noa.
Xena: Poly. In relationships with Chops and Noa, and dating others.
Noa: Married, Poly. In relationships with Chops and Xena (individually).

Blog thread: A Mono's Journey Into Poly-Land (or, "Aw hell, there's no road map?!")
Slightly more polished blog with a mono/poly focus: From Baltic to Boardwalk
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-03-2013, 08:39 PM
ColorsWolf's Avatar
ColorsWolf ColorsWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouAreHere View Post
As for insects and arachnids, it has to do with their brain and nerve cell makeup. I cannot (cannot cannot) wrap my brain around the fact that they don't feel pain the way we do (it's all reflexive, nothing more), since they don't have the nerve cells needed in order to do so.

I haven't found a dry, awful study to cite, but there's an expert Q&A site that answers the question in the way I had it explained to me: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Entomolog...-feel-pain.htm

There have been studies with bees that measure aggression, as well - and have made for some interesting questions regarding how we define "emotion" in non-humans. Not big on citing Wikipedia, but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion...mals#Honeybees

The link between pain and emotional response is an interesting, and extremely confusing (for this non-entomologist) one, but people far more learned in the field have concluded that spiders and insects do not feel emotion or pain in the way we do, unless you want to conclude that any reflexive negative action constitutes and emotional/pain response (which isn't their definition of it).

And SC, it looks like you might need a new jacket for yourself.
This is why many find many 'scientists' to be 'cold' and 'heartless', because they split up and try to categorize emotions in to 'different types' and 'rationalize and apply logic to it', this is not a "bad" thing but in the past scientists have used the differences between us and other species to justify their experiments, yes emotions can be some what explained by physical things and logic, but this is not always the case and like so many machines have said in movies "Emotions are not logical." this is true in some sense and emotions can also be "logical" this is also true in some sense, emotions are some what "both" and some where "in-between".~

Regardless of how 'well' some scientist thinks they know how 'pain' and 'emotional responses' work for what ever particular species, this does not cancel out the fact that we truly do not know any thing for sure yet about any species outside out own.~

And just because a creature might experience 'pain' or 'emotions' differently than our species does not make them nor the way that they 'feel' nor 'respond' any "less" nor "inferior" nor "not worthy of noticing".~

Have you ever heard of the horrible experiments done to animals in the past because some scientist had determined that "non-Human animals are more 'mechanical' than us, they do not truly feel pain, their responses are simply pre-programmed responses based on upon reaction" yet the writhing in apparent agony of many creatures that he dissected while they were still alive would seem to have indicated otherwise?~

His experiments were later banned.~

Speciesism

Origin of the term
Further information: Animals, Men and Morals (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals,_Men_and_Morals ) and Oxford Group (animal rights) (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_...(animal_rights) )

Richard D. Ryder coined the term "speciesism" in 1970.
The concept of speciesism is an old one. Paul Waldau writes that the overriding of nonhuman animals' interests was traditionally justified by arguing that they existed for human use; Aristotle, for example, made this claim in the 4th century BCE, as did Cicero in the 1st century CE.[6] The term speciesism, and the argument that it is simply a prejudice, first appeared in 1970 in a privately printed pamphlet written by British psychologist Richard D. Ryder. Ryder was a member of a group of intellectuals in Oxford, England, the nascent animal rights community, now known as the Oxford Group. One of the group's activities was distributing pamphlets about areas of concern; the pamphlet entitled "Speciesism" was written to protest against animal experimentation.[7]

Ryder argued in the pamphlet that: "Since Darwin, scientists have agreed that there is no 'magical' essential difference between humans and other animals, biologically-speaking. Why then do we make an almost total distinction morally? If all organisms are on one physical continuum, then we should also be on the same moral continuum." He wrote that, at that time in the UK, 5,000,000 animals were being used each year in experiments, and that attempting to gain benefits for our own species through the mistreatment of others was "just 'speciesism' and as such it is a selfish emotional argument rather than a reasoned one."[8] Ryder used the term again in an essay, "Experiments on Animals," in Animals, Men and Morals (1971), a collection of essays on animal rights edited by philosophy graduate students Stanley and Roslind Godlovitch, and John Harris, who were also members of the Oxford Group. Ryder wrote:

In as much as both "race" and "species" are vague terms used in the classification of living creatures according, largely, to physical appearance, an analogy can be made between them. Discrimination on grounds of race, although most universally condoned two centuries ago, is now widely condemned. Similarly, it may come to pass that enlightened minds may one day abhor "speciesism" as much as they now detest "racism." The illogicality in both forms of prejudice is of an identical sort. If it is accepted as morally wrong to deliberately inflict suffering upon innocent human creatures, then it is only logical to also regard it as wrong to inflict suffering on innocent individuals of other species. ... The time has come to act upon this logic.[9]


"Spread of the idea

Peter Singer popularized the idea in Animal Liberation (1975).
The term was popularized by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in his book, Animal Liberation (1975). Singer had known Ryder from his own time as a graduate philosophy student at Oxford.[10] He credited Ryder with having coined the term and used it in the title of his book's fifth chapter: "Man's Dominion ... a short history of speciesism," defining it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species":

Racists violate the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of their own race when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Sexists violate the principle of equality by favouring the interests of their own sex. Similarly, speciesists allow the interests of their own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case.[11]

Singer argued from a preference-utilitarian perspective, writing that speciesism violates the principle of equal consideration of interests, the idea based on Jeremy Bentham's principle: "each to count for one, and none for more than one." Singer argued that, although there may be differences between humans and nonhumans, they share the capacity to suffer, and we must give equal consideration to that suffering. Any position that allows similar cases to be treated in a dissimilar fashion fails to qualify as an acceptable moral theory. The term caught on; Singer wrote that it was an awkward word but that he could not think of a better one. It became an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1985, defined as "discrimination against or exploitation of animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind's superiority."[12] In 1994 the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy offered a wider definition: "By analogy with racism and sexism, the improper stance of refusing respect to the lives, dignity, or needs of animals of other than the human species."[13]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism
__________________
Love yourself, you are beautiful!~ ^_^

*Believe in yourself, you can do anything*!~ ^_^

Appreciate every thing, every thing is precious.~


Last edited by ColorsWolf; 12-04-2013 at 07:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-03-2013, 11:03 PM
YouAreHere's Avatar
YouAreHere YouAreHere is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SoNH
Posts: 837
Default

CW, you *do* realize I'm not saying that we, as humans, are "better", correct? I'm also saying that I don't grok the reasons for the conclusions that have been reached, but I'm fascinated by it all.

As for scientists being cold, they're supposed to drop their prejudices at the door and examine the evidence. If that's cold, then so be it. I'd rather my science BE cold. Some scientists are not - they find evidence to support their biases, and one way in which we're paying for it is with the advent of the whole "anti-vaccination" crowd. (grr)

If you close your mind at your beliefs, you're never willing to learn something new. I, for one, am glad that Western society has put aside the "Sun revolving around the Earth" BS that EVERYONE knew at one time and that they actually *studied* it, despite the popular belief.

I'm not saying we understand insect and arachnid (and arthropod) emotions completely. I'm saying that people are studying it and have come to conclusions that the whole mechanism is different than it is for us, and may not fit the definition we understand.

That's a GOOD thing. It keeps us turning over rocks and LEARNING, rather than shutting off our minds.

If that makes me a "specist" then okay, CW. You got me. Floggings in the town square at noon.
__________________
Dramatis personae:
Me: Mono. Divorced, two kids (DanceGirl, 13; and PokéGirl, 10), two cats, one house, many projects.
Chops: My partner. Poly. In relationships with me, Xena, and Noa.
Xena: Poly. In relationships with Chops and Noa, and dating others.
Noa: Married, Poly. In relationships with Chops and Xena (individually).

Blog thread: A Mono's Journey Into Poly-Land (or, "Aw hell, there's no road map?!")
Slightly more polished blog with a mono/poly focus: From Baltic to Boardwalk
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 12-04-2013, 07:12 AM
ColorsWolf's Avatar
ColorsWolf ColorsWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CA, U.S.A.
Posts: 362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by YouAreHere View Post
CW, you *do* realize I'm not saying that we, as humans, are "better", correct? I'm also saying that I don't grok the reasons for the conclusions that have been reached, but I'm fascinated by it all.

As for scientists being cold, they're supposed to drop their prejudices at the door and examine the evidence. If that's cold, then so be it. I'd rather my science BE cold. Some scientists are not - they find evidence to support their biases, and one way in which we're paying for it is with the advent of the whole "anti-vaccination" crowd. (grr)

If you close your mind at your beliefs, you're never willing to learn something new. I, for one, am glad that Western society has put aside the "Sun revolving around the Earth" BS that EVERYONE knew at one time and that they actually *studied* it, despite the popular belief.

I'm not saying we understand insect and arachnid (and arthropod) emotions completely. I'm saying that people are studying it and have come to conclusions that the whole mechanism is different than it is for us, and may not fit the definition we understand.

That's a GOOD thing. It keeps us turning over rocks and LEARNING, rather than shutting off our minds.

If that makes me a "specist" then okay, CW. You got me. Floggings in the town square at noon.
Actually this wasn't in regards to you, just that what you mentioned lead to an interesting subject that just so happens to bring us right back on topic of this thread.~ ^_^

I meant no harm by it, I am simply "fascinated" by such things as are you and I often bounce from one subject to the next with ease!~ ^_^

I was rather a little unclear with my words so I have modified my above post to be more clear:

"This is why many find many 'scientists' to be 'cold' and 'heartless', because they split up and try to categorize emotions in to 'different types' and 'rationalize and apply logic to it', this is not a "bad" thing but in the past scientists have used the differences between us and other species to justify their experiments,"
__________________
Love yourself, you are beautiful!~ ^_^

*Believe in yourself, you can do anything*!~ ^_^

Appreciate every thing, every thing is precious.~


Last edited by ColorsWolf; 12-04-2013 at 07:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 12-04-2013, 10:21 AM
kdt26417's Avatar
kdt26417 kdt26417 is offline
Official Greeter
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Olympia, Washington
Posts: 4,988
Default

I am of the opinion that humans are neither better nor worse than any other being, object, substance, or force. All the Universe is a great symphony and each star, galaxy, planet, and creature plays its part. What I hope humans will do with the brains that they have is seek a more harmonious interaction with the world around them. We can do it, but it'll take us some time [read: many generations].

I don't like lab experiments on animals and, come to think of it, don't like killing animals for their meat either. But it's hard to say, "Well we must not kill plants then either," since then it becomes difficult indeed to conjure up stuff to eat and so many people on Earth are already starving. Perhaps there's a way to synthesize food out of pure elements, but the tech for that must lie far in the future. And even if it could be done, who says a "non-living" thing doesn't have a soul? So each time we try to invent a "better, more humane source of food," we'll only be kicking the can further down the road.

Does an individual atom have a soul? What about a subatomic particle? What about a galaxy, or the whole of the Universe? Seems we must have souls within souls. If a single-celled organism can have its own kind of sentience and feelings, then so can every cell in my body. Thus I and my body have an entire soul, but every organ also has a soul, as does every cell, and every atom and subatomic particle within that cell -- as well as the electronic impulses that move our muscles and transmit messages to and from our brain.

I wonder if eating an apple off a tree isn't okay in the sense that apples evolved to contain the seeds that would become fertilized in our digestive tract and then eliminated into the soil; Nature hasn't yet caught up with human habits of throwing out the seeds and using toilets rather than the wild earth to do our business.

Plus we've domesticated many plants and those plants now depend on us for extra nurturing, fertilizing, and the removal of wild competion (i.e., weeding). What's to be done with those plants? It would be hard to "train" them to become "undomesticated."

Remember too that Earth is populated by many non-human carnivores, yet no human thinks ill of a wolf pack that chases down a terrified caribou calf (and starts feeding on it while it lies there in utter exhaustion -- surely feeling the pain of being ripped apart).

Humans have taught themselves to feel guilty for being human, and that's not all bad, after all, Nature gave us brains that could feel guilt, probably as a learning tool. But rather than guilt driving us to mass suicide, I hope it will prod us into trying to be better stewards of whatever other powers Nature has bestowed on us. I think our consciences are supposed to help keep all those powers in check, but as I said, humans, as a species overall, tend to be slow (and awkward) learners. And we have many riddles to figure out ...
__________________
Love means never having to say, "Put down that meat cleaver!"

Last edited by kdt26417; 12-04-2013 at 05:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
adults, animals, children, humans, pets

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34 PM.