EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:00 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:54 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
The war with Japan was going to be bloody and the US wanted to force the leadership to see just how many Japanese could die.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hist ... g-of-tokyo

On this day, U.S. warplanes launch a new bombing offensive against Japan, dropping 2,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Tokyo over the course of the next 48 hours. Almost 16 square miles in and around the Japanese capital were incinerated, and between 80,000 and 130,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the worst single firestorm in recorded history

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/op ... wnfall.htm

General Marshall, in conference with President Truman, estimated 31,000 in 30 days after landing in Kyushu. Admiral Leahy estimated that the invasion would cost 268,000 casualties. Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths. The same department estimated that there would be up to 10 million Japanese casualties. The ‘Los Angeles Times’ estimated that America would suffer up to 1 million casualties.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:36 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:05 am
Posts: 51
Location: Venice, Italy
But receiving stimuli is not being senient, whivh is where the problem arises.
The reaction to the stimuli show that the being is sentient. Because the stimuli are received by the neurological systems, before by the nerves, and then they reach the brain that elaborates the information and send to the other organs the reaction: to the muscles, bones, skin. This is the perception in the scientific way. Nothing else.
And it works for humans the same as for animals. But sometimes the reaction are differents. Can be allergic reactions different for everyone. I am allergic to the tomatoes and maybe you are not. That's a physical stimuli and a different physical reaction.
There is nothing else in the sensation. The sensation is always physical.
You can't speak about psicological sensation beause the brain is physical and there is nothing else ruling it.
I don't believe in spirits, ghosts, psyche and other methaphysical things.


Philosophical beliefs are the basis for the AR movement.
In the past it was. Nowadays no more. AR movement is mainly based on scientifical discoveries.
Lots of animalists are doctors, scientists, biologists, zoologist, historians, politicians.
I am all but a philosopher.
I am studying International Relations and my thesis will be based on science, economics, history, politics, laws, and maybe, but I am not sure, only in the end I will use philosophical topics.


The obvious thing about the scientific controversy concerning sentience?
There is not a scientific controversy concerning sentience. Maybe there is a philosophical one.

When has an animal explained anything about an abstract conscept such as rights? I was not aware of such in depth communication being possible.
Animals can communicate what they want with their own language. Like people from different countries can speak about rights without understand each other if they don't know the foreign language.
The concept of rights is not abstract because it can be applied to the reality.

A reaction to negative stimuli is instictual not evidence of being self conscious. That is the perversion the AR movement has tried to pawn off on the rest of us.
A reaction to negative pain stimuli involve the spinal cord and the brain. In all animals, humans included.
The reflex is the rapid and unconscious response.http://i-biology.net/options/option-e-neurobiology-and-behaviour/e1-stimulus-and-response/

http://www.slideshare.net/sth215/stimulus-and-response
In the link they speak about instinct like the behaviour we practise without have learn it.
The instinct is something you have from when you was born.
People and animals can learn during their life, so that is not instinct.
The reaction to a stimulus can be instinctual or learned by someone else or by yourself in your life.
Ex. you feel thirsty and you drink. You escape from a danger. These are instinctual, authomatic reactions.
Ex. You can train a dog. A mother bear teach to her children to hunt the fishes. These are learn reactions.
The stimuli can be internal (from your body) or esternal (depending on the environment).

http://click4biology.info/c4b/e/e1.htm

http://i-biology.net/options/option-e-neurobiology-and-behaviour/e1-stimulus-and-response/
Instincts are automatic response reactions to stimuli. Also know as[b][color=#BF0000] Fixed Action Patterns FAP

Instincts are the result of natural selection.
Human instincts include: Yawning. Other human instincts are suckling, grasping, and crying in newborn.[/color][/b]

http://www.xtremepapers.com/revision/gc ... sponse.php
If your finger touches a hot surface, receptor cells in the skin of your finger detect a stimulus, which is a sudden rise in the temperature. The receptor uses the energy of the stimulus to generate electrical impulses. These impulses are then carried by the axons of the dendrites of the sensory neurone through cell body to axon and from the axon to the CNS. At the CNS the electrical impulses travel through the synapse to the relay neurone, which passes it onto the motor neurone. The nerve impulses are transmitted through the axon of the motor neurone to the targeted muscle which contracts when electrical impulses reach it, resulting in your finger being pulled away from the hot surface. This pathway is called the reflex arc and happens in about a fraction of a second.

The reflex arc is a reflex action. Reflex means it is automatically done without your choice. This is because when the electrical impulses reach the relay neurone in the CNS from the receptors, some impulses are carried by other neurones to the brain, and some impulses are passes onto the motor neurone to the effector muscle and the response takes place. The electrical impulses going to your brain are much slower that the ones going to the effector muscle directly. This is why the reflex action takes place before you realise it, it is uncontrollable. Reflex actions are said to be involuntary actions. Involuntary actions start at the sense organ heading to the effector. They are extremely quick. Voluntary actions are the ones that you make the choice to do. Like picking up a bag from the floor for example. Your brain sends electrical impulses to the effector muscles ordering them to contract so you could pick the bag up. Voluntary actions are slower than involuntary actions and they start at the brain.

About animal voluntary and involuntary behaviour: http://cals.arizona.edu/backyards/artic ... p17-18.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6843680
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledg ... r-15129167
Animal behavior is the result of multiple interacting forces related to an individual's genes, physiology, and development and the internal and external environments in which they live. There is genetic variation among individuals of a population for behaviors related to survival and reproduction. Successful behaviors are passed on to the next generation and may evolve over time.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledg ... r-13228230

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/adaptations
Animal intelligence covers behaviour that's considered above the norm for an animal. Some species may be unusally adept at learning new skills or using tools. Others have highly developed social and even emotional skills and may even have developed a distinct culture, in a similar way to human beings.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/adaptations/Animal_culture
Culture is a social system or set of behaviours that is passed down through the generations, and which differs from that seen in other populations of the same species. So for instance, all killer whales are carnivorous, so that is not cultural. But only certain pods of killer whales beach themselves to catch seals, and the necessary skills are taught to young whales by their mother, so that is cultural. Distinct cultures have been observed in many primates and some birds as well as in whales and dolphins

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/adaptations ... e#p00661k2
Tool use shows us that chimps have particular customs passed down from generation to generation.

About animal language: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/adaptations/Animal_language
Language is a way of communicating through sound, where specific meanings are used in certain circumstances. Many animals have a generic alarm call used for all dangers - this is not language. However, vervet monkeys have different calls for warning each other about snakes, eagles and leopards, and this is sophisticated enough to be considered a proto-language. Other animals with these 'proto-language' abilities are dolphins, apes and parrots..

[color=#FFBF00]Animal language are those forms of animal communication that are considered to show similarities to human language. Animal communication may be considered complex enough to be called a form of language if the inventory of signs is large, the signs are relatively arbitrary, and if the animals produce them with a degree of volition (as opposed to conditioned instincts). Animal communication can also be evidenced through the use of lexigrams (See Yerkish), in addition to signs. A lexigram represents a word but is not necessarily indicative of the object referenced by the word. They are symbols that correspond to objects and ideas and have been used by chimpanzees and bonobos to express language. While the term "animal language" is widely used, researchers agree that animal languages are not as complex or expressive as human language.

Some researchers including the linguist Charles Hockett, who proposed a list of design features of Human Language, argue that there are significant differences separating human language from animal communication even at its most complex, and that the underlying principles are not related. Accordingly, Thomas A. Sebeok has proposed not to use the term 'language' in case of animal sign systems.

Others argue that an evolutionary continuum exists between the communication methods these animals use and human language. Examining this continuum could help explain how humanity evolved its incredibly sophisticated proficiency for language.
[/color]
Chimanzee learning human language: http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~johnson/articles.chimp.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/adaptations ... n#p00nzs13

How can animals expalin their emotions to people? What scientific paper has this breaktrhough information? You seem to confuse assumption of emotions by a person as animals communicating to that person.
If they were so obvious there would be a lot of papers published with clear evidence of this communication of feeling and you have not provided any such references. I have not found them in my research either and must conclude they do not exist other than in your mind.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rig ... ng_1.shtml
Careful observation of behaviour can help us assess animal well-being. But in order to come to useful conclusions we need to have considerable information about the normal behaviour patterns of the species concerned.
Distressed animals usually show that they are unhappy - they cry out, move away from whatever is upsetting them or try to escape.
In the long-term, unhappy animals develop abnormal patterns of behaviour such as aggression, repetitive behaviour and avoiding contact with others of their species.
It's also possible to learn how a particular species behaves under pressure by deliberately putting animals into stressful situations.
Researchers can then look for this behaviour in captive animals of the same species.
If they find such behaviour then it's probable that action should be taken to improve the well-being of the captive animals.
Pain
In the past it was thought by some people that animals either did not feel pain in the same way as human beings, or that if they did, it didn't matter. This view is now unacceptable.
Because it is difficult to assess pain and distress in animals the preferred rule is to assume that animals experience and respond to pain in a similar manner to humans.


Quote:
Quote:
No the Allied were already almost totally destroyed. And they were not planning to invade Japan.


Actually, the concept was the civillians are not innocents as they provide support for the war movement which was the basis for strategic bombing. Your concept of rights seems to be as flawed as some of your other concepts.

Among the civilians there are children, women, old and disable people, other than animals. Can you be sure they are aware of what was happening?

The casualties on Okinawa were mostly civilians, not Americans.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie ... s-okinawa/

In Okinawa there were about 70.000 Americans soldiers killed by American boms. USA doesn't care a thing about his soldier. They are little thing uset to win.

The USSR had concentrated against Germany and would have taken months to just deploy the troops toward Japan, much less develop the ability to make amphibious invasions.
http://www.kilroywashere.org/006-Pages/Invasion.html
URSS invaded the northern half of the Japanese home islands.

Terrible? The Japanese economy like that of Germany and the rest of Europe was rebuilt with American money rather than being left to rebuild on their own.

The USA occupation of Japan was politically advantageous because there was bring more democracy but military damaging http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/j ... pation.htm
I want say that the moment of the invasion was terrible
http://www.kilroywashere.org/006-Pages/Invasion.html
Japanese lifes have been lost by aereal devastation.
And the invasion caused rapes and sex slavery and other violences.
http://japanfocus.org/-Terese-Svoboda/3148


Germany and the rest of Europe received only some borrowing by USA, They had to pay for everything and give the money back with the interests.
The US Navy, Marines, and Army were the primary forces being used in the Pacific. The British had concentrated most of the Commonwealth's resources in the European theater.


Japan and the U.S. were thrown headlong into competition and war to decide which capitalist power would rule China and the rest of Asia. The U.S. State Department worried that "Japanese superiority in the Far East would definitely mean the closing of the Open Door."3 In 1941, after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt imposed an economic embargo on Japan designed to provoke war, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and went on to seize Europe’s and America’s colonies in Asia and the Pacific. Japan called the new empire the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/29/japan ... tion.shtml


Last edited by LetiziaPallara on Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:24 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
LetiziaPallara wrote:
But receiving stimuli is not being senient, whivh is where the problem arises.
The reaction to the stimuli show that the being is sentient. Because the stimuli are received by the neurological systems, before by the nerves, and then they reach the brain that elaborates the information and send to the other organs the reaction: to the muscles, bones, skin. This is the perception in the scientific way. Nothing else.
And it works for humans the same as for animals. But sometimes the reaction are differents. Can be allergic reactions different for everyone. I am allergic to the tomatoes and maybe you are not. That's a physical stimuli and a different physical reaction.
There is nothing else in the sensation. The sensation is always physical.
You can't speak about psicological sensation beause the brain is physical and there is nothing else ruling it.
I don't believe in spirits, ghosts, psyche and other methaphysical things.


Sentient is having a nervous system, which is not the definition of the term before the attempt at redefinition by the AR movement. It is a perception of stimuli, but NOT a sentient perception. Sentient beings act on a higher level of perception than just stimuli and instinct. It is possible to have a brain dead person react to stimuli.


Quote:
Which would be related to whether a creature were actually sentient. Philosophical beliefs are the basis for the AR movement.
In the past it was. Nowadays no more. AR movement is mainly based on scientifical discoveries.
Lots of animalists are doctors, scientists, biologists, zoologist, historians, politicians.
I am all but a philosopher.
I am studying International Relations and my thesis will be based on science, economics, history, politics, laws, and maybe, but I am not sure, only in the end I will use philosophical topics.


You do not even understand what you are wanting to discuss. There is no science basis for rights so the AR movement would die off without the philosophical support.

Quote:
The obvious thing about the scientific controversy concerning sentience?
There is not a scientific controversy concerning sentience. Maybe there is a philosophical one.


There is when you use a real definitinion of sentience rather than whether it has a nervous system or not.

Quote:
When has an animal explained anything about an abstract conscept such as rights? I was not aware of such in depth communication being possible.
Animals can communicate what they want with their own language. Like people from different countries can speak about rights without understand each other if they don't know the foreign language.


So how can you provide evidence they "speak" of such abstract concepts without resorting to basic make believe and assumptions? Unless the communication can be translated you have no idea of what is or is not being communicated.

Quote:
The concept of rights is not abstract because it can be applied to the reality.


It is not an abstract? Can you tell me where I can go to hold a right in my hand? Where is there a picture or a recording of a physical right? Not only are you confused on sentience and rights, but also reality it seems.

Quote:
A reaction to negative stimuli is instictual not evidence of being self conscious. That is the perversion the AR movement has tried to pawn off on the rest of us.
A reaction to negative pain stimuli involve the spinal cord and the brain. In all animals, humans included.


But a brain and spinal column by themselves do not create sentience, which is what you are saying at this point.


Quote:
Quote:
Actually, the concept was the civillians are not innocents as they provide support for the war movement which was the basis for strategic bombing. Your concept of rights seems to be as flawed as some of your other concepts.


Among the civilians there are children, women, old and disable people, other than animals. Can you be sure they are aware of what was happening?


The fact is women, children, and the elderly all assisted in various war efforts in all countries.

Quote:
Quote:
The casualties on Okinawa were mostly civilians, not Americans.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperie ... s-okinawa/

In Okinawa there were about 70.000 Americans soldiers killed by American boms. USA doesn't care a thing about his soldier. They are little thing uset to win.

The USSR had concentrated against Germany and would have taken months to just deploy the troops toward Japan, much less develop the ability to make amphibious invasions.

http://www.kilroywashere.org/006-Pages/Invasion.html
URSS invaded the northern half of the Japanese home islands.


Not even close to correct, as the statement was the USSR could have invaded in the months during an invasion by the US.

Quote:
Terrible? The Japanese economy like that of Germany and the rest of Europe was rebuilt with American money rather than being left to rebuild on their own.


Quote:
The USA occupation of Japan was politically advantageous because there was bring more democracy but military damaging http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/j ... pation.htm
I want say that the moment of the invasion was terrible
http://www.kilroywashere.org/006-Pages/Invasion.html
Japanese lifes have been lost by aereal devastation.
And the invasion caused rapes and sex slavery and other violences.
http://japanfocus.org/-Terese-Svoboda/3148


There was no invasion as the Japanese had surrendered. The Japanese connection to rape and sex slavery was well documented in the areas of occupation. Korea would give a good idea of the impact if you want.

Quote:
Germany and the rest of Europe received only some borrowing by USA, They had to pay for everything and give the money back with the interests.


No, only a small portion of the Marshall Plan involved loans. The majority of the plan was in the form of grants, whcih did not have to be repaid.

Quote:
Quote:
The US Navy, Marines, and Army were the primary forces being used in the Pacific. The British had concentrated most of the Commonwealth's resources in the European theater.


Japan and the U.S. were thrown headlong into competition and war to decide which capitalist power would rule China and the rest of Asia. The U.S. State Department worried that "Japanese superiority in the Far East would definitely mean the closing of the Open Door."3 In 1941, after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt imposed an economic embargo on Japan designed to provoke war, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and went on to seize Europe’s and America’s colonies in Asia and the Pacific. Japan called the new empire the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
http://www.isreview.org/issues/29/japan ... tion.shtml


And.... that was supposed to tell us what about the US not being the primary force against the Japanese?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:42 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:05 am
Posts: 51
Location: Venice, Italy
Sentient is having a nervous system, which is not the definition of the term before the attempt at redefinition by the AR movement. It is a perception of stimuli, but NOT a sentient perception. Sentient beings act on a higher level of perception than just stimuli and instinct. It is possible to have a brain dead person react to stimuli.

Please, tell me what's this higher level of perception that doesn't involve the nervous system.
A brain dead person react to stimuli because some parts of the brain are still alive. Otherwise the body could not works and the person would be died.
The brain is composed by differend parts ruling different functions.



There is no science basis for rights so the AR movement would die off without the philosophical support.
So what are they doing if not showing that animal rights are a scientific evidence?
http://www.equivita.it/index.php/en/
http://www.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/re ... ndtheworld
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism/
http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/
http://animalrights.about.com/od/vivise ... ingach.htm
http://www.afma-curedisease.org/
http://antidote-europe.org/en/
http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf
http://www.safermedicines.org/faqs/faq15.shtml

They show how the disrespectful human behaviour with animals always damages humans too.
There are health topics and Ecological topics.

To show you that AR moviments works very good also without philosophical support from now I will avoid all philosophical topics, and I will speak only about science, ecology, biology, physiology, economy, politics, etc.



There is (scientific controversy concerning sentience) when you use a real definitinion of sentience rather than whether it has a nervous system or not.
Again, please tell me your mysterious definition of sentience that is other than use the nervous system.


So how can you provide evidence they "speak" of such abstract concepts without resorting to basic make believe and assumptions? Unless the communication can be translated you have no idea of what is or is not being communicated.

The translation of the hieroglyphics was very hard to discover but it was already known that they means something and they weren't only nice drawings.
Lots of scientist discovered the language of animals. In the BBC links I posted before there are the explanations about complex animal languages.
Anyway if you take an handbook about the rearing of cats or dogs there are the explanations of their behaviour and their communication with humans and with other animals.
That's obvious.
You can learn to be empathic with their needs, and understand what they say to you. You can learn this also without a book. Simply having a cat and looking at him. By the experience you will learn their language.
If you will not learn their language by reading a book that some expert wrote, neither by experience, that means that you are not for this subject, like you could not be able to learn a human language.
That doesn't make the language useless or ugly or stupid etc.
And, what's more important, that doesn't make the language a conjecture created by other than the speakers.



It is not an abstract? Can you tell me where I can go to hold a right in my hand? Where is there a picture or a recording of a physical right? Not only are you confused on sentience and rights, but also reality it seems.

I don't know why I am not able to post pictures in this forum. You can show the rights showing what happens when they are not respected and when they are.


But a brain and spinal column by themselves do not create sentience, which is what you are saying at this point.

No, there are also the nerves and all the components of the neurological system, including the ears, language, nose, eyes, touch.
If you have not all the senses: ears, language, nose, eyes, touch, you will probably die if someone doesn't take care of you.
If you have some damages in the brain you can loose the use of some senses or the use of a part of the body.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/myster ... o_brain-0/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -life.html

What do you think creates sentience more than that?




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is women, children, and the elderly all assisted in various war efforts in all countries.

Kill civilians is always wrong because there are unconscious children or people disapproving the war. And not only for this. The will of the people during the wars is always manipulated by the state. There is the propaganda. They never know what really happens.
And their brain is always washed and filled, like it happened in particular with Nazi and Italians.

Lots of the soldiers were sadistics. But their behaviour was built at table. They were educate and grow up in such way. Their way of thinking was automatic. There was a low level of conscience in some of the people doing the atrocities.
Sure they should be punished. But the punishment should be re-educate them.
Not kill them.
Maybe they were crazy, with mental disease or with a past of abuse.



There was no invasion as the Japanese had surrendered. The Japanese connection to rape and sex slavery was well documented in the areas of occupation. Korea would give a good idea of the impact if you want.

No, Japan was invaded after he surrended. The occupation was from 1945 to 1948. And there happened everything including rape and sex slavery. There are documents about that.


No, only a small portion of the Marshall Plan involved loans. The majority of the plan was in the form of grants, whcih did not have to be repaid.

That's right, but there was a clear interests in the grants.
An economic interest: with the aid European could rebuilt and became a good market for USA product.
A political interest: because Europe had became part of the American sphere of influence against the growing power of URSS.



And.... that was supposed to tell us what about the US not being the primary force against the Japanese?

That’s the reason why USA thrown the bombs: revenge and desire of power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:37 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
LetiziaPallara wrote:
Sentient is having a nervous system, which is not the definition of the term before the attempt at redefinition by the AR movement. It is a perception of stimuli, but NOT a sentient perception. Sentient beings act on a higher level of perception than just stimuli and instinct. It is possible to have a brain dead person react to stimuli.

Please, tell me what's this higher level of perception that doesn't involve the nervous system.
A brain dead person react to stimuli because some parts of the brain are still alive. Otherwise the body could not works and the person would be died.
The brain is composed by differend parts ruling different functions.


The sentient definition was of being self aware, which is not just sensory input but of the higher cognitive functions of thought. As the paper I quoted indicated, it is far more than just having a nervous system.

There is no science basis for rights so the AR movement would die off without the philosophical support.
So what are they doing if not showing that animal rights are a scientific evidence?
http://www.equivita.it/index.php/en/
http://www.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/re ... ndtheworld
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism/
http://animalresearch.thehastingscenter.org/
http://animalrights.about.com/od/vivise ... ingach.htm
http://www.afma-curedisease.org/
http://antidote-europe.org/en/
http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf
http://www.safermedicines.org/faqs/faq15.shtml

They show how the disrespectful human behaviour with animals always damages humans too.
There are health topics and Ecological topics.

To show you that AR moviments works very good also without philosophical support from now I will avoid all philosophical topics, and I will speak only about science, ecology, biology, physiology, economy, politics, etc.


They are giving ETHICAL positions based mostly on misrepresentations of science just as you have done.

The definition of vivisection was changed to give a much broader application that was not what the prior understanding was. How are you going to speak on of science when a large portion of your position is based on ethics, which are not science based?


Quote:
There is (scientific controversy concerning sentience) when you use a real definitinion of sentience rather than whether it has a nervous system or not.
Again, please tell me your mysterious definition of sentience that is other than use the nervous system.


Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not the sensory feeling, but the higher cognitive feeling. It is not quite what would be called sapience, but close. A sentient being could be removed from physical sensory input from the spinal column but still have the higher functions of feeling and perception. Dr. Hawkings would come close to thsi example.


Quote:
Quote:
So how can you provide evidence they "speak" of such abstract concepts without resorting to basic make believe and assumptions? Unless the communication can be translated you have no idea of what is or is not being communicated.

The translation of the hieroglyphics was very hard to discover but it was already known that they means something and they weren't only nice drawings.
Lots of scientist discovered the language of animals. In the BBC links I posted before there are the explanations about complex animal languages.
Anyway if you take an handbook about the rearing of cats or dogs there are the explanations of their behaviour and their communication with humans and with other animals.
That's obvious.
You can learn to be empathic with their needs, and understand what they say to you. You can learn this also without a book. Simply having a cat and looking at him. By the experience you will learn their language.
If you will not learn their language by reading a book that some expert wrote, neither by experience, that means that you are not for this subject, like you could not be able to learn a human language.
That doesn't make the language useless or ugly or stupid etc.
And, what's more important, that doesn't make the language a conjecture created by other than the speakers.


You danced all around the fact you cannot provide anything other than an assumption to support your claims.

Quote:
Quote:
It is not an abstract? Can you tell me where I can go to hold a right in my hand? Where is there a picture or a recording of a physical right? Not only are you confused on sentience and rights, but also reality it seems.


I don't know why I am not able to post pictures in this forum. You can show the rights showing what happens when they are not respected and when they are.


No, if a right is not abstract there has to be a physical example of a right not the effect of a right not being respected.

Quote:
But a brain and spinal column by themselves do not create sentience, which is what you are saying at this point.

No, there are also the nerves and all the components of the neurological system, including the ears, language, nose, eyes, touch.
If you have not all the senses: ears, language, nose, eyes, touch, you will probably die if someone doesn't take care of you.
If you have some damages in the brain you can loose the use of some senses or the use of a part of the body.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/myster ... o_brain-0/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -life.html

What do you think creates sentience more than that?


A brain which can develop abstract concepts and express them would be more sentient.



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is women, children, and the elderly all assisted in various war efforts in all countries.

Kill civilians is always wrong because there are unconscious children or people disapproving the war. And not only for this. The will of the people during the wars is always manipulated by the state. There is the propaganda. They never know what really happens.
And their brain is always washed and filled, like it happened in particular with Nazi and Italians.

Lots of the soldiers were sadistics. But their behaviour was built at table. They were educate and grow up in such way. Their way of thinking was automatic. There was a low level of conscience in some of the people doing the atrocities.
Sure they should be punished. But the punishment should be re-educate them.
Not kill them.
Maybe they were crazy, with mental disease or with a past of abuse.


Which still does not refute the concept of civilian damage being necessary to stop the war effort.


Quote:
There was no invasion as the Japanese had surrendered. The Japanese connection to rape and sex slavery was well documented in the areas of occupation. Korea would give a good idea of the impact if you want.

No, Japan was invaded after he surrended. The occupation was from 1945 to 1948. And there happened everything including rape and sex slavery. There are documents about that.


Rape and sex slavery was strongly evidenced prior to 1945.


Quote:
No, only a small portion of the Marshall Plan involved loans. The majority of the plan was in the form of grants, whcih did not have to be repaid.

That's right, but there was a clear interests in the grants.
An economic interest: with the aid European could rebuilt and became a good market for USA product.
A political interest: because Europe had became part of the American sphere of influence against the growing power of URSS.


So why did you claim there were only loans which had to be repaid?


Quote:
And.... that was supposed to tell us what about the US not being the primary force against the Japanese?

That’s the reason why USA thrown the bombs: revenge and desire of power.


Or the lack of understanding on your part.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:39 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:05 am
Posts: 51
Location: Venice, Italy
The sentient definition was of being self aware, which is not just sensory input but of the higher cognitive functions of thought. As the paper I quoted indicated, it is far more than just having a nervous system.
No, sentient doesn’t mean being self aware. This is a definition you create right now to support your ideas. People with arteriosclerosis and newborn are not self aware but are sentient. To be sentient you don’t need an high QI. You indicated a PHILOSOPHICAL PAPER, speaking about the phenomenology of the perception.

...
They are giving ETHICAL positions based mostly on misrepresentations of science just as you have done.
No, they use SCIENTIFIC positions to sustains the FAILURE of animal experimentation as a PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC METHOD. There’s nothing related to science in animal experimentation.


...
The definition of vivisection was changed to give a much broader application that was not what the prior understanding was. How are you going to speak on of science when a large portion of your position is based on ethics, which are not science based?
Someone prefers the use of the word vivisection for practical reasons, to include everything. It’s all suffering.
My positions are based on science and scientific discoveries. I don’t use philosophy. I use medicine, biology, physiology, ecology, nature laws etc. And Darwinism is not a theory, is a scientific discovery.



...
Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not the sensory feeling, but the higher cognitive feeling. It is not quite what would be called sapience, but close. A sentient being could be removed from physical sensory input from the spinal column but still have the higher functions of feeling and perception. Dr. Hawkings would come close to this example.
The SENSORY FEELING is always perceived subjectively. I can see the blue where you can see the red but for social agreement we call the blue with the same name. But you can’t know if you see the same thing that I see.
Higher cognitive feeling: it happens in the brain. Sapience too and it’s the ability to acquire knowledge, a thing that everyone can do, animals and human included.
And being self aware means to be able to recognise himself as an individual, separated from the others, a group etc. And being self aware means to be conscious of being alive and having to maintain the life as better as we can.
Self aware is the instinct of survive as an individual and not only a species. It means to be informed conscious of one’s own individual ability, capability.
A horse jumping an obstacle is self aware to be trained, exercized to jump ostacles. So he decide to jump. Otherwise he was afraid to jump.
A boss cat is aware to be powerful and stronger than the other cats in the area. So he wants maintain his social position. He has no problems in fighting with the other cats. Probably he looks for cats to fight with because he wants became more powerful.
If he was weak and had bad experience of fighting in the past he was afraid of fighting with other cats.
That means he is self aware of his individual skills.



....
You danced all around the fact you cannot provide anything other than an assumption to support your claims.
No, animals language is scientifically understood, decoded. Otherwise there were not the scientific documentary to explain animal life, communication among them, relation with humans.
For exemple in general people having a cat is able to understand what the cat wants, thinks, do etc.



...
No, if a right is not abstract there has to be a physical example of a right not the effect of a right not being respected.
That’s your opinion.


...
A brain which can develop abstract concepts and express them would be more sentient.
No, I don’t think that philosophers are more sentient than scientists or shop assistants. Maybe they are more out of the society, reality.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which still does not refute the concept of civilian damage being necessary to stop the war effort.
The civilian damage could be avoided to stop the war. USA was showing his power, to have the most advanced military system. The Cold War was already began.

...
Rape and sex slavery was strongly evidenced prior to 1945.
Yes, before and after.

...
So why did you claim there were only loans which had to be repaid?
There were also grants for the economic, political and cultural benefit of USA too. There was the Cold War.


....
That’s the reason why USA thrown the bombs: revenge and desire of power.

Or the lack of understanding on your part.
USA thrown the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show having arms of mass destruction able to conquer the world.
That’s why the war was called Cold War. Because it was an exhibition of arms and power. The main 2 world powers were showing each other what they can do. Cold because they didn’t arrive to the point of militarily attach each other’s country.
The war was done in other countries, used as international chessboard. I conquer this country to limit your power, the possibility that this country became part of your (political, economical and cultural) sphere of influence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:22 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
LetiziaPallara wrote:
The sentient definition was of being self aware, which is not just sensory input but of the higher cognitive functions of thought. As the paper I quoted indicated, it is far more than just having a nervous system.
No, sentient doesn’t mean being self aware. This is a definition you create right now to support your ideas. People with arteriosclerosis and newborn are not self aware but are sentient. To be sentient you don’t need an high QI. You indicated a PHILOSOPHICAL PAPER, speaking about the phenomenology of the perception.


No, that definition has been around for longer than I have. The current attempt to link a nervous system to sentience is the recently made up version. A newborn is classified as sentient because it is part of a sentient species. It will be sentient once it grows sufficiently. I do not know how arteriosclerosis would impact the self-awareness, so I suspect you used an incorrect term. I did reference a philosophical paper written on the subject because it referenced the science used in the determination of the classifications.

...
Quote:
They are giving ETHICAL positions based mostly on misrepresentations of science just as you have done.
No, they use SCIENTIFIC positions to sustains the FAILURE of animal experimentation as a PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC METHOD. There’s nothing related to science in animal experimentation.


They are misrepresentations of science because they do not present all of the facts and do so in a manner to try to cause people to draw the wrong conclusion. It is a series of logical fallacies called science by those too ignorant to understand the error or a willful attempt to mislead.


Quote:
...
The definition of vivisection was changed to give a much broader application that was not what the prior understanding was. How are you going to speak on of science when a large portion of your position is based on ethics, which are not science based?
Someone prefers the use of the word vivisection for practical reasons, to include everything. It’s all suffering.
My positions are based on science and scientific discoveries. I don’t use philosophy. I use medicine, biology, physiology, ecology, nature laws etc. And Darwinism is not a theory, is a scientific discovery.


You prefer to use an incorrect defintition for "practical reasons"? But you base your position on science, which also seems to be "adjusted" for practical reasons or just lack of understanding. If Darwinism is not a scientific theory, what is it? It is not a discovery as there is nothing discovered that gives the explanation, such as a manual giving the instructions from a prior advanced race.


Quote:
...
Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not the sensory feeling, but the higher cognitive feeling. It is not quite what would be called sapience, but close. A sentient being could be removed from physical sensory input from the spinal column but still have the higher functions of feeling and perception. Dr. Hawkings would come close to this example.
The SENSORY FEELING is always perceived subjectively. I can see the blue where you can see the red but for social agreement we call the blue with the same name. But you can’t know if you see the same thing that I see.
Higher cognitive feeling: it happens in the brain. Sapience too and it’s the ability to acquire knowledge, a thing that everyone can do, animals and human included. And being self aware means to be able to recognise himself as an individual, separated from the others, a group etc. And being self aware means to be conscious of being alive and having to maintain the life as better as we can.
Self aware is the instinct of survive as an individual and not only a species. It means to be informed conscious of one’s own individual ability, capability.
A horse jumping an obstacle is self aware to be trained, exercized to jump ostacles. So he decide to jump. Otherwise he was afraid to jump.
A boss cat is aware to be powerful and stronger than the other cats in the area. So he wants maintain his social position. He has no problems in fighting with the other cats. Probably he looks for cats to fight with because he wants became more powerful.
If he was weak and had bad experience of fighting in the past he was afraid of fighting with other cats.
That means he is self aware of his individual skills.


So you have now redefined sentience as instinct and conditioning ..... and thrown in sapience too. There is nothing remotely related to a real definition in this attempt at supporting a redefinition.

Quote:
....
You danced all around the fact you cannot provide anything other than an assumption to support your claims.
No, animals language is scientifically understood, decoded. Otherwise there were not the scientific documentary to explain animal life, communication among them, relation with humans.
For exemple in general people having a cat is able to understand what the cat wants, thinks, do etc.


Yet you claimed animal knowledge of rights which cannot be determined without such communication. You assume much as being factual, which is far from using science as a base for your position. I have several animals and there are time none of us know what any of them want and probably neither to they.


Quote:
...
No, if a right is not abstract there has to be a physical example of a right not the effect of a right not being respected.
That’s your opinion.


No, that is a fact. If there is no physical manifestation of something, it must therefore be an abstract.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstract

ab·stract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
adj.
1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.

Quote:
...
A brain which can develop abstract concepts and express them would be more sentient.
No, I don’t think that philosophers are more sentient than scientists or shop assistants. Maybe they are more out of the society, reality.


I was speaking of species differentials, not individual differentials, but all of the examples have evidence they can develop abstract concepts and express them unlike any other creature.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which still does not refute the concept of civilian damage being necessary to stop the war effort.
The civilian damage could be avoided to stop the war. USA was showing his power, to have the most advanced military system. The Cold War was already began.


How could civilian damage be avoided to stop the war? The Japanese were not going to stop even with the previous examples of damage to their forces and civilians.

Quote:
...
Rape and sex slavery was strongly evidenced prior to 1945.
Yes, before and after.


Both created by the Japanese too.

Quote:
...
So why did you claim there were only loans which had to be repaid?
There were also grants for the economic, political and cultural benefit of USA too. There was the Cold War.


That does not explain why you claimed there were only loans.


Quote:
....
That’s the reason why USA thrown the bombs: revenge and desire of power.

Or the lack of understanding on your part.
USA thrown the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to show having arms of mass destruction able to conquer the world. That’s why the war was called Cold War. Because it was an exhibition of arms and power. The main 2 world powers were showing each other what they can do. Cold because they didn’t arrive to the point of militarily attach each other’s country.
The war was done in other countries, used as international chessboard. I conquer this country to limit your power, the possibility that this country became part of your (political, economical and cultural) sphere of influence.


There were not two main powers at that time. There was the Allies, the Axis, and the neutrals. Only the US had the technology for atomic weapons and refused to use it to start another war.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:34 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ness-arise

When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?
Does sentience appear in the womb, at birth or during early childhood?


Mothers will want to crucify me for this seemingly cruel question, but it needs to be posed: How do we know that a newly born and healthy infant is conscious? There is no question that the baby is awake. Its eyes are wide open, it wriggles and grimaces, and, most important, it cries. But all that is not the same as being conscious, of experiencing pain, seeing red or smelling Mom’s milk.

It is well recognized that infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions and motivations. Even older children who can speak have very limited insight into their own actions. Anybody who has raised a boy is familiar with the blank look on your teenager’s face when you ask him why he did something particularly rash. A shrug and “I dunno—it seemed like a good idea at the time” is the most you’ll hear.

Although a newborn lacks self-awareness, the baby processes complex visual stimuli and attends to sounds and sights in its world, preferentially looking at faces. The infant’s visual acuity permits it to see only blobs, but the basic thalamo-cortical circuitry necessary to support simple visual and other conscious percepts is in place. And linguistic capacities in babies are shaped by the environment they grow up in. Exposure to maternal speech sounds in the muffled confines of the womb enables the fetus to pick up statistical regularities so that the newborn can distinguish its mother’s voice and even her language from others. A more complex behavior is imitation: if Dad sticks out his tongue and waggles it, the infant mimics his gesture by combining visual information with proprioceptive feedback from its own movements. It is therefore likely that the baby has some basic level of unreflective, present-oriented consciousness.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:51 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.d.umn.edu/~dcole/sense5.html

SENSE5 8/18/90; rev. 1-19-98. (original 1983)
copyright David Cole
University of Minnesota, Duluth

Sense and Sentience
Surely one of the most interesting problems in the study of mind concerns the nature of sentience. How is it that there are sensations, rather than merely sensings? What is it like to be a bat -- or why is it like anything at all? Why aren't we automata or responding but unfeeling Zombies? How does neural activity give rise to subjective experience? As Leibniz put the problem (Monadology section 17):

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:52 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.neoscience.org/P71.html

Sentient life: It is also understood that all of creation is in a process of fluctuation, change and eventual transformation. This self-evident reality necessitates that our definitions of sentient and non-sentient life at the very least are process oriented and at a higher level carry an ever-increasing number of possibilities unto infinity.

Sentient life is life that is self-aware, having the capacity to view and see past present and future, as well as reaching onto levels which transcend these concepts in the course of its development as an entity with consciousness. Sentient life forms exhibit a capacity for increasing self-determination and self-emancipation. This is necessarily an object/ process definition which is applicable over a large range of conscious entities. It is not limited to observer/observed levels of consciousness, resident self-referencing, relativistic and perceptual frames but transcends these levels of consciousness as well. It is well understood that the line between one level of existence and another is demarcated by the degree of capacity to exercise volitional choice, and in so doing exercises the emancipation of the entity's, 'self ' from one level to the next.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:06 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1326
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.neoscience.org/P71.html

Sentient life: It is also understood that all of creation is in a process of fluctuation, change and eventual transformation. This self-evident reality necessitates that our definitions of sentient and non-sentient life at the very least are process oriented and at a higher level carry an ever-increasing number of possibilities unto infinity.

Sentient life is life that is self-aware, having the capacity to view and see past present and future, as well as reaching onto levels which transcend these concepts in the course of its development as an entity with consciousness. Sentient life forms exhibit a capacity for increasing self-determination and self-emancipation. This is necessarily an object/ process definition which is applicable over a large range of conscious entities. It is not limited to observer/observed levels of consciousness, resident self-referencing, relativistic and perceptual frames but transcends these levels of consciousness as well. It is well understood that the line between one level of existence and another is demarcated by the degree of capacity to exercise volitional choice, and in so doing exercises the emancipation of the entity's, 'self ' from one level to the next.



Such a lovely definition of sentience ...... yet Wayne also says:

"The fact is women, children, and the elderly all assisted in various war efforts in all countries."

He also says that if a person makes a claim that is not true, we should disregard everything else they say.

Done and done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 6:57 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.neoscience.org/P71.html

Sentient life: It is also understood that all of creation is in a process of fluctuation, change and eventual transformation. This self-evident reality necessitates that our definitions of sentient and non-sentient life at the very least are process oriented and at a higher level carry an ever-increasing number of possibilities unto infinity.

Sentient life is life that is self-aware, having the capacity to view and see past present and future, as well as reaching onto levels which transcend these concepts in the course of its development as an entity with consciousness. Sentient life forms exhibit a capacity for increasing self-determination and self-emancipation. This is necessarily an object/ process definition which is applicable over a large range of conscious entities. It is not limited to observer/observed levels of consciousness, resident self-referencing, relativistic and perceptual frames but transcends these levels of consciousness as well. It is well understood that the line between one level of existence and another is demarcated by the degree of capacity to exercise volitional choice, and in so doing exercises the emancipation of the entity's, 'self ' from one level to the next.



Such a lovely definition of sentience ...... yet Wayne also says:

"The fact is women, children, and the elderly all assisted in various war efforts in all countries."

He also says that if a person makes a claim that is not true, we should disregard everything else they say.

Done and done.


Actually, I did not say disregard and I did not produce the definition I quoted, but ignoring the logical disconnect and proceeding to the question of evidence.
If you can give an example of the elderly, women, or children not helping in the war effort in the Allied or Axis countries as evidence?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 5:50 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1326
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.neoscience.org/P71.html

Sentient life: It is also understood that all of creation is in a process of fluctuation, change and eventual transformation. This self-evident reality necessitates that our definitions of sentient and non-sentient life at the very least are process oriented and at a higher level carry an ever-increasing number of possibilities unto infinity.

Sentient life is life that is self-aware, having the capacity to view and see past present and future, as well as reaching onto levels which transcend these concepts in the course of its development as an entity with consciousness. Sentient life forms exhibit a capacity for increasing self-determination and self-emancipation. This is necessarily an object/ process definition which is applicable over a large range of conscious entities. It is not limited to observer/observed levels of consciousness, resident self-referencing, relativistic and perceptual frames but transcends these levels of consciousness as well. It is well understood that the line between one level of existence and another is demarcated by the degree of capacity to exercise volitional choice, and in so doing exercises the emancipation of the entity's, 'self ' from one level to the next.



Such a lovely definition of sentience ...... yet Wayne also says:

"The fact is women, children, and the elderly all assisted in various war efforts in all countries."

He also says that if a person makes a claim that is not true, we should disregard everything else they say.

Done and done.


Actually, I did not say disregard and I did not produce the definition I quoted, but ignoring the logical disconnect and proceeding to the question of evidence.

You do ignore all arguments based on one faulty comment. You do it and you do it consistently.

If you can give an example of the elderly, women, or children not helping in the war effort in the Allied or Axis countries as evidence?


You're asking for evidence? Really? You set it up, make an outrageous statement, and then you ask for evidence to prove that your outrageous statement is not true? The onus is on your shoulders Wayne.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 28, 2013 8:09 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20469
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
http://www.neoscience.org/P71.html

Sentient life: It is also understood that all of creation is in a process of fluctuation, change and eventual transformation. This self-evident reality necessitates that our definitions of sentient and non-sentient life at the very least are process oriented and at a higher level carry an ever-increasing number of possibilities unto infinity.

Sentient life is life that is self-aware, having the capacity to view and see past present and future, as well as reaching onto levels which transcend these concepts in the course of its development as an entity with consciousness. Sentient life forms exhibit a capacity for increasing self-determination and self-emancipation. This is necessarily an object/ process definition which is applicable over a large range of conscious entities. It is not limited to observer/observed levels of consciousness, resident self-referencing, relativistic and perceptual frames but transcends these levels of consciousness as well. It is well understood that the line between one level of existence and another is demarcated by the degree of capacity to exercise volitional choice, and in so doing exercises the emancipation of the entity's, 'self ' from one level to the next.



Such a lovely definition of sentience ...... yet Wayne also says:

"The fact is women, children, and the elderly all assisted in various war efforts in all countries."

He also says that if a person makes a claim that is not true, we should disregard everything else they say.

Done and done.


Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I did not say disregard and I did not produce the definition I quoted, but ignoring the logical disconnect and proceeding to the question of evidence.


You do ignore all arguments based on one faulty comment. You do it and you do it consistently.


So you have an example of this? Actually since it is supposed to happen consistently, maybe there should be more examples than one. Lets go with two dozen since you seem to want me to provide evidence for every Allied or Axis country instead of providing one example to refute my statement. We would not want to accidentally set up some hypocritical stance, would we.

animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If you can give an example of the elderly, women, or children not helping in the war effort in the Allied or Axis countries as evidence?


You're asking for evidence? Really? You set it up, make an outrageous statement, and then you ask for evidence to prove that your outrageous statement is not true? The onus is on your shoulders Wayne.


It is much simpler to show the one example to disprove rather than the multitudes of examples to support. Since you seem to claim the statement was
incorrect, you would have that one example to give unless you are just making a wild statement. When I have questioned the credibility of a statement I generally provide evidence to support it, especially if asked. You have not provided anything other than your statement.

To give a few examples of such support, there was the "Rosie the riveter" replacement of men with women in military industries. The same for elderly returning to the work force and joining the "Home Guard" type units. The youth performed drives to gather materials in short supply if not directly in an organization such as the "Hitler Youth".

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 5:50 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1326
Wayne also says:

"The fact is women, children, and the elderly all assisted in various war efforts in all countries."

And you will insist that this fact is true. And it is, to some extent. But there is no way you can argue that a child in a war-torn country "assisted" in war efforts. If you do not recognize that a child can vote, or otherwise participate in a democracy, you cannot include a child in any war effort and therefor cannot justify the crimes waged upon them.

He also says that if a person makes a claim that is not true, we should disregard everything else they say.

Done and done.[/quote]

Quote:
Quote:
Actually, I did not say disregard and I did not produce the definition I quoted, but ignoring the logical disconnect and proceeding to the question of evidence.


You did not produce the definition you quoted? The person who uttered these words didn't reproduce it, so who did? You didn't produce it but you RE-Produced it ..... for SOME reason. What reason then ...

You do ignore all arguments based on one faulty comment. You do it and you do it consistently.


So you have an example of this? Actually since it is supposed to happen consistently, maybe there should be more examples than one. Lets go with two dozen since you seem to want me to provide evidence for every Allied or Axis country instead of providing one example to refute my statement. We would not want to accidentally set up some hypocritical stance, would we.

You are right. Thank you for correcting me. It is not fair to come up with only ONE example. (Did you want that example)

animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
If you can give an example of the elderly, women, or children not helping in the war effort in the Allied or Axis countries as evidence?


You're asking for evidence? Really? You set it up, make an outrageous statement, and then you ask for evidence to prove that your outrageous statement is not true? The onus is on your shoulders Wayne.


It is much simpler to show the one example to disprove rather than the multitudes of examples to support. Since you seem to claim the statement was incorrect, you would have that one example to give unless you are just making a wild statement. When I have questioned the credibility of a statement I generally provide evidence to support it, especially if asked. You have not provided anything other than your statement.

Are we having a conversation now .....

To give a few examples of such support, there was the "Rosie the riveter" replacement of men with women in military industries. The same for elderly returning to the work force and joining the "Home Guard" type units. The youth performed drives to gather materials in short supply if not directly in an organization such as the "Hitler Youth".[/quote]


Oh, I see. You give an example of the Hitler Youth ...okay, ... What a great example.

"If you can give an example of the elderly, women, or children not helping in the war effort in the Allied or Axis countries as evidence?"

Evidence of what? What would you like? What are you looking for? An example of children who didn't ask to be bombed? Are you really asking me to give evidence of children who would really like to not be involved in war? Is this your question? Did children end up aiding the war effort? And if so, is this the reason you justify in the American bombings of civilians? Children and all ...

Have you listened to Amy Goodman`s reporting in `Democracy Now` about chemical warfare on Iraqi civilians, ..... about the children being born now with such deformities ..... in Iraq .... as a result of American forces using depleted uranium and other chemicals.

Check it Wayne and followers ...... (of Àmericanism or and nationalism)
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/20/t ... s_has_left
And since we have already done it, is it not a stones throw to do it again? In the name of Democracy?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group