The scenario about there being nothing outside of human experience derives from Bishop George Berkeley. Does anyone know if he extends this reality to animals? If not, it would mean that animals do not exist unless they are being preceived by humans. I have never actually read anything by the bishop, so this problem I have just come up with might be caused by a flawed understanding of his ideas. Can anyone elaborate or show me my misinterpretation? As a post-script, I just thought of something else, if things do not exist without perception, then things would not age or collect dust. OR is God putting the dust there and ageing objects just before the person finds them, in order to maintain the illusion of reality?
If a tree falls in the forest, do hippies take summer jobs replanting them?
OR if a tree keeps giving and giving without question to an ungrateful boy, do we call it a co-dependency problem and sue Shel Silverstein for the potential 'issues' it may cause in the real-life children who read the book? Maybe in America...
Shaunx, in the hope that you will neither be disappointed in the site, or feel that you are being ignored, i thought that i'd point out that this thread was started as a little bit of silliness:
Click here for the beginning of the thread[/color]
Welcome to A2K shaunx! This particular thread was indeed a bit of silliness, but I would be happy to share my thoughts on your question. Personally, I am not familiar with the Bishop myself, but from the sound of it, his idea is pure hubris, and horribly flawed. I will assume that this argument comes from the Christian-based theory that only humans posess self-awareness and a soul. I think that if those monastics spent more time in the real world and less time cloistered, empirical observation would indeed prove that all life has self-awareness to some extent. Dogs scratch itches, communicate, feel the pain of others. Birds and insects are among the world's greatest natural architects, and insects among the greatest military forces we know. I question the idea that outside of the human world, all else is simple 'instinct'. Just because self-awareness in the animal kingdom may vary in it's ability to be measured by humans does not mean it doesn't exist. Go St. Francis!
shaunx wrote:If not, it would mean that animals do not exist unless they are being preceived by humans.
First of all welcome aboard and have fun. Secondly, how do I explain the fresh pile of animal dung I found in the woods just yesterday; but, never saw any animals.
Which reminds me of a junior high joke: What sound does a brown bell make?
dung, dung, dung
What do you sing when you crap your jeans?
Dungaree, dungerah, dunger a-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
If a person steps in dung in the forest, and an animal is not there - does this mean it is just mud?
Not for another 6 months!
Some redneck will show up and chop it into firewood.
There was a young man who said,"God" must think it exceedingly odd if he finds that this tree continues to be when there's no one around in the Quad."
Reply:
Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd: I am always about in the Quad. And that's why the tree will continue to be. Since observed by yours faithfully,
-God
Just checking in here, see I need to go back to page one. Will do. Sigh, back later.
never realized god drove a "Quad".
Yes in fact I do believe God does drive a quad. I also believe that his quad is a Banshee.
Dude...say you throw your seeds in a big pile of trees, and they like grow into huge pot plants, and say just you and your buds (huh huh, buds...), heh heh, I meant friends dude....okay, so like only your friends and you go to smoke, you're not selling or nothing, but then the trees around the pot plants get like intelligent, and start thinkin', "Hey, those humans really like this ****, hmmm...what are we missing?" Then they smoke all the rest of your ****....would that be illegal or what? Could you like be held responsible for the moral degredation of a tree?
Only if the tree falls for it.
Wouldn't it be a trip if the trees figured out the real reason pot is so popular, and started growing that THC stuff too? What if like all the plants in the world started producing THC because of a designer chromosome virus thing that gives them the ability to grow it? The new feature would help them survive better among homo sapiens. They say plants can adapt you know, and it would only take a little mutation for everything to make us stoned.
Whoa.
I suggest someone try this experiment.
Go to your nearest Porshe dealer and pickup a new Carrera.
Drive it out to your place in the woods (or a friend's place), find the biggest old poplar you can find, and park in on the downwind side of the tree, about 20' from the base. Leave.
Come back after the next big windstorm.
