As for the sentience of trees I will leave that to others and branch off to bark at intent and purpose. As with all life trees consume, eliminate, and reproduce. That is there purpose and that is what they intend. The rest is intricate stacking of thoughts by our clever brains to keep us busy when we are not consuming, eliminating, or reproducing.
On Apr 15, 11:55 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > Is there anything it is like to "be" a tree? I think not. > > See Thomas Nagel, "What Is It Like To Be A Bat?" > > On Apr 15, 11:32 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > They aren't " just are," MB ! They do, take and give, interact with > > others, with the environment, with the universe at large. The verbs > > I've used may be read as in " process," not the intention - centred > > manner or terms in which humans understand. One needs to " be " the > > tree, to appreciate those verbs. > > > On Apr 16, 5:16 am, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I will argue that purpose does require intent, but not in the way > > > several posts on this thread have implied. A tree can have a purpose > > > without itself being sentient or having intentionality, but only if > > > someone else with sentience and intentionality put that tree there for > > > a particular purpose (e.g. God). > > > > I think Gruff's original point was that it doesn't make sense to talk > > > about purpose without assuming intentionality. But we can still > > > ascribe purpose to trees without ascribing intentionality to trees - > > > you just have to look to the person or process that put those trees > > > there, if any. > > > > (Of course, as to my personal views, I don't think there is any > > > intentionality behind any particular tree - because I don't believe in > > > a divine spirit that set down the trees - and so I don't think trees > > > have a purpose; they just are.) > > > > On Apr 15, 4:49 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "One's intent is not always the others purpose,..........", Monk. > > > > That is exactly the point; not equating purpose with intent in Vam's > > > > reply to Gruff. That was the whole idea, for the sake of thread flow > > > > at the least, to establish purpose as non synonymous with intent/ > > > > drive, which you seem to be reinforcing with that comment. The tree > > > > has purpose in that it serves a purpose without intent or personal > > > > drive. We did not create the tree nor give it purpose, it is there as > > > > one component of a intricate network within the composite of our > > > > planetary confine. It is an integral unit that contributes to the > > > > sustenance of life, is a vital precondition of living organism > > > > survival and further a desideratum of humanity for the sake of > > > > emotional gratification, in fact much of the time we plant in order to > > > > provide pleasure stimuli. The vast assortment of arboretum species > > > > allows for selective personal gratification. Still there are those > > > > who would rather raze the land with total disregard for importance of > > > > tree purpose. Keep hugging your tree. it may save you during a flood. > > > > > On Apr 15, 2:40 am, monkebus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I hug my tree daily, but I don't agree that we have established that > > > > > "purpose is not synonymous > > > > > with Intent " One's intent is not always the others purpose, though we > > > > > like to tell ourselves that as we stack our random thoughts while our > > > > > brains try to give those thoughts purpose and intent other than > > > > > consuming, eliminating, or reproducing. > > > > > > On Apr 15, 12:58 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, but now that Vam has established that Purpose is not synonymous > > > > > > with Intent and Drive, we can clearly see that trees have Purpose, > > > > > > whether they enjoy having it or not is irrelevant as they still > > > > > > provide enjoyment for many species irrespective of intent. Have > > > > > > you > > > > > > talked to your tree lately? > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 12:04 am, monkebus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Trees are an intricate stack of cells that consume, eliminate, and > > > > > > > reproduce. But they don't stack things for their own enjoyment or > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > enjoyment of others like we clever humans do. > > > > > > > > On Apr 14, 11:45 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Nice breakdown with purpose, intent and drive, Vam, it puts it > > > > > > > > in a > > > > > > > > much clearer perspective. > > > > > > > > I think this also coincides rather well with my post on the 10th > > > > > > > > 7:53pm, especially the trees. > > > > > > > > > On Apr 14, 10:46 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Rocks become sand and clay, Gruff ! > > > > > > > > > > I see that as being its purpose. Imagine how else would we > > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > created our dwellings, worn clothes and eaten juicy melons ! > > > > > > > > > > In my view, the " purpose " need not be synonimous with > > > > > > > > > intent or > > > > > > > > > drive. It may just lie in " consequences " or " usefulness," > > > > > > > > > to the > > > > > > > > > rest of the creation down the line. > > > > > > > > > > Along these lines, trees are very much laden with purposes ! > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 4:09 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Purpose presupposes sentience. Rocks have no purpose other > > > > > > > > > > than being > > > > > > > > > > a rock, if one can call that a purpose. I can't. But > > > > > > > > > > sentient > > > > > > > > > > creatures can have purpose. Purpose I believe is a choice, > > > > > > > > > > at least > > > > > > > > > > in creatures of higher intelligence, and since we are the > > > > > > > > > > highest > > > > > > > > > > intelligence in the known universe we have the greatest > > > > > > > > > > ability to > > > > > > > > > > create and choose purpose, which we do. Our purpose -- at > > > > > > > > > > least as > > > > > > > > > > far back as cave art -- is self defined, and given that > > > > > > > > > > much I suspect > > > > > > > > > > ever since our minds became elevated above all others we > > > > > > > > > > have chosen > > > > > > > > > > our own purpose.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
