Thank you, brother! (My Chinese star sign is ape, that's why, you know.) Great, explicit lyrics! I love the whuff-sound of your tree. "That is there purpose" would otherwise be silently over-read by the creator of ME. I miss Neil's free porpoise thinking.
On 16 Apr., 08:41, monkebus <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
