Just a question: is it possible, to 'evolve' an oxymoron?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So you might wonder what this is about, basically I am just testing a train of thought:

is it possible to evolve an oxymoron?

The point being, that the idea is that you can evolve, either what you know or how you know it - but not everything falls into these categories. For example, "oxymorons".

The idea of a man animal, is an oxymoron. There is no category for a man animal to evolve into - because their is no knowledge that can guide it. What would the subsequent category be? Favouring man above animal, is not a complete "Evolution" - nor does it apply to the whole of the oxymoron, so it is not allowed here. But like the imaginary number i, you must still be able to conceive oxymorons, evolving into each other?

Thus the concept of oxymorons, will never evolve? What is that process?

Try to think: what selection pressure would effect what was an oxymoron?

 

[jacknife]

Hi there,

So you might wonder what this is about, basically I am just testing a train of thought:The point being, that the idea is that you can evolve, either what you know or how you know it - but not everything falls into these categories. For example, "oxymorons".

The idea of a man animal, is an oxymoron. There is no category for a man animal to evolve into - because their is no knowledge that can guide it. What would the subsequent category be? Favouring man above animal, is not a complete "Evolution" - nor does it apply to the whole of the oxymoron, so it is not allowed here. But like the imaginary number i, you must still be able to conceive oxymorons, evolving into each other?

Thus the concept of oxymorons, will never evolve? What is that process?

Try to think: what selection pressure would effect what was an oxymoron?

Animal is simply a term we use to classify things in fact humans ARE animals there is no oxymoron there.

 

[Gottservant]

Animal is simply a term we use to classify things in fact humans ARE animals there is no oxymoron there.

The Emperor is wearing clothes (while he is naked...) really?

(To be fair, I am joking, I just worry about your conceit)

Perhaps offer me evidence that man is an animal (like that he gives birth to animals, or animals give birth to him, for example)...?

 

[jacknife]

The Emperor is wearing clothes (while he is naked...) really?

(To be fair, I am joking, I just worry about your conceit)

Perhaps offer me evidence that man is an animal (like that he gives birth to animals, or animals give birth to him, for example)...?

Animals simply belong to the kingdom animilia (I apologize if I butchered the spelling) Animal - Wikipedia. Humans have the characteristics of animals ergo they get classified as animal. Also yes humans (an animal) gives birth to other humans (also animals).

 

[Freodin]

The Emperor is wearing clothes (while he is naked...) really?

(To be fair, I am joking, I just worry about your conceit)

Perhaps offer me evidence that man is an animal (like that he gives birth to animals, or animals give birth to him, for example)...?

If "man" is an animal, they give birth to animals (of the human kind), and animals (of the human kind) give birth to "man".

q.e.d.

If you don't agree with this reasoning, just exchange "man" for any other species.

Offer me evidence that dog is an animal - like that dog gives birth to animals, or animals give birth to them, for example.

The problem is the definition you try to use for the concept of "animal". In common parlance, it is often used to exclude humans... just because.
But rationally, it makes more sense to include humans in this definition: anything that lives and moves.

Other definitions have to either use special pleading, or are not demonstrable.

 

[Gottservant]

Animals simply belong to the kingdom animilia (I apologize if I butchered the spelling) Animal - Wikipedia. Humans have the characteristics of animals ergo they get classified as animal. Also yes humans (an animal) gives birth to other humans (also animals).

You're not listening.

Just because you judge their flesh in related ways, does not mean they are the same.

If what you said was true, man coming from animal and animal coming from man, would be unpredictable.

 

[Gottservant]

If "man" is an animal, they give birth to animals (of the human kind), and animals (of the human kind) give birth to "man".

q.e.d.

If you don't agree with this reasoning, just exchange "man" for any other species.

Offer me evidence that dog is an animal - like that dog gives birth to animals, or animals give birth to them, for example.

The problem is the definition you try to use for the concept of "animal". In common parlance, it is often used to exclude humans... just because.
But rationally, it makes more sense to include humans in this definition: anything that lives and moves.

Other definitions have to either use special pleading, or are not demonstrable.

No, there is a fundamental difference.

Man is called man, in part because you can talk to him and ask "are you a man?".

Even if animals talk, they can never say "my animals are men", because to do that they would have to both "talk" and 'lie'.

 

[jacknife]

No, there is a fundamental difference.

Man is called man, in part because you can talk to him and ask "are you a man?".

Even if animals talk, they can never say "my animals are men", because to do that they would have to both "talk" and 'lie'.

That's an awful definition, under this things like parrots would be a man.

 

[Gottservant]

That's an awful definition, under this things like parrots would be a man.

You are using observation, to determine your knowledge - that is a fallacy.

Cats meow, men talk.

Calling a cat a man, does not enable the cat to do more than meow a different way.

 

[jacknife]

You are using observation, to determine your knowledge - that is a fallacy.

Cats meow, men talk.

Calling a cat a man, does not enable the cat to do more than meow a different way.

No parrots can actually speak words they can mimic speech. You can easily teach a parrot to say "my animals are men".

 

[Gottservant]

No parrots can actually speak words they can mimic speech. You can easily teach a parrot to say "my animals are men".

Yes, but scientifically, you cannot interrogate that assertion, to discover in what way it is true.

The parrot can mimic the words, but he doesn't then expect his progeny to heed the assertion.

The next parrot he has, will go back to chirping.

 

[tas8831]

Yes - "creation science".

Hi there,

So you might wonder what this is about

No, everyone knows what to expect from you.

The point being, that the idea is that you can evolve, either what you know or how you know it - but not everything falls into these categories. For example, "oxymorons".

The idea of a man animal, is an oxymoron. There is no category for a man animal to evolve into - because their is no knowledge that can guide it. What would the subsequent category be? Favouring man above animal, is not a complete "Evolution" - nor does it apply to the whole of the oxymoron, so it is not allowed here. But like the imaginary number i, you must still be able to conceive oxymorons, evolving into each other?

Thus the concept of oxymorons, will never evolve? What is that process?

Try to think: what selection pressure would effect what was an oxymoron?

I like meth.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hi there,

So you might wonder what this is about, basically I am just testing a train of thought:The point being, that the idea is that you can evolve, either what you know or how you know it - but not everything falls into these categories. For example, "oxymorons".

The idea of a man animal, is an oxymoron. There is no category for a man animal to evolve into - because their is no knowledge that can guide it. What would the subsequent category be? Favouring man above animal, is not a complete "Evolution" - nor does it apply to the whole of the oxymoron, so it is not allowed here. But like the imaginary number i, you must still be able to conceive oxymorons, evolving into each other?

Thus the concept of oxymorons, will never evolve? What is that process?

Try to think: what selection pressure would effect what was an oxymoron?

Humans are animals.

From a scientific perspective we are part of a family of life called animals.

But even from a more simplistic perspective that doesn't necessarily imply a family relation or evolution we are "animals" in the sense that we are not "minerals" or "vegetables".


If you disagree, please present your actual definitions of the terms you are using.

It would be much easier to understand you and have a conversation if you made the effort to be clear from the start.

 

[DamianWarS]

Hi there,

So you might wonder what this is about, basically I am just testing a train of thought:The point being, that the idea is that you can evolve, either what you know or how you know it - but not everything falls into these categories. For example, "oxymorons".

The idea of a man animal, is an oxymoron. There is no category for a man animal to evolve into - because their is no knowledge that can guide it. What would the subsequent category be? Favouring man above animal, is not a complete "Evolution" - nor does it apply to the whole of the oxymoron, so it is not allowed here. But like the imaginary number i, you must still be able to conceive oxymorons, evolving into each other?

Thus the concept of oxymorons, will never evolve? What is that process?

Try to think: what selection pressure would effect what was an oxymoron?

There seems to be an issue of terminology here. Let's clear it up.

Animal - noun
a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Based on the definition above would you agree that humans are animals?

If you are uncomfortable with this can you offer a definition so we can understand your perspective better?

 

[Freodin]

No, there is a fundamental difference.

Man is called man, in part because you can talk to him and ask "are you a man?".

Even if animals talk, they can never say "my animals are men", because to do that they would have to both "talk" and 'lie'.

Well, for one thing, I would very much hope you can use the term "humans" instead of "man". It's kind of denigrating to half of humankind (and I know I am ignoring the non-binaries here) to presume you could ask them "are you a man?", and expect them not to respond with "No, I am a woman."

Second... this "my animals are men"... what they heck are you talking about? No one ever said anything about "their" animals being humans... or all animals being humans.

Categories... how do they work?
All dogs are animals. Not all animals are dogs.
All humans are animals. Not all animals are humans.

Third... there are some concepts that can be used to define "human". "Speech", or intellect or "higher thought functions" might be used for that. But in many cases, these are only differences of quantity, not quality.

Animals "talk". They communicate. With each other, with other animals... and with humans. They might not use human speech, and they might not be able to express concepts that humans can.
But then... neither can babies. Do infants only become "men" when they grow up, learn to speak and express rational thought?

Sorry, but "talk" is not a sufficient determinator for "human".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All humans are animals, but not all animals are humans.

 

[Occams Barber]

Hi there,

So you might wonder what this is about, basically I am just testing a train of thought:The point being, that the idea is that you can evolve, either what you know or how you know it - but not everything falls into these categories. For example, "oxymorons".

The idea of a man animal, is an oxymoron. There is no category for a man animal to evolve into - because their is no knowledge that can guide it. What would the subsequent category be? Favouring man above animal, is not a complete "Evolution" - nor does it apply to the whole of the oxymoron, so it is not allowed here. But like the imaginary number i, you must still be able to conceive oxymorons, evolving into each other?

Thus the concept of oxymorons, will never evolve? What is that process?

Try to think: what selection pressure would effect what was an oxymoron?

Too late Gotty. The Oxymoron* evolved several hundred thousand years ago and lives to this day in hidden valleys in a far and distant misty place where hairy legged men wear dresses.

Here is a rare photo of an Oxymoron doing what Oymorons do best - picking its nose with its tongue. This is thought to be a trait which evolved over thousands of years allowing the Oxymoron to survive in periods of severe food shortage.

Ain't evolution grand?

* Oxymoron familiaris - Latin for 'our silly cow'. In the local indigenous language an Oxymoron is known as a 'Coo'.

OB

 

[Gottservant]

All humans are animals, but not all animals are humans.

We have an impasse here. It is possible that I may be corrected on the definition of animal, but the definition of man preceded that definition by 400 years. In other words, it is not clear that animals defined men in the original sense of the word "man".

Man: from Proto-Germanic mann, Specific sense of "adult male of the human race" (distinguished from a woman or boy) is by late Old English (c. 1000);

Animal: early 14c., "any sentient living creature"

I can be corrected, up to the point that you say animals and men are "interchangeable". I maintain my position that what God created to rule nature and the nature that was ruled are two different things, which taken together form an "oxymoron" (like dry water, or heavy feathers).

EDIT: in other words what you have is "interrelateability" not "interchangeability"

Sometimes people behave like animals and sometimes animals behave like men, but your argument is that this is evidence of "Evolution" - without showing what the transition was.

For the sake of argument, I wonder if you can put aside particular definitions and just tell me "can you evolve an oxymoron?" (what's your intuition?)

 

[Shemjaza]

We have an impasse here. It is possible that I may be corrected on the definition of animal, but the definition of man preceded that definition by 400 years. In other words, it is not clear that animals defined men in the original sense of the word "man".

Man: from Proto-Germanic mann, Specific sense of "adult male of the human race" (distinguished from a woman or boy) is by late Old English (c. 1000);

Animal: early 14c., "any sentient living creature"

I can be corrected, up to the point that you say animals and men are "interchangeable". I maintain my position that what God created to rule nature and the nature that was ruled are two different things, which taken together form an "oxymoron" (like dry water, or heavy feathers).

EDIT: in other words what you have is "interrelateability" not "interchangeability"

Sometimes people behave like animals and sometimes animals behave like men, but your argument is that this is evidence of "Evolution" - without showing what the transition was.

For the sake of argument, I wonder if you can put aside particular definitions and just tell me "can you evolve an oxymoron?" (what's your intuition?)

Asking people to put aside definitions and then answer a question is nonsensical.

If you don't have clear definitions, the you can't communicate.

 

[Gottservant]

Asking people to put aside definitions and then answer a question is nonsensical.

If you don't have clear definitions, the you can't communicate.

As I said, interpretation is in my favour ("man" has been around longer than "animal").

That said, I find your objection to theory confusing... is your theory not theory?

Ok, so being theory, does it have limitations? Godel would say there is likely a way it may contradict itself?

Or are you afraid of what will happen to "Evolution", if it is revealed to be more theory than science?