The essence of being a furry

[Nargle]

Jee, I dunno. I like dogs more than TV, but that's mainly because I don't watch any TV.

Well, because I've got nothing to do, I watch TV a lot more then I used to. And it's not that I dislike TV. If you compare it to something you don't like, it doesn't work =P Like... I like eating oatmeal better then being burned. But I still don't like oatmeal.

 

[Draco_2k]

Well, because I've got nothing to do, I watch TV a lot more then I used to. And it's not that I dislike TV. If you compare it to something you don't like, it doesn't work =P Like... I like eating oatmeal better then being burned. But I still don't like oatmeal.

Good point.

Though I'm pretty sure that "fan" isn't meant to be an adjective... So far the word itself sound just like another linguistic nonsense. Well, at least it's somewhat useful.

 

[ZeeDog]

The memory instinct thing is the exact same thing as concepts. That's how humans develop concepts. We see two things happening together (Sitting and food) and we link them, and next time we see one of them, we remember the link, and associate that thing with another thing. Kinda like how humans use "Stop, Drop and Roll." We instinctively don't want to be burned alive, but we use our memories of elementary school presentations to roll on the ground to put the fire out. There's even a handy phrase to go along with it to help up remember it.

Just to let you know, animals aren't automatically compelled to protect their young. There are plenty of animals that eat their young, or just plain abandon them. But some choose to stay and guard them, and since we can't see any external stimuli, it's only natural to assume there is some sort of moral/emotional connection there.

In action, yes, they would both do the same thing, but the way they reach that conclusion is different. And animal does things based on instinct or memory and instinct, but man has the extra ability to go by reason. Also, yes, humans can go on memory and feeling as well, they just have the extra ability to conceptualize, which they don't always use.

 

[Draco_2k]

Human consciousness is reflex-abstraction-based, just like it is for all other animals with central nervous system.

I suggest brushing up on comparative psychology before arguing about the subject. You know, common sense.

 

[Nargle]

Good point.

Though I'm pretty sure that "fan" isn't meant to be an adjective... So far the word itself sound just like another linguistic nonsense. Well, at least it's somewhat useful.

I thought I was using it as a noun =\

In action, yes, they would both do the same thing, but the way they reach that conclusion is different. And animal does things based on instinct or memory and instinct, but man has the extra ability to go by reason. Also, yes, humans can go on memory and feeling as well, they just have the extra ability to conceptualize, which they don't always use.

Okay, if by observing humans and animals they would appear to act in the same way, what makes you think one is motivated by instinct while the other is motivated by something more special?

 

[Draco_2k]

I thought I was using it as a noun =\

Yep. And you can't be more noun than another noun. (I think...)

Yet this noun is defined by an adjective ("intense") so uh... Eh.

 

[Nargle]

Yep. And you can't be more noun than another noun. (I think...)

Yet this noun is defined by an adjective ("intense") so uh... Eh.

Wait, yes you can. What if I were to say I'm more of an artist then this other person, because I'm more talented then him? =3

 

[Draco_2k]

Wait, yes you can. What if I were to say I'm more of an artist then this other person, because I'm more talented then him? =3

You're not more of an artist, you're more talented.

It's acceptable in common speech because anyone can guess what you mean, but, grammatically, and logically, it doesn't seem to make sense... I dunno.

 

[Nargle]

You're not more of an artist, you're more talented.

It's acceptable in common speech because anyone can guess what you mean, but, grammatically (and logically), I doesn't seem to make sense... I dunno.

If he's not an artist period, I'm more of an artist then he is. That also means I'm more talented, but only because art and talent go hand in hand.

I think it makes sense =3 I'm more of a bird person then my mom, I'm more of a cold-weather person as well, I'm more of an Independent then a Democrat or a Republican....

 

[ZeeDog]

I think being a furry is all about how the individual defines it. If you consider yourself a furry, even though all you do is look at the art and like animals, then sure, you're a furry. If you adamantly insist you're not a furry even though you have a fursona, draw anthroporphic characters, and lurk on a furry forum like FA, I guess you might not be a furry. [though ha, you probably are just a severely closeted one.]

I personally enjoy drawing the art and identify myself with my fursona [a fossa] though I'm not interested in yiff or an intensely immersed experience, and I haven't been to a con before. [I don't think I'll be heading in that direction until I move out.] But I still consider myself a bit furry. Now, I'm not a die-hard one, but I still consider myself a furry.

While I do agree with independence of thought, it doesn't necessarily mean you will be right, and it would be ridiculous for everybody to be right at the same time, so everybody can't just have their own definition and still be the same fandom, or anything specific at all. For example, people calling themselves furries because they look at furry art would bring them into conflict with what I've seen traditionally called a furry. The people who look at art would expect being a furry only goes as far as art, while the traditional furries would say that it's much more. This would lead to the art furries seeing traditional furries as weirdos, and condemning them for it and encouraging others to "not take it so far", changing the cultural tone. This means that it is important to differentiate between a fan of furry, and a furry.

 

[ZeeDog]

Okay, if by observing humans and animals they would appear to act in the same way, what makes you think one is motivated by instinct while the other is motivated by something more special?

The fact that you can introspect and see it happening yourself. Also, because both do a specific action, because it would be beneficial in either species, does not mean that their behaviors are identical.

 

[Draco_2k]

I think it makes sense =3 I'm more of a bird person then my mom, I'm more of a cold-weather person as well, I'm more of an Independent then a Democrat or a Republican....

No, you like birds, cold weather and Independence more. Spell it out.

 

[Nargle]

No, you like birds, cold weather and Independence more. Spell it out.

That's true, but they can all still be used in noun form!

 

[ZeeDog]

Human consciousness is reflex-abstraction-based, just like it is for all other animals with central nervous system.

I suggest brushing up on comparative psychology before arguing about the subject. You know, common sense.

First off, how do you define abstraction?

I looked into that, which brought me to Animal Cognition. Honestly, it seems way controversial and debatable.

 

[Nargle]

it seems way controversial and debatable.

What've we been doing for the past 20 pages? =3 (Actually I dunno how many pages.)

 

[Hakar Kerarmor]

I personally judge by my free-time factor. You know you're a fan of something if you spend more than half of your free time on it.

Oh bother, it appears I am a Warhammer/Dwarf Fortress fan.

 

[Draco_2k]

That's true, but they can all still be used in noun form!

In speech, yes. In a debate, it's a straight road to logical fallacy. It's always a better idea to deal with primary source, anyway.

First off, how do you define abstraction?

Abstraction is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose.[/wiki]

Any relatively organised neural system will operate with abstractions just by analysing, storing and linking together data derived from neural inputs.

I looked into that, which brought me to Animal Cognition. Honestly, it seems way controversial and debatable.

Which is why I said you shouldn't talk about it. Basically, anything you've previously said is a)unscientific; b)completely unsupported; c)highly debatable; d)fallacious.

There is currently nothing to suggest that animal cognition is significantly different from human cognition, especially according to neurobiological/evolutionary/historical/psychological models; that a number of species can form concepts, abstractions, as well as exercise reasoning, emotion, free will and, in certain cases, self-awareness are long-confirmed facts.

Common sense: don't talk about something you know nothing about. Which is why I'm not going to say anything conclusive about animal or human cognition/consciousness here.

Oh bother, it appears I am a Warhammer/Dwarf Fortress fan.

Good for you.

 

[Frasque]

Well, furry isn't an objective description, it's nothing you can quantify or determine by administering a test, there's no Platonic ideal and nothing residing at the Institute of Standards & Technogly to compare it to. It's just a word people made up to describe something subjective, so it can be defined any way you want and no two people will ever be able to agree on a definition.

 

[Draco_2k]

Well, furry isn't an objective description, it's nothing you can quantify or determine by administering a test, there's no Platonic ideal and nothing residing at the Institute of Standards & Technogly to compare it to. It's just a word people made up to describe something subjective, so it can be defined any way you want and no two people will ever be able to agree on a definition.

And what's the point of using that word at all, then?

 

[Frasque]

It means something to the people who are using it, but the word itself is meaningless.

 

[Draco_2k]

It means something to the people who are using it, but the word itself is meaningless.

So basically, it's not a word at all? And all furry sites/art/people have no relevance to one another?

 

[Frasque]

Not certain what you mean by relevance. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm certainly not the smartest person here. I might be missing something.

Just from my experience it seems like everyone has their own idea of what furry means. Just looking on this thread everyone's idea of furry includes different defining characteristic. Aside from involving anthropomorphized animals in some way, there's no other point of contact in their definitions. And it's subjective so no matter what one person strongly beleives, their belief is meaningless. Like maybe for one person you aren't a "real furry" if you don't have a fursona, and maybe for another person you aren't a "real furry" unless you RP. Neither of them are right, but neither of them are wrong.

Anyways, that's only my perspective on the subject.

 

[Draco_2k]

Well, I'm just asking. As you said, different people tend to come up with different definitions - though I personally don't consider this an excuse for bludgeoning the language.

...Aside from involving anthropomorphized animals in some way, there's no other point of contact in their definitions...

Bingo. And that's what "furry" is.

There's a word to define people who think they're an animal ("therians"), people who feel a spiritual connection with one ("furry lifestylers"), and people who like anthros ("furries"). I'd say it's always easier to call out things for what they really are.

Or at least it would be if the word "fan" itself wasn't so ambiguous (basically what you said). I'm probably missing something here.

 

[ZeeDog]

Abstraction is the process or result of generalization by reducing the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, typically in order to retain only information which is relevant for a particular purpose.[/wiki]

-Okay

Any relatively organised neural system will operate with abstractions just by analysing, storing and linking together data derived from neural inputs.

-You would have to explain to what data and what you mean by analyzing it.

Which is why I said you shouldn't talk about it. Basically, anything you've previously said is a)unscientific; b)completely unsupported; c)highly debatable; d)fallacious.

-I'm basing it on casual observation of animals themselves. Anyone can see that animals don't do much that could require independent thought instead of instinct or conditioning.

There is currently nothing to suggest that animal cognition is significantly different from human cognition, especially according to neurobiological/evolutionary/historical/psychological models; that a number of species can form concepts, abstractions, as well as exercise reasoning, emotion, free will and, in certain cases, self-awareness are long-confirmed facts.

-And that's my problem, I see nothing to confirm that in the study of Animal Cognition, not to mention there is some debate as to interpretation of results.

Which is why I'm not going to say anything conclusive about animal or human cognition/consciousness here.

-You just did ^

 

[ZeeDog]

Well, furry isn't an objective description, it's nothing you can quantify or determine by administering a test, there's no Platonic ideal and nothing residing at the Institute of Standards & Technogly to compare it to. It's just a word people made up to describe something subjective, so it can be defined any way you want and no two people will ever be able to agree on a definition.

Of course, terms aren't true in the same way as concretes are. Instead, we analyze how relevant to reality they are and their usefulness and practicality.