The essence of being a furry

[Frasque]

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.

Which varies from person to person, so there's no One True Definition of furry. It's one of those angels dancing on pinheads things. I guess it's fun to argue about tho since this is like the 5th thread about it I've seen since I joined.

 

[ZeeDog]

Which varies from person to person, so there's no One True Definition of furry. I guess it's fun to argue about tho since this is like the 5th thread about it I've seen since I joined.

There can be different definitions, but it doesn't mean they are all as useful or relevant to reality, and even if you were to say that everyone has different needs or interests, it still wouldn't be practical to any of them if they all have a different definition.

 

[Frasque]

Of course they're useful to the person making the definition, but that doesn't mean it has a basis in reality.

 

[ZeeDog]

Of course they're useful to the person making the definition, but that doesn't mean it has a basis in reality.

It's not useful to anyone if it has no basis in reality.

 

[Draco_2k]

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

Neural perception (data formation) - neural transmission (data transmission) - central neural activity (data analysis) - neural transmission (data transmission) - reaction (data transmission, physical action).

An example of basic centrally processed reflex.

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.

And Earth is flat. I mean, jee, it sure looks like it.

My personal observations suggest the exact opposite, but neither has any merit in discussion.

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.

I'm not a textbook, and I'm not an expert in the field. I simply expect you not to argue about something that you just admitted you know exceptionally little about.

If you want to argue that animal consciousness is significantly different from human one in any number of aspects, the burden of proof is on you since you'll be going against discovered biological similarities in most cases.

I can provide some anecdotal evidence for a few things if you want though, but that's hardly too productive.

You just did ^

You missed the word "conclusive". I know a bunch of stuff on the matter, sure, but I'm not going to say I have undeniable proof to even define what "consciousness" really is, per se.

You can talk about gravity even if you don't know what causes it - but you can't pretend you know the cause right next sentence. Is this a sound enough example?

 

[Frasque]

What would you use a definition of furry for anyways?

 

[Draco_2k]

What would you use a definition of furry for anyways?

Any word has a definition, that's what makes it part of a language in the first place (a form of information transfer).

Would you join this place if it was called BlargAffinity? Well, I would, I guess, but that's besides the point.

 

[Frasque]

But I thought furry just meant you liked anthro animals. Anything else seems like a needless complication.

Oh well, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, I'll let you smart people hash it out.

 

[Draco_2k]

But I thought furry just meant you liked anthro animals. Anything else seems like a needless complication.

Absolutely. Problem is, most of the world loves Mickey Mouse, which makes it about as descriptive as "sometime eats food".

Thus, it's really used in sense of "likes anthros a LOT" - which is fucked, because it doesn't do much to define what "a LOT" is.

 

[ZeeDog]

Neural perception (data formation) - neural transmission (data transmission) - central neural activity (data analysis) - neural transmission (data transmission) - reaction (data transmission, physical action).

An example of basic centrally processed reflex.

And what is the central neural activity exactly?

And Earth is flat. I mean, jee, it sure looks like it.

My personal observations suggest the exact opposite, but neither has any merit in discussion.

Why not?

I'm not a textbook, and I'm not an expert in the field. I simply expect you not to argue about something that you just admitted you know exceptionally little about.

If you want to argue that animal consciousness is significantly different from human one in any number of aspects, the burden of proof is on you since you'll be going against discovered biological similarities in most cases.

I can provide some anecdotal evidence for a few things if you want though, but that's hardly too productive.

You missed the word "conclusive". I know a bunch of stuff on the matter, sure, but I'm not going to say I have undeniable proof to even define what "consciousness" really is, per se.

-I meant about animals having similar minds to ours. You're stating them as a fact when there's some debate over interpretation of results. And sure, give some of the evidence.

You can talk about gravity even if you don't know what causes it - but you can't pretend you know the cause right next sentence. Is this a sound enough example?

But you can theorize, no?

 

[Draco_2k]

And what is the central neural activity exactly?

Neural activity specific to central neural system?..

Why not?

Because it's anecdotal evidence, and neither of us has a chance to verify one another's statements.

I can say that, according to my experience, Earth is flat. I'm sure you realise it's an funny/annoying thing to hear.

I meant about animals having similar minds to ours. You're stating them as a fact when there's some debate over interpretation of results. And sure, give some of the evidence.

Have you studied biology back in the school? If you did, you'd know that we share neurobiological model with a lot of species - most notably, primates, which we are part of. You'd also know that, according to science, our neural activity is what ultimately defines our consciousness. Putting two and two together, we can estimate certain properties of species consciousness by comparing our neural make-up to that of their own - which is what paints those similarities.

For instance, a lot of mammals posses sufficiently advanced cortex, and even if distribution of functions is drastically across it is different from species to species, we can still estimate certain things based on it - others can be verified through experiments.

With all of this, I'd simply like to remind you that burden on proof lies on you in this argument.

But you can theorize, no?

Yes. Though it is basic etiquette that you preclude uncertain statements with "I think".

 

[ZeeDog]

But I thought furry just meant you liked anthro animals. Anything else seems like a needless complication.

Well that's the thing, that's not how I used to see it used, and it covers way too many people that have no real relation, especially to the subculture. The reason why my definition is useful is because it would keep the subculture as an intelligible whole.

Oh well, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, I'll let you smart people hash it out.

Nonsense, everybody should discuss it =3

 

[Draco_2k]

Well that's the thing, that's not how I used to see it used, and it covers way too many people that have no real relation, especially to the subculture. The reason why my definition is useful is because it would keep the subculture as an intelligible whole.

I have a suspicion that it simply attracts people of different interests. Logically, it'd be useful to define those interests separately to clarify the situation and distinguish between those interests.

I believe I already mentioned lifestylers/furries/therians/etc. previously.

 

[ZeeDog]

Neural activity specific to central neural system?..

Yes, but what activity, exactly? Reason, instinct, etc?

Because it's anecdotal evidence, and neither of us has a chance to verify one another's statements.

I can say that, according to my experience, Earth is flat. I'm sure you realise it's an funny/annoying thing to hear.

Simple everyday examples could help us anyway.

Have you studied biology back in the school? If you did, you'd know that we share neurobiological model with a lot of species - most notably, primates, which we are part of. You'd also know that, according to science, our neural activity is what ultimately defines our consciousness. Putting two and two together, we can estimate certain properties of species consciousness by comparing our neural make-up to that of their own - which is what paints those similarities.

For instance, a lot of mammals posses sufficiently advanced cortex, and even if distribution of functions is drastically across it is different from other species, we can still estimate certain things based on it - others can be verified through experiments.

With all of this, I'd simply like to remind you that burden on proof lies on you in this argument.

Well, quite frankly, I'm not making a biological argument, I'm making an epistemological one. For example, we may know the neurology of humans and animals, but science has not yet advanced as to explain how exactly our thinking works, or why or how it happens. But, you can see it happen in your own mind and can make an epistemological argument, based on the directly observable, and reach a plausible explanation as to why animals seem to not grasp ideas like we do, or advance like we do.

Yes. Though it is basic etiquette that you preclude uncertain statements with "I think".

The first thing I said in the topic was to debate anything about what I said.

 

[Draco_2k]

Yes, but what activity, exactly? Reason, instinct, etc?

Can't say anything about "Reason", but, by comparative default, both.

Simple everyday examples could help us anyway.

I've seen that Earth is flat.

Well, quite frankly, I'm not making a biological argument, I'm making an epistemological one. For example, we may know the neurology of humans and animals, but science has not yet advanced as to explain how exactly our thinking works, or why or how it happens. But, you can see it happen in your own mind and can make an epistemological argument, based on the directly observable, and reach a plausible explanation as to why animals seem to not grasp ideas like we do, or advance like we do.

I'm not sure I even want to talk to you after that...

Do you honestly ask me me to dismiss hard scientific facts and instead turn to divine revelation?

The first thing I said in the topic was to debate anything about what I said.

I was asking you not to present your personal guesses as facts.


PS: No, you're not making an epistemological argument. Though I haven't seen your argument here at all - just some claims.

 

[ZeeDog]

I have a suspicion that it simply attracts people of different interests. Logically, it'd be useful to define those interests separately to clarify the situation and distinguish between those interests.

I believe I already mentioned lifestylers/furries/therians/etc. previously.

No, the problem is not really the different interests between people in the fandom, or what I would define as furs, but the problem of people in the fandom not having any relation to the subculture calling themselves furs. I would say the best way to define it would be to group all who anthromorphize themselves as furries(which would make for a cohesive subculture), which would be a group within furry fandom, and while therians would be a group that sees themselves as metaphysically part animal.

 

[Draco_2k]

No, the problem is not really the different interests between people in the fandom, or what I would define as furs, but the problem of people in the fandom not having any relation to the subculture calling themselves furs. I would say the best way to define it would be to group all who anthromorphize themselves as furries(which would make for a cohesive subculture), which would be a group within furry fandom, and while therians would be a group that sees themselves as metaphysically part animal.

"Anthropomprhise themselves"?..

 

[ZeeDog]

Can't say anything about "Reason", but, by comparative default, both.

Would you say you are guided by instinct? Can you tell the difference between them?

I've seen that Earth is flat.

Context is important here. You cannot say anything relevant about the Earth's shape unless you have seen it, but you can say something relevant about the animals you've seen.

I'm not sure I even want to talk to you after that...

Do you honestly ask me me to dismiss hard scientific facts and instead turn to divine revelation?

The immediately observable in one's own mind is divine revelation? I am not talking about anything outside the mind, which would require direct observation, but things within it and how it works. How did we get to science without epistemology?

I was asking you not to present your personal guesses as facts.

Where does it say they are facts?

 

[ZeeDog]

"Anthropomprhise themselves"?..

Fursona, collars, tails, fursuits, meowing, etc

 

[Draco_2k]

Would you say you are guided by instinct? Can you tell the difference between them?

To an extent, of course. Everyone is.

Instinct and Reasoning themselves are two separate, non-exclusive faculties. I'm sure you know how to use Google?..

Context is important here. You cannot say anything relevant about the Earth's shape unless you have seen it, but you can say something relevant about the animals you've seen.

Go outside and see for yourself. Earth is flat. In fact, I'll be amused if you can prove otherwise without referring to any third-part sources.

The immediately observable in one's own mind is divine revelation?

Imagination, technically. Imagining things can be fun (lol furry), but it has zero merit in discussion. Arguments do, however.

I am not talking about anything outside the mind, which would require direct observation, but things within it and how it works. How did we get to science without epistemology?

Philosophy has nothing to do with Science, and never did. What are you trying to say?..

Where does it say they are facts?

You do. Examples:

"Animals are incapable of free will."
"Animals cannot form concepts."
"Animals cannot reason."

The proper format would be: "I don't see how animals would be capable of free will" or, if you don't want to betray your lack of knowledge, "Animals have free will?"

No, these aren't exact quotes - I might have missed something, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Draco_2k]

Fursona, collars, tails, fursuits, meowing, etc

This only leads to more fracturing. Do you associate with your fursona? Do you have spiritual connection with it? Do you just do it for fun? Do you have one or multiple? Do you just like meowing? Do you just like fursuiting? Do you just like collars?

Also, I think we've strayed way off with that other discussion. What was that all about in the first place?

 

[ZeeDog]

This only leads to more fracturing. Do you associate with your fursona? Do you have spiritual connection with it? Do you just do it for fun? Do you have one or multiple? Do you just like meowing? Do you just like fursuiting? Do you just like collars?

Also, I think we've strayed way off with that other discussion. What was that all about in the first place?

No, because all of those are brought together by the general idea of anthropomorphizing yourself. Fursonas, collars, meowing are all just the consequences, not the uniting principle.

 

[Draco_2k]

No, because all of those are brought together by the general idea of anthropomorphizing yourself. Fursonas, collars, meowing are all just the consequences, not the uniting principle.

Then why do you want to fracture the definition of "Furry" itself?

 

[ZeeDog]

To an extent, of course. Everyone is.

Instinct and Reasoning themselves are two separate, non-exclusive faculties. I'm sure you know how to use Google?..

How would you define instinct? And reason?

Go outside and see for yourself. Earth is flat. In fact, I'll be amused if you can prove otherwise without referring to any third-part sources.

But is your knowledge of Earth part, or a whole unit? Is seeing a small part of a planet the same as seeing a whole animal? That's why context is important, because the personal observations admitted into the discussion should be enough to make an intelligible observation. Basically, is this observation enough to make a general conclusion from?

And anyway, I've personally observed the Earth being round. The timezone was different in Italy.

Imagination, technically. Imagining things can be fun (lol furry), but it has zero merit in discussion. Arguments do, however.

By that logic, anything anything observable within the mind has no merit, which would include concepts, which would make science, discussion, even everyday life impossible.

Philosophy has nothing to do with Science, and never did. What are you trying to say?..

Philosophy is the basis for science, as well as anything else in life. For example, your metaphysics would have to be "Universe with order", your epistemology "reason, based on the observable by the senses", your ethics must support it is moral for you to find the truth, and your politics shouldn't prohibit science. A proper philosophy is essential to science, and comes before science.

You do. Examples:

"Animals are incapable of free will."
"Animals cannot form concepts."
"Animals cannot reason."

The proper format would be: "I don't see how animals would be capable of free will" or, if you don't want to betray your lack of knowledge, "Animals have free will?"

No, these aren't exact quotes - I might have missed something, correct me if I'm wrong.

And I said all of it is debatable, as in, it is not a fact, beforehand. Isn't it the same thing?

 

[Draco_2k]

May I ignore this for a moment.

What are we arguing about here, and why? Maybe it would make more sense to go back to original question, whatever it was?