The Grinding Ice
- May 20, 2003
- Reaction score
- North of the Sundering Seas
But I demonstrated that this reasoning is circular. You can't say "possession is different from control because one can possess but not control." That's essentially saying "possession is different from control because they are separate."Tarlanc said:Because it can neither decide where to fly the plane nor sell it to someone. The one that possesses the plane can do these things.
The one that controls can influence the plane. But the one that possesses it can decide how he has to influnece it and can eventually give the plane away. Because of this fact the definition for 'control' and the one for 'possession' have to be different.
Which is the point that I have been supporting.CONTROL DOES NOT REQUIRE CONSCIOUSNESS!!!
Again, this is very debatable, but I no longer see the relevance of debating it.Control requires the ability to react to the environment.
Here again, is a circularity. You said "taking something into control requires consciousness because you cannot unconsciously take it into control." This is like saying "taking control requires consciousness because it is a conscious act," which is actually the wording you used earlier, but this is circular.Taking something into control requires consciousness bcesause you simply cannot unconsciously take something into control. The act of taking something into control requires the will to take it. It requires the ability to decide over the thing taken into control.
Regardless, what relevance does taking control vs. establishing control have to animals and whether they can possess?
Didn't we go through this many times? It requires active influence!I don't agree. The moon influences the tides of the sea. But it does not control the sea. The sun influences the tanning of my skin. But it does not control my skin.
Control is not influence.
But because the autopilot is immediately caused by humans, the autopilot really controls nothing.By not having the wish or the ability to take it into control. The aotopilot has neither the wish nor the ability to take the plane into control. It just controls it.
You said earlier that there is a difference between establishing control and taking control. So the wolf only establishes control over the chicken but the taxi driver takes the taxi into control? The only reason that you have given to differentiate them is saying that taking control requires consciousness because it is conscious, which I said earlier is circular.There is a difference between controlling and taking something into control. A difference which requires a will to overcome. The taxi driver controls the taxi. But he does not take it into control. The taxi belongs to his boss and he brings it back in the evening. But he would be able to decide to steal the taxi. Just drive away with it. By this action he would take it into his own control.
And because this situation is possible we have to differ between 'control' and 'taking into control'.
If we don't, we deny the possibility of this situation.
No, water, air and lava do not move of their own accord. Didn't we go through this? But I have yet to see the necessity of reaction.I disagree. Water, air, lava and many other things move. But they do not control anything. They just influence things. Thus it needs more than movement to control something. It requires the ability to react.
And yet you have not said why taking control requires will, other than using the argument that it requires free will because it is a willful action.Because it is possible for a computer to establish control over a satellite (send pictures, hold it in the orbit, catch sunlight...) but not to take over the satellite (move it at its own will) there must be a difference between these two.
The tissue controls the follicle which controls the hair, so it indirectly controls the hair. Remember the distinction we agreed upon between ultimate and immediate controllers? But your argument earlier was that it received feedback from the controlled. But I see no reason to argue this point further, as I do not see the relevance of whether control involves feedback from the environment.Nope. The tissue controls the follicle. The follicle controls the hair. And the tissue controls the follicle in reaction to informations from the blood, the air and other informations. Thus it also reacts to something. It does not react to the hair but to other information. But this does not oppose the hypothsis that control just requires reaction on environmental information.
Why does the peasant not possess the land? This is yet another circularity. You are saying that possession requires the ability to give the thing away, and then supporting it by saying "the peasant does not possess the land because he cannot give it away." Do you see the circularity?You can possess a piece of land. You give this land to a peasant that he may plant whatever he wants on it and just pay you a share of his income that results from the harvest. This is quite usual.
In this case the peasant takes the land into control. He decides what to plant, he decides when to water and fertilize the land and so on. He is the one in control. But you are still the one that possesses the land.
Thus there must be a difference between 'being in control' and 'possessing'. And the difference is, that the one that possesses the land is the only one allowed to sell it or give it away. The peasant is not allowed to do so. He is just allowed to cultivate it as he wants.
Thus I came to this distinction.
I still do not see any reason why this should be true, because you can't justify the proposition that possession requires the ability to give it away by saying that "possession requires the ability to give it away, and this is justified by the fact that the peasant does not possess the land because he cannot give it away."Possession does not only require the ability to decide what should happen to it or give orders to the one that controls it, it also requires the ability to give it away.
No, the circularity is still present when you say "possession is the ability to give the thing away, and this is supported by the fact that the slave does not possess itself because it can't give itself away." Surely you see this circularity?Another example may be the slaves. Though they are in control of their body they do not possess it. Their owner may sell them or give them away at will. He is the one that possesses them by right. This is a clear indication that there is a difference between 'being in control' and 'possessing'.
No, it's an indirect result. The tire being ripped open is a direct result of the nail being on the street, but you throwing the nail out the window only indirectly causes the ripping of the tire.And the ripping open of the tyre is a direct result of my active throwing of a nail on the street.
But you have not provided reasonable, non-circular support for the proposition that the fact that one of the wolf's actions is unconscious means that in this action he is not taking control.That's right. It does not change the fact that the wolf kills the chicken. But it changes the situation. In one case it is a consciuos act and in the other it is a reflex.