>>64040033Plainly and observably wrong, yet again. Objects - including animals - are ontologically defined by their characteristics and traits, behaviors are an entirely separate category. This can be easily proven by observing any number of entities in nature which do not "do" anything as a result of not having a will, and is further reinforced within the context of biological science by the fact that animals are defined by their morphology, with behavioral patterns being provided and described only AFTER the boundaries of the concept of the given animal itself has already been defined.
If they were the same thing, there would be no reason for English to have distinct terms to describe both what things *are* AND what they *do*. (You) are talking complete nonsense.
