Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:20:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2592 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
|
| |
Here is my opinion, restated:
Nature, by definition, cannot produce or do anything that is unnatural.
Humans are part of nature and are therefore natural. By definition, humans
cannot produce or do anything that is unnatural.
Alternatively, can you propose an argument showing how humans either are
unnatural or can produce/do something that is unnatural?
|
I think your definition makes a lot of sense but the problem is that it
doesn’t give a distinguishing metric. (I’ve used that to great advantage when
arguing against those that argue against “artificial flavours” for example).
|
I may be misunderstanding you, but are you identifying the lack of a point of
distinction (between natural and unnatural or natural and artificial) as the
problem? I’m not clear on this objection, I’m afraid.
| |
That said, what about a definition that distinguishes things that arise from
environmental processes (coal deposits for example) versus things that arise
from intelligent manipulation (bakelite made from coal tar in a chemical
plant for example). (This avoids the question of where intelligence came
from).
|
Yeah, I guess it’s a matter of how inclusive one chooses to be. If one accepts
that intelligence is a part of nature, then my formulation stands. If one
asserts that intelligence is outside of nature, then the distinction between
natural and crafted-by-intelligence is valid, but I’d need to see the evidence
that intelligence is unnatural (or supernatural, or paranatural, or whatever
term is appropriate).
| |
Things that arise from instinct need to get sorted one way or another, so you
have to make a call as to where beaver dams, lion dens and cliff swallow
dwellings fit, for example.
|
Tough call. One might offer as an example the line of small pebbles neatly
organized on the seashore due to the motion of the waves, but this is generally
accepted to happen through purely physical processes (e.g., shape, weight, size,
texture of the stones, etc.) rather than by animal-based sorting. I have
trouble finding a clear point of distinction between instinctive process and
intelligent process, especially considering that I’m hardly an disinterested,
objective assessor!
| |
That definition gives you a pretty good sense of what artificial is. However
it may well sift too far. An organic fruit brought to market via horse drawn
carriage and never refrigerated is nevertheless not “natural” under that
definition. So maybe it’s no use either.
|
On the other side of the coin, a post-human society in the far future might
excavate a field and discover a long-buried plastic jug. With no way to
identify the jug as “artificial,” the post-human excavator might declare it to
have been formed by unknown but natural means.
| |
Not sure that helps at all, after all.
|
I think it does help, because it invites further examination of the claim, which
can only be helpful, IMO!
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) I think your definition makes a lot of sense but the problem is that it doesn't give a distinguishing metric. (I've used that to great advantage when arguing against those that argue against "artificial flavours" for example). That said, what (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
