Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:31:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2588 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > 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.
This is sort of how I feel. Of course it does seem to make unnatural a less
useful term.
Even supernatural is a difficult term, though it's use to separate God from
God's creation (assuming you accept the existence of a creator god, or a
creator god as a concept) is somewhat useful.
> > 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).
We used to call these imitation flavors, which is probably a much better
term since all it implies is that the flavor is not the original, but an
attempt to copy the original. We could use artificial to imply that tool use
was part of the creation of the object, in which case a house is an
artificial thing.
> 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).
>
> 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.
One distinction that could be made is tool use as I mentioned above. Of
course one could argue that these are all examples of tool creation. I could
define a tool as something that is used to make something else. Well, then
each stick in the beaver dam is a tool. Also, what about tools used to
harvest? So probably a better definition of a tool is something that is used
to reduce the energy necessary to perform some task, or something used to
increase leverage to perform some task. So now an animal burrow is a tool,
designed to reduce the energy necessary to rest (conserving heat, and
reducing the need to "stand watch").
> 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.
>
> Not sure that helps at all, after all.
I think ultimately the problem arises from our need to set ourselves above
nature, and for some people, as God's special creation.
Frank
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
