Subject:
|
It's only natural (Was Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:40:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2789 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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?
|
A problem for the other side, I guess, but yes, a problem.
I know what the organic crowd is trying to get at, they’d rather not see
manufactured banana flavourings in their milkshakes for example, and I know what
the “homosexuality isn’t natural” crowd is trying to get at, they’re trying to
argue that only hetero is “natural”
I ran an experiment to see if a different definition formulation than the one
you’re using (which I myself have used in the past to some considerable success,
since I LIKE artificial banana flavour and would prefer not to be denied access
to it) would admit of a measurable and useful distinction between natural and
not... it has a similar problem although it cuts the other way, too much is
excluded.
| |
I’m not clear on this objection, I’m afraid.
|
Helps?
| |
| |
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).
|
Interesting question but not relevant for the sake of trying to determine if
there is a better definition for “natural” as it’s a posit of the proposed
“better” definition...
| |
| |
Things that arise from instinct need to get sorted
|
|
sorted == uk usage for “determined” not specifically a sorting process
| |
| |
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.
|
Seems far fetched, most jugs have letters and numbers embossed in them during
manufacturing...
| |
| |
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!
|
Good, that was what I was trying to do, see if there is any useful alternate
definition for natural that has any bearing here.
PS: for 10 points, can you identify the artist and album of the new subject
line, without refering to cddb or similar?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) 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. (...) Yeah, I guess it's a matter (...) (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
|
|
|
|
