What Is Natural - Page 2

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 8:07 PM | Message # 16

Heads

Posts: 13145

Reputation: 2

Offline

Quote (ilikebacon3000)

But matter cant be created or destroyed, therefore, ALL things come from the earth.
Its not the final product that is un-natural, it is the process in which it is made that it is un-natural.

all things do NOT come from the earth. 99.9999999+% of material in existence is found far outside the bounds of earth.

Quote (I_Guy)

Physicists are now realizing.The Law of Conservation of Matter may be wrong.

this is true. i was reading about this somewhere but i can't remember where. and btw, it's best to refer to it as the first law of thermodynamics because it encompasses mass (matter and anti-matter) and energy which, btw, are interchangeable.

Quote (I_Guy)

No the process is natural, just as the process of bees building a bee hive is natural. However the bee hive is less natural than the bees. Just as a skyscraper is less natural than a human. But the process of building a skyscraper is no different then bees building a hive. Make sense?

i disagree. nothing can be "less natural" than something else. i would say that nature is one of the few absolutes that actually exist since really, nature encompasses all that exists, plus this is based on my last comment.

Quote (I_Guy)

Even if the skyscraper was made out of synthetic material, still undergoes a natural process of construction (lifeforms building a social residence). But beings the skyscraper is constructed from synthetic material, it is itself not natural as a product.

again, based on my last comment i simply cannot agree.

erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 8:23 PM | Message # 17

Heads

Posts: 1792

Reputation: 1

Offline

I see both sides of the argument.

1. I see that anything made of matter or energy is natural. We would be nature.

2. I also see distinctions in nature when agents enter the picture that begin to alter the expected course.

If 1. is true then there is no such thing as natural. The concept would require no label.

If 2. is true then we have to draw the distinctions. The difficulty would be accurately calling distinctions.

We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...

Adam

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 8:30 PM | Message # 18

B-Girls

Posts: 3793

Reputation: 5

Offline

Hah some damn geometry shit. If... then....

I JUST EXPLODED INTO RAINBOWS AND LOLLIPOPS!

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 8:37 PM | Message # 19

Heads

Posts: 13145

Reputation: 2

Offline

Quote (I_Guy)

If 1. is true then there is no such thing as natural. The concept would be without the need of a label.

why? labels/words have 2 purposes:

1. describing things that do not yet have labels/words to describe them.
2. describing concepts that are made of a combination of labels/words to make the concept's label less longwinded.

"nature" fit under category 2 because "matter and energy" is long winded in comparison. just like using the term "straight-edge" as opposed to saying "i don't smoke, do drugs or drink".

Quote (I_Guy)

2. I also see distinctions in nature when agents enter the picture that begin to alter the expected natural course.

first of all, i don't see these things being outside of nature's course because we are bodies within nature and even if we have free will, our free will is, as you said in that other thread and i would agree with, probablistically determined by nature, so when we do things based on our free will, we are still acting on something that was determined naturally, especially if we are bodies within nature (we can provide ample evidence that we exist). even if some day human beings attain the ability to synthetically create something that will be able to have free will and it learns how to synthetically create things (and this can go on infinitely), i still hold that no matter to what degree this occurs, that which is created at that level is completely natural because we can provide evidence that it exists and does not defy mathematics by being equal to an imaginary number.

erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 8:39 PM | Message # 20

Heads

Posts: 13145

Reputation: 2

Offline

Quote (Adam)

Hah some damn geometry shit. If... then....

nah, that's philosophy and logic. you haven't yet taken a philosophy or logic class have you? a lot of it is based on simple math and economic theory. when you do take one of those classes (and i highly recommend you do) these types of arguments will become commonplace for you.

erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 8:47 PM | Message # 21

Heads

Posts: 1792

Reputation: 1

Offline

I hold sort of a dualist understanding of this.

I do think that everything is natural. But there is still something unaccounted for that would need further investigation and development.

But if we were to say that EVERYTHING is natural then we can't say that their is a such thing as natural.

By the way I redefined my position on free will on that thread. (not really a change in a position, just a refinement of position)

We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...

Menace

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 8:50 PM | Message # 22

Heads

Posts: 6764

Reputation: 0

Offline

Quote (eboyd)

economic theory.

what does this thread have to do whit economics ?? bitch you tripping I'm gonna get my glove and slap it on your face and provoke to a duel whit guns whit 18th century guns

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 8:58 PM | Message # 23

Heads

Posts: 13145

Reputation: 2

Offline

Quote (I_Guy)

But if we were to say that EVERYTHING is natural then we can't say that their is a such thing as natural.

i see what you are saying, but i think that 'nature' is a term that is more science based and reactionary to the assertion of the 'supernatural' and it serves it's purpose in science while 'everything' is more of a colloquial and descriptive term.

Quote (Menace)

what does this thread have to do whit economics ?? bitch you tripping I'm gonna get my glove and slap it on your face and provoke to a duel whit guns whit 18th century guns

facepalm

logical statements/arguments (ie: "if... then...") are based on economic theory.

erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 9:03 PM | Message # 24

Heads

Posts: 13145

Reputation: 2

Offline

oh, and i forgot to address the other point you made I_Guy. be careful with any kind of dualism. it can often automatically imply something that is beyond scientific explanation and, as history has taught us, there are many things that we think are unexplainable today that will someday be explained by science. maybe someday, for example, we will be able to actually read minds in the sense of actually knowing and understanding what an individual is thinking because we will have scientifically found that even thoughts are material and not conceptual. but even if we don't, it still doesn't change that everything that exists outside of the material world exists in concept and can, in some way, have evidence for it provided.

erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 9:08 PM | Message # 25

Heads

Posts: 1792

Reputation: 1

Offline

Quote (eboyd)

but i think that 'nature' is a term that is more science based and reactionary to the assertion of the 'supernatural'

True.

We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...

Menace

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 9:12 PM | Message # 26

Heads

Posts: 6764

Reputation: 0

Offline

Quote (eboyd)

logical statements/arguments (ie: "if... then...") are based on economic theory.

such arguments are more similar to political philosophy rather then economic theory because economic theory is very straight forward economics even tough people think it's complicated it's not that complicated because it's a straight forward domain

Adam

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 9:13 PM | Message # 27

B-Girls

Posts: 3793

Reputation: 5

Offline

NO THEY ARE NOT.

Ex. If the two legs of the triangle are congruent, then it is isosceles. Learn your SHIT OR DON'T SAY ANYTHING!

I JUST EXPLODED INTO RAINBOWS AND LOLLIPOPS!

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 9:16 PM | Message # 28

Heads

Posts: 1792

Reputation: 1

Offline

If/then applies to anything hypothetical. Anything can harness it for whatever reason. It doesn't "belong" to any specific field.

We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...

Adam

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 9:17 PM | Message # 29

B-Girls

Posts: 3793

Reputation: 5

Offline

C'mon then nigga lets throw down.

I JUST EXPLODED INTO RAINBOWS AND LOLLIPOPS!

Date: Thursday, 29/Oct/09, 10:35 PM | Message # 30

Heads

Posts: 13145

Reputation: 2

Offline

Lol! I'm just saying, from what I learned, logical statements find their origins in economic theory. That is something I learned in my basic philosophy class.