|
What Is Natural
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 10:41 PM | Message # 46 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
This should have been done long ago. Definition #8 from dictionary.com: "having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc."
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 10:43 PM | Message # 47 |
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (eboyd) There's that which is natural, that which doesn't exist,
First: How can there be that which doesn't exist? What is the essence of "that." Second: By how you look at it, natural cannot be a concept. Imagine if everything was one color. Could we then call it a color? Imagine if everything was the same temperature 100 degrees. Could we then call it hot? In the same way, if everything is natural, how can we give it a concept? It is a non-sum.
All I'm saying is that either the concept of natural cannot exist, or it does exist, but the only way it can exist is if things are more natural than others. Now in the other direction, you have to admit that a clump of matter floating through space since the big bang has some kind of difference when compared to a bag of cheetos. We have to be able to label that difference, and if the conception of "natural" can't do it then we have to find something that can.
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...
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 10:49 PM | Message # 48 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
This is why I say there needs to be a different term used instead of natural. Because there has to be a word that takes the place of the common use of natural if we are going to define natural as "everything that exists." The word natural is commonly misused. So what would be the term that can take its place and be properly used.
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...
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 11:07 PM | Message # 49 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
We have concepts of plenty of things that don't exist. God, unicorns, fairies, perpetual motion machines, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, martians, etc., and we even have concepts for things that might exist but we have no proof for yet like extra dimensions, a multiverse, bubble universes, etc. Natural is a label for everything that doesn't fit into this category. Just because it doesn't exist doesn't mean we cannot perceive it.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 11:15 PM | Message # 50 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (eboyd) We have concepts of plenty of things that don't exist. God, unicorns, fairies, perpetual motion machines, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, martians, etc.,
Well then before humans came around to conceptualize, we can say that there was no such thing as non-existence. Thus the division of existence and nonexistence, natural and unnatural cannot be.
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...
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Thursday, 19/Nov/09, 11:56 PM | Message # 51 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
I cannot say whether or not animals can conceptualize, especially things they have no reason to believe exist, but it is true that prior to the existence of animals it is impossible for non-existence to have been conceptualized, but that goes for anything that is conceptual. We cannot have a concept for something when no minds are present. So in that case, we can disregard all of the concepts we have for the origins of the universe that we will someday find are fallacious, right? Maybe string theory is entirely incorrect, so that concept cannot be. Concepts like God cannot be, so terms like atheism are just as arbitrary as the term natural, right?
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Friday, 20/Nov/09, 0:50 AM | Message # 52 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (eboyd) so terms like atheism are just as arbitrary as the term natural, right?
Yes. But I see what your saying about concepts. By my previous statement we could render all things nonexistent because nothing would seem to exist until it is conceptualized. But it is here where our language and method of analysis leads us into circles and puzzles. I understand the use of such concepts and terms, but when we are trying to get down to the "truth" we have to give up such instruments. I know it seems absurd, but to really determine the real nature of things, our method of analyzing in terms of concepts simply restrains us from seeing clearly. I think our biggest obstacle for understanding reality is our insufficient language. This language puts us into a mode of thinking that is blind to certain complexities because this mode of thinking tries to describe complexities that the mode and method is incompatible with. We have to remember that we are crawling out of ignorance and insufficient methods of analysis as we progress through time. So basically, I think any potential analysis will only be actualized up to a certain point, as much as our shitty language allows. I think our method of communication must evolve before our analysis can ever evolve into anything substantial. That would mean either our language would have to change or we would have to replace language with something else more efficient. This would also improve our mode of thinking because our language defines how we contemplate. We think in terms of words in our "head." For instance, imagine if telepathy were possible. Imagine how clearly we could communicate in such a case. But imagine this telepathy without words, instead replaced by something we of course cannot imagine. Imagine how much better our analysis would be, and as a result, our grasp. I think this is why Nietzsche went insane. He understood the colossal insurmountability of comprehending or explaining reality. Think hard and long ---Result: SNAP. ^A bit off topic but had to say. Basically I just think much of our ways of thinking is barricaded by insufficient thinking ability. It's hard to describe, its more like an intuition that one gets when we encounter subjects like we have discussed here.
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...
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Friday, 20/Nov/09, 1:51 AM | Message # 53 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
After reevaluation I realize that only absolute concepts suffer this all or nothing criteria. There are only a few on the list. Absolute concepts such as natural fall into this category. Because we are using an all or nothing criteria, either everything is natural or nothing is. I say that there is an in between. You are saying that everything is, i.e. a positive absolute. When it comes to things like this, only here does it become a non sum. Because by saying that all is, is to say that none is. Blah blah you get this point. So my point is that only concepts like this suffer this problem. Also true, the concept of atheism shouldn't exists because there is no god because we can pretty much prove that, just as we can prove that everything is natural. But the terms are needless. But concepts such as happy, or big, or powerful, or new are safe from this problem because they are not absolute. So the point is that not all concepts are effected by my previous conclusion, only absolute concepts negate themselves.
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...
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Friday, 20/Nov/09, 3:31 AM | Message # 54 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
I have nothing further to say in that regard as I agree with you. However, I will add that if theism didn't exist, resulting in the lack of the necessity of the term atheism, I would consider myself a rationalist, and upon further evaluation, that term in itself is arbitrary and assumes that there are people out there thinking irrationally as well; if this were a world where God had not been conceived there would be no atheists, and if this was a world where everyone were thinking rationally, there would be no rationalists. We could apply this to many concepts and it becomes a slippery slope to the point where practically all words, specifically those that define a concept such as natural, theism, etc., become completely arbitrary. This is because language is, in itself, arbitrary if you allow it to become such. We do not need it. We can communicate without it. However, symbols that describe objects, concepts, actions and connections (ie words) make communication far easier, and that is why I see terms such as atheism, natural, etc., as no different from any other word and I therefore have no problem using them in the way that I do because they serve a purpose of more quickly and accurately articulating something. In these cases, that something just happens to be in response to claims rather than being claims themselves. As for language, I too recognize the inefficiency language has to assist in the accurate articulation of concepts, objects, actions, etc., but I recognize that the languages we use are currently the best that we have and so though we need people, just as in philosophy and science, to be there to try to negate the ideas presented in language to help allow for language reform on occasion, I feel we need to still rely on what we have currently because it is the best we have.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| Acekat00o |
Date: Saturday, 21/Nov/09, 3:55 PM | Message # 55 |
Heads
Posts: 1642
|
Everything is natural ,absolutely natural , computers are the combination of our creativity and inteligence(inherited from our large brain due to evolution((wich is natural)) ) and materials found everywhere on earth (and posibly the universe) so therefore everything is natural , computers are a part ov evolution ,considering them not natural is considering evolution and intelligence not natural
Graffiti
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Sunday, 22/Nov/09, 1:45 AM | Message # 56 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Quote (Acekat00o) Everything is natural ,absolutely natural , computers are the combination of our creativity and inteligence(inherited from our large brain due to evolution((wich is natural)) ) and materials found everywhere on earth (and posibly the universe) so therefore everything is natural , computers are a part ov evolution ,considering them not natural is considering evolution and intelligence not natural i agree, but how is a computer part of evolution???? i think you are skipping a step here.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| Acekat00o |
Date: Sunday, 22/Nov/09, 3:33 AM | Message # 57 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1642
|
Quote (eboyd) i agree, but how is a computer part of evolution????
because the computer is the product of intelligence and inteligence is the product of evolution ,that simple
Graffiti
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Sunday, 22/Nov/09, 3:35 AM | Message # 58 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
A computer may be the result of a species' evolution. But the computer itself is not a part of evolution, that's a stretch. But what should a person say when they say "a computer is not natural." We all know what they mean, so what should they say to make it more valid?
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...
|
|
|
|
| Acekat00o |
Date: Sunday, 22/Nov/09, 3:42 AM | Message # 59 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1642
|
Quote (I_Guy) But the computer itself is not a part of evolution
evolution is something that changes our initial state into something better , you cant contradict me when i say that computers changed the way of living in something better(my opinion)
Graffiti
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Sunday, 22/Nov/09, 3:52 AM | Message # 60 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Quote (Acekat00o) evolution is something that changes our initial state into something better , you cant contradict me when i say that computers changed the way of living in something better(my opinion)
Evolution involves natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, etc. A computer is not found within any of that. A computer is simply the product of a creature that has undergone evolution. The computer is outside the specifics of evolution. Quote (Acekat00o) evolution is something that changes our initial state into something better
Btw, not necessarily. It doesn't always create something better. It doesn't create better or worse. By our perception it does, but actually, it only celebrates characteristics that are suitable or convenient for environments.
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...
|
|
|
|
