User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 58

  1. #31
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    Aren't you a hard determinist?!?!

    Quote Originally Posted by SpankyMcFly View Post
    Yes. I'm not sure I understand what implications you are implying though. Please explain.
    Plenty of people adopt a combination of hard determinism and naturalism to explain the mechanics of the universe, but I would say that predestination counts as a form of determinism, if not hard determinism.

    Yeah, in the eyes of a typical naturalist, everything is strictly governed by causes and effects, and all those things must categorically be natural. To preserve the semantics of this perspective is a struggle because most people see "natural" as the opposite of "synthetic", regardless of their attitudes about spirituality. As a replacement for "natural", I would suggest "non-synthetic". Everyone then can pretty much guess what you're talking about, and you no longer need the term "unnatural" as long as you stick with "synthetic".

    The question posed by the OP arranges a language game - one that I believe is useless for everything but hindering conversation once you know to see things with a sense of "oneness".

  2. #32
    Unapologetic being Evolving Transparency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ESI Fi
    Posts
    3,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    As a replacement for "natural", I would suggest "non-synthetic". Everyone then can pretty much guess what you're talking about, and you no longer need the term "unnatural" as long as you stick with "synthetic".

    The question posed by the OP arranges a language game - one that I believe is useless for everything but hindering conversation once you know to see things with a sense of "oneness".
    Thank you.
    "Once the game is over, the Pawn and the King go back into the same box"

    Freedom isn't free.
    "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ~ Orwell
    I'm that person that embodies pretty much everything that you hate. Might as well get used to it.
    Unapologetically bonding in an uninhibited, propelled manner
    10w12

  3. #33
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    The question posed by the OP arranges a language game - one that I believe is useless for everything but hindering conversation once you know to see things with a sense of "oneness".
    Its utility lies in deciphering an orientation towards the most fundamental interactions of nature, I would say it is useless for anyone without such things in concern.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Nara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    MBTI
    WILD
    Posts
    185

    Default

    scientific determinism != teleology

  5. #35
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by superunknown View Post
    Its utility lies in deciphering an orientation towards the most fundamental interactions of nature, I would say it is useless for anyone without such things in concern.
    Only if your process of deciphering absolutely depends on the semantics.

  6. #36
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Only if your process of deciphering absolutely depends on the semantics.
    IT DOES

    24/7

  7. #37
    ReflecTcelfeR
    Guest

    Default

    I think decay is the perfect example of nature.

    The idea of entropy is quite a nice way of seeing it. As science is this idea of synthesizing, replicating and course towards longevity and extending the usefulness of resources we are going against this energy that is trying to break free. As long as we oppose this process it isn't natural (wherever it may have originated).

    Of course the spontaneity of certain reactions may also need to be taken into account as structure requires energy and life requires a certain level of structure to maintain optimum energy. So, in the end, we have to make an assumption, through relatively certain means, of whether or not nature would have ended up taking this path. Then again, it isn't so much optimizing as we are trying to do such to the objects under speculation.

    This leads us into intervention of some other consciousness, self aware or not. If the being in question is assumed to be unconscious of its actions then we could still lend that to nature, because it is still chance and as such nature will bend naturally to the desire of another creatures attempts at survival. Though, we cannot even separate conscious from unconscious because our being self aware was derived naturally, too.

    So, you could say that no matter what, an attempt at influencing nature to any degree is an act of nature.

    The real issue is thinking we are not a part of nature; which, @Ginkgo pointed out so poignantly.

  8. #38
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    What if no human will exists? Does chance then exist?
    Chance doesn't exist anyway, does it? Isn't it just a convenient lie so we don't have to say "the innumerable variables in play that were too myriad and small for me to follow, resulted in a favourable/unfavourable outcome"
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  9. #39
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Default

    If we replace the words natural and unnatural with intuitive and counter-intuitive, we get:

    We learn to speak intuitively.
    We learn to read and write counter-intuitively.
    And we learn to use the telephone, the radio, the television and the computer intuitively.

    So for 200,000 years we have lived in a spoken culture that is intuitive.
    And for the last 200 years we have lived in a literate culture that is counter-intuitive.
    And we are now living in an electronic culture, that is intuitive.

  10. #40
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Is there anywhere that isn't nature?

Similar Threads

  1. In socionics, it says I am an ENFp2Ne. What does that mean?
    By The Wailing Specter in forum Socionics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-16-2017, 04:26 PM
  2. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-13-2016, 12:19 PM
  3. [E7] Im Type 7 enneagram...Does that mean something?
    By Into It in forum Enneatypes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-13-2008, 03:44 PM
  4. How can a quality become itself if it is already itself?
    By wildcat in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-09-2008, 08:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO