If it Exists does That mean It is Natural?

[hacbad macbar]

No.

 

[Typh0n]

I really think there's something about our vision of what is natural or not which is rooted in Descartes philosophy and the idea that humans are "masters and possessors of nature", so that we're beings separated from nature and able to have an effect on it through our intelligence (with a divine origin). Therefore, artefacts produced by humans are viewed as artifical (vs natural).

Yeah, you're probably right, thats where it seems to have its roots. My concept of the human mind is based on something similar to Descartes though, so I dont see it as being wrong.

And as it was said, in a pantheist view, everything that could exist is natural (but, ok, this argument was also advanced by Sade lol).

Actually what Sade said was that life is an enemy to nature, he encouraged the destruction of life through behaviors we today have labelled "sadistic"(because they especially implied sexual pain caused on others). He viewed life and nature as two opposite poles, and we can either encourage life by helping or benfitting others, which would hinder nature, or we could help nature by harming life.

 

[Geonat]

What if no human will exists? Does chance then exist?

Chance is that which cannot be explained simpler.

 

[Geonat]

Chance is that which cannot be explained simpler.

And human will is just a matter of interpretation

Edit: You cannot break the laws of physics (ok, an axiom, but pretty well-founded and economic) so:
If you want free will you may just proclaim that "I *want to* follow the laws of physics".
If you don't want free will then it is equally valid to say "I *have to* follow the laws of physics".

 

[johnnyyukon]

Yeah, anything that exists is natural.

Although people commonly use it to describe something not caused/created by humans. I think maybe we subconsciously separate ourselves from everything else (nature). But that's an illusion.

^^^^^^^^This.

If it's within the UNIVERSE it's natural, much less, within Earth. Humans do like to think we are separate, we are not. If you look at us as a species objectively, we're more like bacteria or parasites, and Earth is our host (we weren't always like this, civilization has evolved (devolved?) us to this point). And bacteria is definitely natural.

However, natural or unnatural can be used relatively speaking. Even outside of humans, animals behave in unnatural ways like the Tsavo Man-Eaters, a pair of lions in Africa in the late 1800s that killed humans for sport. Initial reports was like 135 people, but I think they boiled it down to 35ish, but still, freaking serial killer lions (actually kind of awesome).

 

[Typh0n]

If it's within the UNIVERSE it's natural, much less, within Earth. Humans do like to think we are separate, we are not.

Unfounded statement.

 

[johnnyyukon]

If it's within the UNIVERSE it's natural, much less, within Earth. Humans do like to think we are separate, we are not.

Unfounded statement.

Are you saying we are separate or above the rest of the world, or other animals?

Entities of destruction and total annihilation, cold, and unfathomable exist in the Universe. Black holes. The Earth is in the same Universe, we are on the Earth. Is a black hole evil? No, but I guess you could call it that. Or that kind of energy. But that's really just a word, evil.

Bears often eat their prey while they're still alive. Is that unnatural? Don't think so. Does it seem cruel and horrible to many of us? Yeah, probably.

Humans aren't any different. In fact, we're much MUCH worse (if you really want something founded for that, the Holocaust).

 

[Typh0n]

Are you saying we are separate or above the rest of the world, or other animals?

Entities of destruction and total annihilation, cold, and unfathomable exist in the Universe. Black holes. The Earth is in the same Universe, we are on the Earth. Is a black hole evil? No, but I guess you could call it that. Or that kind of energy. But that's really just a word, evil.

Bears often eat their prey while they're still alive. Is that unnatural? Don't think so. Does it seem cruel and horrible to many of us? Yeah, probably.

Humans aren't any different. In fact, we're much MUCH worse (if you really want something founded for that, the Holocaust).

We are animals. Theres no denying that.

But is that all we are? Or is there something more to humans(as well as higher mammals) that sets us apart from the universe? I wouldnt say that we are two different beings, one spiritual, the other physical, but we are a body-soul complex. You're talking about external behaviors only, which is only the external, not the internal, aspect of sentient life on Earth. Id say we're a mix of both.

Ill expound on this; all phenomena of nature, we take in through our senses, are external, or natural. This means all perceived phenomena. Perhaps thats why so many people think that we are part of nature, too; we have an external body and our consciousness identifies wirth the extent of that body(it cant extend beyond the body); we see ourselves as phenomena.

But its not so simple. In order for their to be order in the universe, all phenomena must be perceived understood, classified, interpreted, etc. Thats what we do when we use our minds. Our mind, at least our conscious ego is what connects phenomena to each other so they make sense in the known world we call nature. Since the mind is what orders phenomena, but cannot be perceived(it is doing the perceiving), it cannot be a phenomena, hence it stands apart from phenomena.

I also believe theres more to the mind than simply the ego, theres also what Freud termed the id. The id is like a memory we just cant access. It can seen as both a Higher Self and lower Self, since it guides our actions despite the fact we aerent aware of its presence.

Why are we so horrible(or have the potential to be)? Thats our potential. The holocaust is a realization of that negative potential. But also have the potential to be very beneficial and noble on a mass scale.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

We are animals. Theres no denying that.

But is that all we are? Or is there something more to humans(as well as higher mammals) that sets us apart from the universe? I wouldnt say that we are two different beings, one spiritual, the other physical, but we are a body-soul complex. You're talking about external behaviors only, which is only the external, not the internal, aspect of sentient life on Earth. Id say we're a mix of both.

Ill expound on this; all phenomena of nature, we take in through our senses, are external, or natural. This means all perceived phenomena. Perhaps thats why so many people think that we are part of nature, too; we have an external body and our consciousness identifies wirth the extent of that body(it cant extend beyond the body); we see ourselves as phenomena.

But its not so simple. In order for their to be order in the universe, all phenomena must be perceived understood, classified, interpreted, etc. Thats what we do when we use our minds. Our mind, at least our conscious ego is what connects phenomena to each other so they make sense in the known world we call nature. Since the mind is what orders phenomena, but cannot be perceived(it is doing the perceiving), it cannot be a phenomena, hence it stands apart from phenomena.

I also believe theres more to the mind than simply the ego, theres also what Freud termed the id. The id is like a memory we just cant access. It can seen as both a Higher Self and lower Self, since it guides our actions despite the fact we aerent aware of its presence.

Why are we so horrible(or have the potential to be)? Thats our potential. The holocaust is a realization of that negative potential. But also have the potential to be very beneficial and noble on a mass scale.

I'm not sure if I follow. You're saying that human beings are outside of nature or unnatural, and therefore the things we do are unnatural. Did I get it?

 

[johnnyyukon]

But is that all we are? Or is there something more to humans(as well as higher mammals) that sets us apart from the universe?

Not that I can tell. How can we be apart from the Universe when we're in it?

I wouldnt say that we are two different beings, one spiritual, the other physical, but we are a body-soul complex.

No disagreement there.

You're talking about external behaviors only, which is only the external, not the internal, aspect of sentient life on Earth. Id say we're a mix of both.

I may not have explicitly mentioned internal aspects, but I agree we're a mix. As above, So below. As within, so without.

we have an external body and our consciousness identifies wirth the extent of that body(it cant extend beyond the body)

Disagree. I've had plenty of out of body experiences. Done enough psychedelics to melt physical reality and dream most nights.

Why are we so horrible(or have the potential to be)? Thats our potential. The holocaust is a realization of that negative potential. But also have the potential to be very beneficial and noble on a mass scale.

Agree there too.

 

[Typh0n]

I'm not sure if I follow. You're saying that human beings are outside of nature or unnatural, and therefore the things we do are unnatural. Did I get it?

Noooooooot exatcly. : p

Indeed, I beleive the human ego is outside of nature(though I prefer non-natural to unnatural as the latter has slightly pejorative connotations).

As far as the things we do are concerned, its tricky. I was responding to jonnyyukon who said that our actions are worse than that of a bear, for instance. I think the reason for that is simply our technology. Our technology, like our arts, is something we create and make. Since our minds, which could be considered the mold of our actions, are non-natural, yet the "clay" in which we create technology and art(the physical world) is natural, you have somewhat of an in-between when it commes to our actions being natural or non-natural. The dead sea scrolls(for example) are a creation of man, they mean something to the mind of humans, and yet they are part of the physical world too.

 

[Typh0n]

Not that I can tell. How can we be apart from the Universe when we're in it?

We arent fully apart from it, our body is part of the universe.

 

[johnnyyukon]

I was responding to jonnyyukon who said that our actions are worse than that of a bear, for instance. I think the reason for that is simply our technology.

I know what you mean, but it's more than that. It's our ability for abstract thought that makes us worse (and potentially better). We can project into the future and vividly imagine things that don't exist, or don't exist yet.

When you imagine a new form of government called Democracy, it's swell. When you imagine that your race is somehow superior, it's not swell. Even worse, like you said, you can imagine and implement the technology and weapons and organization needed to fulfill those ideals.

Here's Rust Cohle's take: " I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law."

I agree with the first part to a point, but don't think that it's against natural law. There's mutations in nature and it's natural. Abnormal from the norm, perhaps.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

Noooooooot exatcly. : p

Indeed, I beleive the human ego is outside of nature(though I prefer non-natural to unnatural as the latter has slightly pejorative connotations).

As far as the things we do are concerned, its tricky. I was responding to jonnyyukon who said that our actions are worse than that of a bear, for instance. I think the reason for that is simply our technology. Our technology, like our arts, is something we create and make. Since our minds, which could be considered the mold of our actions, are non-natural, yet the "clay" in which we create technology and art(the physical world) is natural, you have somewhat of an in-between when it commes to our actions being natural or non-natural. The dead sea scrolls(for example) are a creation of man, they mean something to the mind of humans, and yet they are part of the physical world too.

This makes sense from a spiritual perspective, that God would've given us something divine that separates us from nature. But if we evolved from monkeys, then the ego would've been an evolutionary product of nature, making it natural and by extension, its actions on nature would be natural.

But I understand what you're saying. Our physical being, what can seen and interact with the world is natural, but the parts unseen responsible for our actions, our ego is not.

 

[Typh0n]

I know what you mean, but it's more than that. It's our ability for abstract thought that makes us worse (and potentially better). We can project into the future and vividly imagine things that don't exist, or don't exist yet.

When you imagine a new form of government called Democracy, it's swell. When you imagine that your race is somehow superior, it's not swell. Even worse, like you said, you can imagine and implement the technology and weapons and organization needed to fulfill those ideals.

Here's Rust Cohle's take: " I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law."

I agree with the first part to a point, but don't think that it's against natural law. There's mutations in nature and it's natural. Abnormal from the norm, perhaps.

Thats one definately cynical and slightly nihilistic way of looking at it, I think. Im not saying that what you're expressing wrong, and it reminds me of the film 2001: a space odyssey, where an entity from outer space(embodied by the monolith) appears to mankind at different times. Each time it does, mankind, "progresses", technologically, at least. This can be seen as our evolution, a darkly cynical take on human "progress". In the end, the main character encounters the monolith and is reincarnated(?) into an unborn baby. Kubrick said people were free to speculate on the meaning of 2001 though. On the video section of my profile, I added a passage from the film called "the dawn of man" under the heading "have YOU encountered the monolith". I think its kinda cool to speculate about the meaning of our evolution as humans, and while I dont share in your cynicism, I understand that there alot to be cynical about, depending on what you wanna focus your attention on, I guess.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Thats one definately cynical and slightly nihilistic way of looking at it, I think. Im not saying that what you're expressing wrong, and it reminds me of the film 2001: a space odyssey, where an entity from outer space(embodied by the monolith) appears to mankind at different times. Each time it does, mankind, "progresses", technologically, at least. This can be seen as our evolution, a darkly cynical take on human "progress". In the end, the main character encounters the monolith and is reincarnated(?) into an unborn baby. Kubrick said people were free to speculate on the meaning of 2001 though. On the video section of my profile, I added a passage from the film under the heading "have YOU encountered the monolith". I think its kinda cool to speculate about the meaning of our evolution as humans, and while I dont share in your cynicism, I understand that there alot to be cynical about, depending on what you wanna focus your attention on, I guess.

I'm also in a cynical phase, haha. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Did you watch True Detective? I'm not NEARLY as nihilistic as Rust Cohle (his young daughter is killed, and wife divorces him over the tragedy), but his partner is a family man and has found meaning and peace in that (at the beginning of the season anyway). Even if I was in a happy, things are swell phase (which I do know) if I chose to think about it, I'd still see humanity as a whole as self-destructive, but would not really focus on it. And really, I don't dwell on it now. Just in this thread, I'm using cold logic.

 

[Typh0n]

I'm also in a cynical phase, haha. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. Did you watch True Detective? I'm not NEARLY as nihilistic as Rust Cohle (his young daughter is killed, and wife divorces him over the tragedy), but his partner is a family man and has found meaning and peace in that (at the beginning of the season anyway). Even if I was in a happy, things are swell phase (which I do know) if I chose to think about it, I'd still see humanity as a whole as self-destructive, but would not really focus on it. And really, I don't dwell on it now. Just in this thread, I'm using cold logic.

No, I dont think it airs out here in Belgium. I could probably get it if I had a satellite dish with 300 channels(with 250 porn channels ). TV is pretty limited here, we dont get most of the American shows(at least not at the time when they air in America).

 

[Mole]

We arent fully apart from it, our body is part of the universe.

We are enormously successful animals because we create meaning, and because we are inter-subjective, we share meaning. This has made us the most powerful animal on the planet.

And with great power comes great responsibity. But unfortunately we do not take reponsibility for our ability to create and share meaning, rather we think supernatual beings create meaning.