If it Exists does That mean It is Natural?

[Tellenbach]

What is the nature of nature?

moving towards greater entropy with or without anti-entropic systems called life

 

[WALMART]

moving towards greater entropy with or without anti-entropic systems called life

Do you believe in the theories of evolution?

 

[Haven]

Existence is existence and natural is natural, that's why they're different words.

Natural describes a subset of existence.

 

[Tellenbach]

Do you believe in the theories of evolution?

Yes, it's a Si-dom theory. Observe common DNA sequences from the lowest yeast cell to the highest mammal. Observe that the amount of overlap increases as we move up from the simple to the complex and from the different to the similar. The theory is almost a no-brainer.

 

[WALMART]

Yes, it's a Si-dom theory. Observe common DNA sequences from the lowest yeast cell to the highest mammal. Observe that the amount of overlap increases as we move up from the simple to the complex and from the different to the similar. The theory is almost a no-brainer.

I just never saw life as anti-entropic. I saw (see) it as amplifications of entropy, like a ravaging fire.

 

[Evo]

Nature - the whole system of the existence, arrangement, forces, and events of all that is physical.


^ That's my definition. And going by that. Yes.

If you have another definition...then maybe not.

 

[Haven]

Natural means humans have no or very limited control over it.

 

[Qlip]

No, "natural" can mean a lot of things, but if it just means "existing", it's a word that has lost its use to convey anything at all.

 

[Nara]

Natural diamonds vs synthetic or man-made diamonds. One exists in nature; the other is brought into existence by some intelligence. A human turd is considered natural because there's no intelligence behind its creation despite coming from an intelligent being. Modern corn is unnatural because it's created through artificial selection.

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).

But if we see it as a continuum, this dichotomy between natural and unnatural becomes useless (or is still only used to support ethical debates actually).

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).

 

[Mole]

The Spoken, the Literate, and the Electronic Cultures

We learn to speak our language naturally, at home at our mother's knee.

And we learn to read and write unnaturally, compelled by State law to leave home and attend a special institution.

But everything comes around again, and we learn to use the telephone, the radio, the television and the computer naturally at home.

 

[Ginkgo]

Aren't you a hard determinist?!?!

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".

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[WALMART]

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.

 

[Nara]

scientific determinism != teleology

 

[Ginkgo]

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.

 

[WALMART]

Only if your process of deciphering absolutely depends on the semantics.

IT DOES

24/7

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

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, [MENTION=8031]Ginkgo[/MENTION] pointed out so poignantly.

 

[Cellmold]

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"

 

[Mole]

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.

 

[xisnotx]

Is there anywhere that isn't nature?