Nature

[Resha Caner]

So, what is unnatural? Or, is anything unnatural?

 

[Bushido216]

The confusion is the result of applying the term to mean any number of different things. Pick a definition first.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I see natural and physical as being synonymous with the realm of scientific inquiry: anything that can influence us, no matter how far divorced along the causal chain it may be, can be scientifically studied, and, thus, is 'natural'.

The 'supernatural', then, is anything else.

So ghosts, if they exist, are 'natural' because they traditionally influence us in all sorts of ways: they give off light, they lower temperature, they move objects, etc.
They are far more physical and interactive than other things which aren't traditionally considered 'supernatural', such as neutrinos: billions stream through your body every second, and they're so weakly interacting that we need vast vats of heavy water to detect them.

So, ghosts are 'natural' by my all-inclusive definition, since science can study them. Everything is thus either study-able by science, or is irrelevant (since, if science can't study it, then it can't influence us in any way; it may as well not exist).

 

[Resha Caner]

The confusion is the result of applying the term to mean any number of different things. Pick a definition first.

Fair enough. One thread that could be chased is the one proposed by Wiccan. It wasn't my original thought, but it sounds like a fun one, so maybe I'll come back to it.

As for a definition, I'm not sure I can express it clearly in the first try. So, hopefully you don't mind if I work up to it. I was thinking of "unnatural" as somewhat synonomous with "immoral." But, unnatural in the sense that it deviates from the norm. So, for example, there are people who rummage through the garbage for food. It's not the healthiest way to get a meal. Most people are repulsed by the idea, and think it "unnatural." It might be natural for rats to do that, but not people.

So, if one were to take a strictly statistical view of the word that way, it becomes a tautology. That's not what I was after though. I was thinking of it more in terms of when it starts to cross that line from abnormal to immoral. In that sense, is anything unnatural? Is it an acceptable line to follow that progression?

 

[3sigma]

I was thinking of "unnatural" as somewhat synonomous with "immoral."

Then your OP should have asked: “So, what is immoral? Or, is anything immoral? The thread title should have been: Morality.

 

[Bushido216]

The problem with your definition, Resha, is it leads to conclusions like "being honest on your taxes is abnormal and possibly immoral".

 

[quatona]

As for a definition, I'm not sure I can express it clearly in the first try. So, hopefully you don't mind if I work up to it. I was thinking of "unnatural" as somewhat synonomous with "immoral."

...but why heck would we even want make different words from different categories to become synonyms?
I mean, I could also put some effort in making "made of metal" and "shiny" synonyms, but why would I want to do that?

But, unnatural in the sense that it deviates from the norm.

I don´t think the mere fact that something deviates from the norm doesn´t render it immoral. And as far as I have observed, those who operate with this concept don´t apply it consistently, either. They accept a lot of things that deviate from the norm as perfectly moral.

So, for example, there are people who rummage through the garbage for food. It's not the healthiest way to get a meal.

Well, considering the ways that are available to them it might be the healthiest way.

Most people are repulsed by the idea, and think it "unnatural."

I think when people are repulsed by something they better say "I am repulsed by it", rather than trying to rationalize their feelings by using words in unusual definitions.
I fail to see how for a hungry being searching for food wherever you have hope you can find it can be called "unnatural". It´s perfectly natural.

It might be natural for rats to do that, but not people.

So what you actually want to say is something like "people shouldn´t search for food in the garbage", or possibly "people who are hungry should be offered better ways than looking for food in the garbage", without having any rational basis for that judgement. So you simply replace "immoral" by "unnatural" - using the terms as synonyms, but hoping the latter sounds somewhat more objective.
I think you would gain better results by asking yourself: "Which is the core belief of mine that could logically support what I feel?"

Personally, I don´t like the idea that there are people who have to search garbage for food. I wouldn´t like that idea even if it were the norm.

So, if one were to take a strictly statistical view of the word that way, it becomes a tautology. That's not what I was after though. I was thinking of it more in terms of when it starts to cross that line from abnormal to immoral. In that sense, is anything unnatural? Is it an acceptable line to follow that progression?

No, because as I have tried to show above, the reason for assuming something to be "immoral" is never that it deviates from the norm.

 

[UnReAL13]

I see natural and physical as being synonymous with the realm of scientific inquiry: anything that can influence us, no matter how far divorced along the causal chain it may be, can be scientifically studied, and, thus, is 'natural'.

The 'supernatural', then, is anything else.

So ghosts, if they exist, are 'natural' because they traditionally influence us in all sorts of ways: they give off light, they lower temperature, they move objects, etc.
They are far more physical and interactive than other things which aren't traditionally considered 'supernatural', such as neutrinos: billions stream through your body every second, and they're so weakly interacting that we need vast vats of heavy water to detect them.

So, ghosts are 'natural' by my all-inclusive definition, since science can study them. Everything is thus either study-able by science, or is irrelevant (since, if science can't study it, then it can't influence us in any way; it may as well not exist).

I agree with Wiccan Child. Saying that something is "supernatural" implies something that's completely beyond the physical realm, outside of human perception entirely. Something that cannot possibly be observed or measured. It's hard to even say if something "supernatural" is in an actual state of "existence" as everything we know to be "natural" in our universe actually does "exist" in some way, shape or form.

Neutrinos are a good example of what could be the dividing line. 50 trillion of these quantum particles pass through our bodies every second without us realizing, but we can still detect them. Anything detectable by scientific means must be considered "natural".

So it's hard to say what "supernatural" even is if it's impossible to detect, measure and observe such phenomena. I really don't buy into the whole "ghost hunter" craze. I think they're just using equipment that picks up all the latent electro-magnetic interference around an area, then assume that it must be "ghosts". With all the radio-waves and frequencies pulsing through our atmosphere I don't see how they're jumping to such ostentatious conclusions. I imagine that we'll be seeing "Ghost Hunters" on "Myth Busters" really soon, if they haven't covered that subject already.

 

[kliksail]

It is important to note in the primary place that locksmith job should never be regarded as a do-it-yourself job. For that enterprising individuals, it might be attractive to try doing the locksmith job themselves, but this generally ends up in haphazard moves that might even harm the property.

 

[Resha Caner]

The problem with your definition, Resha, is it leads to conclusions like "being honest on your taxes is abnormal and possibly immoral".

If you're assuming the norm is for most people to cheat. I assume that is your purpose in that example. As such, you're right that this example creates a complication for my definition.

I suppose I'm just wondering if the word "unnatural" has any use. To answer that, I first need to put my finger on how people use the word. I've used it myself, but it seems to have this experiential factor to it (ala Polanyi) that defies description. So, any attempt to nail it down renders the word useless.

Maybe a better approach would be to say that "unnatural" things are those things that a society (not an individual) concludes are harmful. Or maybe you have a better definition to offer.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, it was something that interested me. But if others find it dull, we can switch to what Wiccan indicated.

I see natural and physical as being synonymous with the realm of scientific inquiry: anything that can influence us, no matter how far divorced along the causal chain it may be, can be scientifically studied, and, thus, is 'natural'.

The 'supernatural', then, is anything else.

So ghosts, if they exist, are 'natural' because they traditionally influence us in all sorts of ways: they give off light, they lower temperature, they move objects, etc.
They are far more physical and interactive than other things which aren't traditionally considered 'supernatural', such as neutrinos: billions stream through your body every second, and they're so weakly interacting that we need vast vats of heavy water to detect them.

So, ghosts are 'natural' by my all-inclusive definition, since science can study them. Everything is thus either study-able by science, or is irrelevant (since, if science can't study it, then it can't influence us in any way; it may as well not exist).

Though I believe in the Holy Spirit, I don't believe in ghosts. That may be moot. The point is that I accept the supernatural, though I wouldn't label it "unnatural."

I was once asked if the supernatural can interact with the natural in any way that isn't physical. My answer would be no. There's a whole discussion in that.

But, my thoughts were going a different direction. It relates to the oft debated issue: Do we "discover" nature and use science to describe those discoveries, or do we "invent" science and create physical consequences that are "unnatural"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, it was something that interested me. But if others find it dull, we can switch to what Wiccan indicated.

That requires me to pretend I know what I'm talking about...

Though I believe in the Holy Spirit, I don't believe in ghosts. That may be moot.

That the third of the Trinity is also called the Holy Ghost is rather amusing

The point is that I accept the supernatural, though I wouldn't label it "unnatural."

What's the difference?

I was once asked if the supernatural can interact with the natural in any way that isn't physical. My answer would be no. There's a whole discussion in that.

To say the least! What did you and/or the questioner mean by those (decidedly nebulous) terms?

But, my thoughts were going a different direction. It relates to the oft debated issue: Do we "discover" nature and use science to describe those discoveries, or do we "invent" science and create physical consequences that are "unnatural"?

I would say both. Nature exists, regardless of human affairs, and science is how we go about understanding the what, why, how, when, and where, of nature. The 'who' is left to religionists...

So we discovered nature and invented science.

Glasses and computers, which are products of science, aren't unnatural in any but the most useless of idiomatic senses; they're 'unnatural' in that human hands wrought them. Is that really such a useful definition, considering the many holes it has?

 

[Resha Caner]

That the third of the Trinity is also called the Holy Ghost is rather amusing

Mere semantics. Note that I used the term "Holy Spirit." But I suppose a definition is in order. I take the meaning of "ghost" (lower case 'g') to be a spirit that was once part of the essence of a physical living being but has now separated from it, and wanders without body.

Given that in every instance I can find in scripture, the spirit returns to God after death, I don't believe there are disembodied spirits wandering about, rattling their chains, and moaning. Of course there is the witch of Endor incident and the Transfiguration, but those are both instances of God calling for a soul (and I use that word, not spirit, purposefully) to return. The soul does not wander about due to some curse or by its own will.

Then there are angels and demons, yet again something different - but not ghosts.

In the end, I can explain what I mean by such terms, but that is about as far as the discussion will go.

What's the difference?

Given the immoral qualities I attach to the word, I don't associate it with God.

To say the least! What did you and/or the questioner mean by those (decidedly nebulous) terms?

I mean by it (i.e. "supernatural") something that does not require physical manifestation to exist.

Glasses and computers, which are products of science, aren't unnatural in any but the most useless of idiomatic senses; they're 'unnatural' in that human hands wrought them. Is that really such a useful definition, considering the many holes it has?

I would agree with your statement that to call something unnatural is really only an idiom. It is why I wondered if the word has a useful concept behind it. If people are part of nature, then how could anything they do be unnatural? Immoral actions are a different matter, but if unnatural is a mere synonym of that, then its useless. It seems the best I could do is to say it is a societal term for harmful activity.

Anyway, I suppose you would agree then, that it is no fatal flaw that science must correct its past errors as new information is uncovered that better paints the picture.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Mere semantics.[/quo0te]
It was a joke Note that I used the term "Holy Spirit." But I suppose a definition is in order. I take the meaning of "ghost" (lower case 'g') to be a spirit that was once part of the essence of a physical living being but has now separated from it, and wanders without body.

Given that in every instance I can find in scripture, the spirit returns to God after death, I don't believe there are disembodied spirits wandering about, rattling their chains, and moaning. Of course there is the witch of Endor incident and the Transfiguration, but those are both instances of God calling for a soul (and I use that word, not spirit, purposefully) to return. The soul does not wander about due to some curse or by its own will.

Then there are angels and demons, yet again something different - but not ghosts.

In the end, I can explain what I mean by such terms, but that is about as far as the discussion will go.

It seems a bit arbitrary to me; believing in crystal healing and homoeopathy, but scoffing at chiropractic medicine and voodoo. But, then, I suppose a Christian would naturally believe in 'Christian' supernatural things, like God, angels and demons, but not non-Christian supernatural things, like djinn.

Given the immoral qualities I attach to the word, I don't associate it with God.

Mere semantics

I mean by it (i.e. "supernatural") something that does not require physical manifestation to exist.

What constitutes 'physical manifestation'? Is a laser beam physically manifest? Is a 3D hologram of a person a physical manifestation of that person, or just fancy lights? What about a ghost?

I would agree with your statement that to call something unnatural is really only an idiom. It is why I wondered if the word has a useful concept behind it. If people are part of nature, then how could anything they do be unnatural? Immoral actions are a different matter, but if unnatural is a mere synonym of that, then its useless. It seems the best I could do is to say it is a societal term for harmful activity.

Anyway, I suppose you would agree then, that it is no fatal flaw that science must correct its past errors as new information is uncovered that better paints the picture.

Indeed. It's its defining feature and its greatest strength, and it separates it from more unyielding philosophies like religion ('change' is just a cover for the real schism that occurs; 13000 denominations and counting ).

 

[Resha Caner]

It seems a bit arbitrary to me; believing in crystal healing and homoeopathy, but scoffing at chiropractic medicine and voodoo. But, then, I suppose a Christian would naturally believe in 'Christian' supernatural things, like God, angels and demons, but not non-Christian supernatural things, like djinn.

Once upon a time, when I thought reason could provide an answer, I did ponder that question. I've since discarded DesCartes. I can say that flippantly now, but it was painful at the time.

With that said, there are many aspects of that reasoning to which I still cling ... yeah, it's hard to explain it all. Anyway, I don't discount the spiritual experiences others have as much as most Christians do. What I personally think those experiences to be is speculation, so not something I'm inclined to share, as I don't claim to have any proof. Therefore, my "formal" answer is that I simply think of them as misleading. Whether and how "real" they are, is not for me to judge. But based on my interpretation of scripture, those experiences lead one away from God, not toward Him.

Mere semantics

Agreed. I was only clarifying said semantics.

What constitutes 'physical manifestation'? Is a laser beam physically manifest?

Yes.

Is a 3D hologram of a person a physical manifestation of that person, or just fancy lights?

Now you're asking me to interpret the meaning of the manifestation. My interpretation (based on the limited information you've given) is that the hologram is fancy lights, not a person.

What about a ghost?

What about it? You haven't given me an alternate definition to contrast mine, which states it doesn't exist.

Indeed. It's its defining feature and its greatest strength, and it separates it from more unyielding philosophies like religion ('change' is just a cover for the real schism that occurs; 13000 denominations and counting ).

Ah, this is the point I was leading to. You have assumed that nature "is." Therefore, any error is a mere transitory thing not impinging on science. As such, it does not detract from science as you correct those errors.

Now, all I have to do, is substitute the word "I" for "you", "God" for "nature", and "religion" for "science."

I have assumed that God "is." Therefore, any error is a mere transitory thing not impinging on religion. As such, it does not detract from religion as I correct those errors.

If you accept the first, you must accept the second. In other words, I think criticisms of religion always to be a bit duplicitous. It is not religion that is at fault, but the human condition - and such affects all things with which humanity interacts. If that interaction is not a problem for science, neither is it a problem for religion.

Now, you can obviously reject the premise of the statement (i.e., that God "is"). And there is the rub. If we can't say that God "is", can we really say that nature "is?"

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Resha could you rephrase

Ah, this is the point I was leading to. You have assumed that nature "is." Therefore, any error is a mere transitory thing not impinging on science. As such, it does not detract from science as you correct those errors.

Now, all I have to do, is substitute the word "I" for "you", "God" for "nature", and "religion" for "science."

I have assumed that God "is." Therefore, any error is a mere transitory thing not impinging on religion. As such, it does not detract from religion as I correct those errors.

If you accept the first, you must accept the second. In other words, I think criticisms of religion always to be a bit duplicitous. It is not religion that is at fault, but the human condition - and such affects all things with which humanity interacts. If that interaction is not a problem for science, neither is it a problem for religion.

Now, you can obviously reject the premise of the statement (i.e., that God "is"). And there is the rub. If we can't say that God "is", can we really say that nature "is?"

 

[Resha Caner]

Resha could you rephrase

What aspect is causing difficulty?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Once upon a time, when I thought reason could provide an answer, I did ponder that question. I've since discarded DesCartes. I can say that flippantly now, but it was painful at the time.

With that said, there are many aspects of that reasoning to which I still cling ... yeah, it's hard to explain it all. Anyway, I don't discount the spiritual experiences others have as much as most Christians do. What I personally think those experiences to be is speculation, so not something I'm inclined to share, as I don't claim to have any proof. Therefore, my "formal" answer is that I simply think of them as misleading. Whether and how "real" they are, is not for me to judge. But based on my interpretation of scripture, those experiences lead one away from God, not toward Him.

Which makes one wonder why he lets them happen in the first place. But we're getting sidetracked

Now you're asking me to interpret the meaning of the manifestation. My interpretation (based on the limited information you've given) is that the hologram is fancy lights, not a person.

I was trying to narrow it down; it may very well have been that interpretation and meaning are part of what constitutes the supernatural - that it 'means' a person could constitute a physical manifestation of that person, since the medium is quite physical.

But obviously not.

What about it? You haven't given me an alternate definition to contrast mine, which states it doesn't exist.

I didn't ask if you believed in them, I asked if you consider them to be supernatural. I don't believe in them either, but I can still talk about them being 'natural' or 'supernatural'.
And the definition you gave is the same as mine - but you haven't defined them out of existence. You said that, as defined, ghosts contradict scripture. Heathens like myself are free to believe (or disbelieve)

Ah, this is the point I was leading to. You have assumed that nature "is." Therefore, any error is a mere transitory thing not impinging on science. As such, it does not detract from science as you correct those errors.

Correct.

Now, all I have to do, is substitute the word "I" for "you", "God" for "nature", and "religion" for "science."

I have assumed that God "is." Therefore, any error is a mere transitory thing not impinging on religion. As such, it does not detract from religion as I correct those errors.

If you accept the first, you must accept the second. In other words, I think criticisms of religion always to be a bit duplicitous. It is not religion that is at fault, but the human condition - and such affects all things with which humanity interacts. If that interaction is not a problem for science, neither is it a problem for religion.

Now, you can obviously reject the premise of the statement (i.e., that God "is"). And there is the rub. If we can't say that God "is", can we really say that nature "is?"

Yes: it is an epistemological necessity to assume our perceived world is real. As such, things like trees therefore exist. If we label trees as being 'natural' (which I don't think is unreasonable), it follows that the natural exists.

Or think of it this way. I may be just brains in a vat, but even so, whatever 'I' am, that's natural. From there, things like me are natural (trees are natural because they're essentially the same as me, for instance).
I think, therefore I am.
I am natural, therefore, the natural 'is'.

 

[Resha Caner]

Which makes one wonder why he lets them happen in the first place.

My trite answer is that it is necessary for free will.

I didn't ask if you believed in them, I asked if you consider them to be supernatural. I don't believe in them either, but I can still talk about them being 'natural' or 'supernatural'.
And the definition you gave is the same as mine - but you haven't defined them out of existence. You said that, as defined, ghosts contradict scripture. Heathens like myself are free to believe (or disbelieve)

Yes, others are free to believe in ghosts. So, I suppose they consider them supernatural. I consider them imaginary, so it's difficult to talk about their constitution. If you're trying to get at something about the supernatural, it might work better to use an example I believe in, say an angel.

(Edit: Actually, this caused a quirky thought on my part. What happens when two atheists talk about the supernatural?)

Yes: it is an epistemological necessity to assume our perceived world is real. As such, things like trees therefore exist. If we label trees as being 'natural' (which I don't think is unreasonable), it follows that the natural exists.

Or think of it this way. I may be just brains in a vat, but even so, whatever 'I' am, that's natural. From there, things like me are natural (trees are natural because they're essentially the same as me, for instance).
I think, therefore I am.
I am natural, therefore, the natural 'is'.

Hmm. My philosophical readings this Christmas have been interesting, if not a bit frustrating due to the continual demonstration of how useless the great ponderings of Hume, Kant, Hegel, etc. are. Anyway, one of their great struggles seems to have been the inability to shake DesCartes' subjective approach of starting from "I". If one dismisses ontological and cosmological "proofs" of what exists that is other than "I" ... one doesn't get very far.

You define yourself as nature (making yourself nicely pantheistic), but where does it go from there?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What aspect is causing difficulty?

All of it, sorry.