We already have that word: non-anthropogenic. Literally “Not created by man”. There’s a reason why scientists use this term rather than “natural”. Non-anthropogenic means something. Natural means nothing.
It rolls off the tongue so easily. I don’t think it’ll find wide use though.
If beavers and birds want to invent words to distinguish the world between nature and beaver and bird artifacts that’s their right. If an advanced alien race wants to lump us all together as they harvest the Earth for resources that’s fine too. Language is a tool for those who use it.
If you cannot tell the difference between a particle accelerator and a termite mound, I don’t think there can be any possible purpose in this discussion. I’ve already “agreed to disagree” with John Mace, and am content to extend you the same courtesy.
Yes, well. If people stumble over words of more than four syllables I don’t think a debate is the place for them. The latest episode of The Kardashian maybe? 
Precisely.
And to be of use a word has to have meaning. As this thread demonstrates, Nature has no meaning beyond what the individual decides. As such it’s not a useful part of a toolkit for rational discussion. It’s very poetic and all, but it’s not useful in any discussion that needs to deal with objective reality.
Man’s dependence on physical nature to survive should already be a logical answer. Even if he is able to escape the bonds of Earth, he still needs to re-create it to survive. The diving bell spider does it in the wild.
I don’t think anybody suggested they couldn’t distinguish them did they? So this is a rather blatant strawman in addition to a rather nasty ad hominem.
The question actually put to you is why a termite mound, constructed of materials never found in absence of the builders, with evaporative air conditioning, a complex ecology of over 100 species, food stores, farms and temperature regulated nurseries, is “natural”, but a particle accelerator is “unnatural”?
I don’t think it’s escaped anyone’s notice that you never actually answered that question.
Which presumably means you are unable to answer what appears to be a rather simple question.
You aren’t agreeing to disagree with me.
I never asked how to tell the difference between a termite mound an a particle accelerator, which is what you have chosen to disagree with.
My actual position you haven’t even attempted to address, much less disagree with.
[quote=“Blake, post:86, topic:49227”]
The accelerator is the product of conscious, aware, intelligent, conceptual design. The termite mound is not. The particle accelerator is comprehended by its creators. The termite mound is not.
Also, straw man back at you: I never used the word “unnatural” in relation to the particle accelerator.
[quote=“Trinopus, post:87, topic:49227”]
So your definition of “artificial” is exactly synonymous with “consciously constructed”. Is that correct?
Nope.
My definition of artificial is, itself, artificial. I’ve acknowledged that it is an arbitrary definition, like that between a novel and a novelette, or between California and Oregon. I use agriculture and control of fire as my boundary, but there is no scientific reason this boundary is better than anyone else’s.
It’s a difference that serves to preserve the meaning of the word. Otherwise, the U.S. Insterstate Highway System is a natural feature of the landscape, and mankind’s natural range of habitats includes the moon. These conclusions are absurd.
It’s a little like the difference between organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry. The actual boundary was demolished ages ago, but science still maintains those two fields in practice, and colleges still teach the two courses. The boundary has a useful purpose.
So, don’t waste your time trying to pin me down. Your gotcha games are predicated on incorrect assumptions. And don’t try to argue that my definitions are “circular,” either, because they aren’t. They’re arbitrary, like many other definitions we use every day in this world.
(To astronomers, the “next day” begins at noon, not at midnight. Do you have any means by which you can prove that they are wrong?)
I think we can all agree that if we think of the original question in terms of the human body, then yes it would part of nature as it is subject to all of the natural laws.
As for the question “Are we more than the sum of our parts?”, I don’t believe so. Assigning a theoretical or theological soul to ourselves, in my opinion, is something that I believe is done to somehow try to elevate ourselves and separate us from the rest of the natural world.
Maybe elevating ourselves helps us feel like we’re somehow connected to something greater than ourselves. That we are important beings with a purpose, not just animals on a ball of dust hurtling it’s way through a solar system towards an unknown fate.
And maybe separating ourselves from the rest of nature is basically just an ego boost, to make us feel better about who we are and what decisions we make.
These go somewhat in line with the Christian beliefs that 1) there is a personal god that loves and cares for his children and would never let anything bad happen to us as a species (such as a giant meteor hitting us and wiping us out) and 2) that God made the entire universe and everything in it just for us.
After all, the human psyche is a fragile thing. There’s a big bad world out there, full of terrifying things both big and small that could end anyone’s life in a moment. If you were a caveman and you had to step outside into this dangerous world every day to find food, which would you rather believe, that there’s something/someone out there who’s got your back? Or that we’re essentially alone and we have to fend for ourselves?
Skip forward thousands of years later and the danger is still out there, as much as we try to shield ourselves from it (physically with buildings and mentally with theology and philosophy). So if you need to believe you have a soul, that you’re part of something greater than yourself, who am I to try to take that away from you? Someone who wants to believe in something is going to believe, no matter what evidence or lack thereof is presented.
As for the arguments earlier in this thread about free will meaning we have/don’t have a soul… It seems a little easy to point to something observable and state that it is evidence for something non-observable and then say that we can’t prove that it doesn’t exist. So easy that people have been doing it for centuries for everything from Gods to Leprechauns. Does this mean that it’s possible that supernatural being(s) exist? Or that some part of us is supernatural? Sure, anything real or imaginary is possible. Does it mean it’s probable? Not without a substantial amount of testable evidence.
I’ll close this rather lengthy post with once of my favorite quotes by Carl Sagan - ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.
Granted. Also note I am not claiming that our artificial constructs and accomplishments violate any natural laws. They are simply things that cannot exist in nature without the contrivance of complicated manufacturing processes, and that those processes do not occur in nature.
I think that our civilization is, in fact, very much large than the sum of its parts. Eight billion people, each acting singly, couldn’t build as much as an apartment complex, let alone a space program.
Well, as for our purpose, that’s the joy of our intelligence: we get to choose. We can make choices regarding our own destiny, which no other animal in existence can do.
Also, please note that I am not engaged in “elevating” anything. I’m drawing a line between naturally-occurring things and things that can only exist by the intervention of intelligent design. (Yikes! There’s an unfortunate phrase!)
Human industry is not “unnatural.” It does, however, allow us to create “artificial” objects.
Just take the phrase “Artificial Reef,” something well understood in oceanography. The linguistic absolutists, in insisting that all of mankind’s accomplishments “exist in nature” would render the term meaningless. All reefs are natural reefs; there is no such thing as an artificial reef.
In practice, there certainly are.
The absolutists would reduce the word to meaninglessness. Beethoven, in his Choral Fantasy, can claim that “Man is native to the skies,” but, in practice, it requires the artifice of balloons and aircraft for us to arrive in this part of our habitat.
Special pleading is about rhetoric, not semantics. It is not circular to define “natural” as “non-anthropogenic”. That is one of the common meanings of the word, to distinguish from “artificial”. It has a lot of other meanings, too, as do many common words.
OK, that’s a good word. As it turns out, it’s exactly what most people mean when they use the word “natural”.
If the only use of “natural” is to distinguish from “supernatural”, then what should “unnatural” or “artificial” mean?
In any case, this is just a semantic argument. You can use the word to mean whatever you want; just don’t expect people to understand what you’re saying.
Bingo.