|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18781669 - 08/31/13 03:16 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Did you see the definition of nature that was provided? If so then it should be obvious.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18781675 - 08/31/13 03:18 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
Icelander said: Even though we are objectively part of nature,

This is my standpoint on the issue. So all we do is also part of nature. Nature it seems, within itself, includes the ability to view itself subjectively.
Hardly, I don't even think that's what he meant. Being a part of nature doesn't imply that all we do is a part of nature.
How could it not be. What stands outside of nature? I can think of nothing that does not spring from nature itself. If you want to make the case that nature can act unnaturally then that's your right.
Do you understand the difference between a product of nature, and a product of a product of nature?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix] 2
#18781677 - 08/31/13 03:20 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Or a product of a product of a product of a product of a product of nature?
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18781680 - 08/31/13 03:21 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said:
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
Icelander said: Even though we are objectively part of nature,

This is my standpoint on the issue. So all we do is also part of nature. Nature it seems, within itself, includes the ability to view itself subjectively.
Hardly, I don't even think that's what he meant. Being a part of nature doesn't imply that all we do is a part of nature.
How could it not be. What stands outside of nature? I can think of nothing that does not spring from nature itself. If you want to make the case that nature can act unnaturally then that's your right.
Owners of nature stand outside of nature, even though they are more likely owned by nature in reality, rather than owning anything. There isn't a you to own anything, your that idea that is only an idea, without any tangible existence.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18781687 - 08/31/13 03:23 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: Or a product of a product of a product of a product of a product of nature?
Sure, that's what our machines that makes robots do. And no, robots are not natural. If you call it natural then nature and natural lose all meaning.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18781698 - 08/31/13 03:26 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I do call it natural. It doesn't lose all meaning to me. Everything is natural or nature to me. That's what I've been saying. My pov.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18781702 - 08/31/13 03:27 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So what is the point in the word to you? It would be useless. For the sake of argument, lets say that nature does mean something, how about that.
|
as7859
Stranger
Registered: 08/15/13
Posts: 49
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18781706 - 08/31/13 03:29 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
In my opinion, anything 'we' produce is ultimately produced by nature. We are objects that change our environment and 'do' things, ultimately part of nature; thus, ultimately produced by nature. Is the starch produced by plants not produced by nature and produced by plants alone, as though plants' productions stand outside of nature? The answer is no.
If you argue that anything humans 'do' or 'think' is not produced by nature, then I would ask that at which point along the timeline of the universe did the objects produced by nature suddenly, and seemingly paradoxically, become independent of nature?
Your thinking may be that the moment conscious thought came to be is that point. Consciousness is obviously a tricky subject. But, for me, consciousness (and its products) are as much a part of nature as the sea eroding the coastline.
--------------------
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: as7859]
#18781711 - 08/31/13 03:30 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Well, that is a fallacy of distribution, or hasty generalization.
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,252
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18781724 - 08/31/13 03:34 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said:
Quote:
Rahz said: But it is necessary for everything to be just the way it is. You're talking about a different reality than the one that actually exists. Ironically, this is what you are calling un-natural.
If that were true, then how would there ever be change or anything ever change?
I agree that things in the present couldn't be any different, but not that they are the way they are out of any necessity, and not that the future can't be any different.
Things are the way they are because of the past, which we can't change, however the future is always up for grabs. Most of our ancestors were idiots.
And most people today aren't idiots? 
I myself am an all natural idiot.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "Youβre not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." βAyishat Akanbi
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18781747 - 08/31/13 03:40 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: So what is the point in the word to you? It would be useless. For the sake of argument, lets say that nature does mean something, how about that.
The point is to point to something I'm talking about. Nature is just another way to say "what is". It's more expedient. And it differentiates it from someone saying something is magical. IMO magical doesn't exist and so it's not natural.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18781751 - 08/31/13 03:41 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
" I don't even know what is "going against nature"? What does that mean? Being apart from nature? Being unnatural? Being artificial? What?
If going against nature and unnatural is synonymous then where are you? "
I'm thinking all of the above. unnatural, apart from nature, artificial, against nature.
If it is unnatural for nature to own itself and an owner of nature cannot be natural, then by truly owning nature you would be going against what is natural(laws of physics/cause and effect/life and death). Which as far as I know can never happen. So we aren't ever going against nature(creating an unnatural act) by the subjective game of owning.
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
|
Sse
SaαΉsΔra

Registered: 12/28/12
Posts: 2,769
Loc: Interdependent Co-arising
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18781785 - 08/31/13 03:53 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
but from another context I do think, how could anything be produced unnaturally?
From star dust to now, everything has naturally came about, it has all been a natural flow of the universe. From dust, to conceptual life, to artificial creations, it seems to be the natural progress of existence.
but from other contexts I can see why we call things unnatural or artificial.
It just depends on where I place my point of view
-------------------- "Springs of water welling from the fire" "Life may seem to flee in a moment, but when the mind is freed of the veil of ignorance, and illusion that comes between the mind and the truth, life and death are only opposite sides of the same coin - "water welling from the fire."
"Within us, we carry the world of no-birth and no-death. But we never touch it, because we live only with our notions." -Thich Nhat Hanh instant "Experience always goes beyond ideas"
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Sse]
#18781818 - 08/31/13 04:03 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
True and each of us thinks their pov is superior. It's only natural.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18781852 - 08/31/13 04:12 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I used to think mans actions unnatual. Then over time I noticed how our actions are very much like much or all of the animal kingdom. Then it dawned on me that it was weird that something unnatural could come from the fully natural process of evolution. Or brains evolved in ways allowing us to do what ever it is we do. I did a 180 in my views on the subject.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
as7859
Stranger
Registered: 08/15/13
Posts: 49
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18782093 - 08/31/13 05:12 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
teknix said: Well, that is a fallacy of distribution, or hasty generalization.
There's no fallacy in me giving my definition of nature, which renders your argument unsound. For you, your argument is sound; for me, it is unsound, because I do not accept your second premise nor do I accept your conclusion.
--------------------
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: as7859]
#18782734 - 08/31/13 07:55 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
as7859 said:
Quote:
teknix said: Well, that is a fallacy of distribution, or hasty generalization.
There's no fallacy in me giving my definition of nature, which renders your argument unsound. For you, your argument is sound; for me, it is unsound, because I do not accept your second premise nor do I accept your conclusion.
nope, there is nothing wrong with you making up your own definitions, the fallacy is in the logic used to arrive at a conclusion. You super-impose meanings over one another, which isn't logical. (Like icelander is doing)
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18782773 - 08/31/13 08:04 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
You have yet to show that to anyone's satisfaction but your own it seems.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: Icelander]
#18783255 - 08/31/13 09:55 PM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Show what?
That the definition of nature excludes humans and their creations and that the premise is sound? I don't even know what you are arguing about. Do you?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: To own infers an independence from nature. [Re: teknix]
#18783711 - 09/01/13 12:29 AM (10 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
the fallacy is in the logic used to arrive at a conclusion. You super-impose meanings over one another, which isn't logical. (Like icelander is doing)
I said nothing about your definition. Show me these super imposed meanings and we can chat about it.
Edited by Icelander (09/01/13 12:52 AM)
|
|