What isn't natural?

That's instinct, not conscious decisions.When we make conscious decisions because we lack the instincts for those abilities, is where I would draw the line between natural and unnatural.Do you think the evoltion of dogs is due to natural selection? Or can we call that unnatural (or artificial) selection? If not dogs, what about bananas? Cone snails know nothing of fractals, and need not to create them. Fractals hapen naturally like water forming into snowflakes. Instincts. Their tools are natural. My computer is not (because it was consciously made)Well, maybe not the chimps, they seem to be making conscious decisions. But that just moves their tools into the unnatural category. According to the "Everything is Natural" definition, sure. But not according to how define it. And my way is better I think that anything that people consciously invent is unnatural. Nature didn't make them.It could be argued that belief in gods arrose without conscious decision, or rather naturally and the only things that you consider unnatural, I could consider natural. No they didn't From Message 8The definition should be anthropocentric. We are the ones who have created the distiction, made up a word for it, and are talking about the definition of the word and where to draw the line. Why shouldn't it be based on our perspective?I think my definition is better than the "Everything is Natural" definition because it is more functional. When everything is natural, and there is nowhere to draw the line, then there was no point in making the distinction in the first place.We have a natural/artificial distinction. If everything is natural, then how would you define artificial? Your definition includes the crow's tool, and snail's shell as artificial?Where do you draw the line?Since we as humans are drawing the line, it might as well revolve around us.I have a hard time including consciousness into the natural category. Nature seems to be unconscious. (Well, maybe that is just my problem but I have no problem with human arrogance.)

You didn't answer my question: That would've helped me respond. I explained why in Message 23. Because the software was consciously made, while the genetics arrose naturally.Hey, wait a minute. Not so fast, buster. There's no such thing as a digital genetic code. We figured that out in Message 90, where your response to this point will be on topic.Just look at the way the word natural is used in normal conversation. Would you say that software arrose naturally? That implies that it arrose from nature as opposed to man-made, It is the "normal" way the word is defined.If you want to include everything in the definition of natural, then the word loses meaning in that sense. But, like Percy said, we shouldn't really jump from one to another.I think it is better to use it in the way that everybody else is using it, in that the distinction between natural and artificial is man-made or not. It is possible, but I doubt it. If you don't have a response to the points I brought up and can't argue against them, then so be it. Why question the possibility of another derivation than the one I provided? Could it be that your opinions derive from your preconceived notions? Doesn't everybody's?That's a pretty weak response, Hoot. I'm disapponted in you. I'm gonna go ahead and say no. Nature is unconscious and we are not. We can control nature, too.We are the ones who made the distinction and came up with the word in the first place, why shouldn't the word be defined around us. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this topic.

Thanks Percy, but I realize this. I'm trying to explain why I think he should be using my definition instead of his.

Well Hoot, you ignored most of my questions and points.I don't have much time tonight, I should be able to reply tomorrow, hopefully.But I will answer some of your questions so then you can go back and answer mine too, ok? The wolf was following his instincts and the man was consciously trying to change his future. Sure I could. Artificial is still natural in the sense that its not supernatural. No, just the dictionary definition. Religion has nothing to do with it. Yes, it is not supernatural.

Cool, case closed. But that is only unnatural, by definition. We, and our consciousness, are still natural in the sense that they aren't supernutral. We're just not natural in the sense that our decision are made by nature, or that what we can create can not come about by nature alone. Well I think that is a shitty definition. It didn't even define the word. Besides, it just looks like mumbo-jumbo to me, it doesn't make much sense. How is the mind bicameral? Couldn't you just replace "the 'voice of God'" with "'nature'" and have pretty much something describing my definition? Artificial is unnatural by definition. Its a way of describing the distinction between things that we have made versus things that nature has made (without us). Religions exist.Also, I could consider the belief in gods natural because it naturally evolved in our species. We didn't create religions by conscious decision, IMO.

Ontology What do you mean when you say that something does not exist ontologically? Sounds like worthless mumbo-jumbo to me.

What is empirical being-ness? What is the empirical being-ness of a rock? No, that is magic.

Rocks can't talk. So basically you're saying that you don't know. I guess that means that ontology is, in fact, bullshit. Are you equating being-ness with physical properties? Why not just say "physical properties"? Prayers and hexes don't have physical properties, so..... what? Now what the hell are you getting on about?This:

quote:

---

that the evolutionary domain he calls “Bios” is seamless and continuous with its corollary “Technos,” both of which are characterized by a kind of emergent property he calls “hive mind.”

---

is certainly mumbo-jumbo. I have no idea. But I think its bologna so I don't really care. What do YOU think is so special about it?From Message 32Do you think that the only things that can exist are those that exist ontologically?But wait.... you don't even know what ontological means. Oh well, try to answer anyways please.