Jway

The words I would use, that I find accurate, are "not man made." If that's too long, the acronym of NMM could work also. As things are for me, and what is logical, natural works. If I need to distinguish for contextual reasons, I'd go with NMM. Agreed. Calling things we don't understand, or are mysteries, the result of "God's work" is effective, yes? But is it logical and observable in our physical world? Would age old distinctions whereby the term "God's work" be something that is (using your word) distasteful? IMO, it is okay to say non man made things are natural. That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about: Man made things are (also) natural. I, author of this thread, am not aware of any exception to this. But if presented with a situation where in a visible environment we have some things man made and some not man made, I would think "not man made" would be accurate terms that are useful, logical, agreeable. I've actually seen on other parts of this forum and elsewhere online, people (I would say generally atheists) make the same point of logic I am touching upon. The other point, the one that says, man made things are not (always) natural shows up to me as somewhere between preposterous and unexamined. Much like the "God's work" claim for those approaching such discussions with logic and what's observable. I think I could go along with idea that what is man made could be called "artificial" if artificial means "replicating what is natural" and that is considered, of itself, natural. But if deemed unnatural to replicate what is natural, that's where I would have questions about the logic at work. No, I don't think use of the word natural in the way you alluded to, "things that are not man made are natural" creates tension. While I do think that use of the word unnatural as applied to things that are man made DOES create tension. I agree. There may be some logical fallacy that I'm not able to name off hand with regards to how you are framing the discussion, but I'm not saying / haven't said what you are alleging is my point. My point is that what is man made is natural. Related to this, and point I am also addressing is the opposite of the simple point, that what man makes is not natural. That to me is instilling confusion within us. It is false to conclude this. It is illogical. People invoke into our understandings, "Man vs. Nature" as if that makes sense. Because why? Because we (that are natural) can manipulate things that might not work out well for other elements of nature? Okay. But nature apart from man does this to. And nature does this to man as well. So "nature vs. nature" seems as equally valid to me as man vs. nature. The SeaWorld killer whale violently attacking and killing the 40 year old female trainer in recent news would be pretty good example of "nature vs. man." Man (or woman) in that case wasn't up to something that would inherently harm the whale, but whale did what killer whales may do, and took the life of element (human) of nature. All process of nature at work in my worldview. Thus nature vs. nature (and even man vs. nature) strikes me as, consistently, (relatively) natural.

Saying things that are artificial (man made) are equal to unnatural would be the equivocation fallacy. As a human, I made a table. Therefore it is unnatural. I'm not saying that all natural things are man made. I'm not equating all man made things to all natural things. What I am saying is akin to all things made/processed by birds are natural. That's the direct version. Or how about, all numbers are symbols? All computers are devices? Man made phenomenon could be (theoretically) more than natural, they are just not excluding of what is natural. Nice try though.

...but me, I only care about the third type.

Not if we disagree on the simple point. As I said in OP, if we all do agree on the simple point, it is end of discussion. If you agree that all man made things are natural, then simple point is agreed upon, this thread likely sees no further posts, and I'll be okay with that. I really will. And is why I will continue to challenge the logic of even dictionary definitions on this topic. Because a dictionary entry says: (natural means) growing without human care; also : not cultivated; this doesn't mean I accept it as logical. I understand there is that connotation. It is an illogical construct. Of this thread? Yes. I feel this isn't "my" definition. I think it is the one that has been passed onto us all along. I linked to Wikipedia. Wikipedia, in it's article, goes further than the simple point. I feel prepared to do that, but have preference for that in another thread (unlikely on this site). I have stated that what I'm getting at is the (illogical) construct that supposes man is or is capable of acting against nature. That could be something that goes just a bit further than the simple point, and which I think is within the context of this thread, though I reserve the right to update this if I find the discussion spinning into things that are essentially arguing for what is not observable, has little physical evidence pertinent to the simple point. For how I approach this forum, and for what I feel works for me on this site, I just assume nail down the simple point. If this thread ends with no disagreement on that simple point, it would please me much. The "other discussions" to be had are not ones I feel all that strongly to do on this site. I can make cases for inside-out manifestation of nature and why supernatural does exist and yadda yadda yadda, but then I get sense of reprimand from going beyond what is observable, evidentiary and plausible within common practices of science. And is outside the purposes of this site. "Take it elsewhere" is what I feel I will be told. So, simple point being made and all agreed upon, while discussion doesn't go further than that, is something that works very well for me.

Are computers / devices indeterministic? I beg to differ. When things are produced in the natural order, I feel they become / are deterministic.

To me, it is not merely a play on words. I actually strongly disagree with that. I believe that constructs whereby man made things are (pre)determined to be unnatural sets up a rather illogical / nonsensical paradigm of "man vs. nature." Man is natural. So, to me, it shows up as preposterous as "nature vs. nature." I wonder who wins? LOL. Man made or man influenced. Both being natural. So, from my perspective, all artificial phenomenon is natural. Since that counters denotation of artificial, then artificial strikes me as inaccurate term. Such devices, I believe, wouldn't exist without intent. My belief being key. Such devices do not exhibit intent. I do not believe intent is observable. It might be deduced, but that to me is getting into another discussion, than the simple point. The evidence for intent, I do not think, is found in the collective physical. If you believe otherwise, please provide definition of intent, and do let me know where you are actually observing that. Thanks for the ongoing dialogue and challenges. -J

No Not if I am the one speaking accurately. I am challenging the logic of man made things as unnatural. What is example of that which is not? Because my experience with this topic has shown me that people wish to debate / discuss the idea that some/all man made things are unnatural. Thus, I am also challenging certain definitions. One's that show up to me as illogical. No, I feel I am intentionally challenging definition of natural that excludes human actions. The confusion, as I observe it, is on those who attempt to remove man's actions from what is observable/logical within collective physical environment. I don't feel even a little bit confused on this. The simple point: All man made phenomena is natural. I am unaware of any exceptions.

If admittedly we don't know why beavers build dams (from beaver perspective), then I think that presumes something in this discussion which is sidetracking. I'm also curious why learned/intended behaviors that result in observable physical phenomena are automatically unnatural for you? This is entering, I believe, side discussion, but if the 'behavior' is deal breaker for you on consideration for 'what is natural,' then I am compelled to challenge the logic. Hoping that you keep things simple. It seems to me that learning and intention are innate behaviors of humans.

From the definition I am working from, I am unaware of any dam (found in the physical world) that is unnatural. All items on this list, I conclude, are natural. I feel around 100% certain in my conclusion. "Our need to understand the affect" is a) philosophically debatable (I tend to agree with this 'need'/desire), and :naughty: am not able to observe this need in the physical. Thus, it enters into a domain not found (observable) in the simplicity of the point I am making. I disagree that "everything is natural" doesn't ALLOW for recognizable distinctions. I spoke to this in OP. There are items that are natural, that are man made, and there are items that are natural that are not man made. "Not man made" seems to me, to allow for recognizable distinctions within the natural order. For me, this is what is at heart of this topic. When REASON speaks of bird nests in relation to nature, I find myself routinely bringing that point up for discussion, the one that says: "bird's nests are mearly a construct of birds that wouldn't exists naturally where there are no birds to build them." We might say, in observing physical phenomena of a environment, this is "bird made" to help distinguish from other properties within that environment. But we don't say (I don't think) that "bird made" is unnatural. While I do think it appears to us that birds demonstrate intention in building nests. Perhaps, it is not 'intention' that is building a bird's nest. Admittedly, we don't know, can't ask birds. But for sake of this discussion, to put it bluntly, I don't care if birds make their nests intentionally or not. I'm dealing with whether or not birds do make them, and are they observable in the physical world? Can we rationally explain the (physical) process that is observed? And where I have used the word "bird" in above paragraph, I feel it could (easily) be replaced with "man" and the logic stands. Really, this is a simple point. Thanks for the thoughtful contribution to this thread.

No problem. Thanks for asking. I can understand reason to have as much clarification on this term as possible. I felt I spoke to it in OP, though admittedly rather indirectly. When I said, I just assume we forbid "supernatural" from this topic, I thought that would help (greatly) narrow the focus down. I also think me dropping mention of "physical world" and "collective physical" are me hinting at definition. Again, this is indirect, and so I just assume go with what Wikipedia has to say. I can't say that the dictionary definition works for me. Partially cause it's not providing just one definition, and partially because I am openly challenging the logic cited in such definitions as "growing without human care; also : not cultivated." If dictionary writers or supporters of that definition wish to back that up logically, I feel very open to that. So here is Wikipedia on Nature/Natural: I am choosing "broadest sense," because I am choosing to keep the point as simple as possible. I truly am. I feel willing to understand subset definitions of natural within this discussion, and have my own desires to go beyond "broadest sense" of the term, but not here (in this thread) and not now. So "phenomena of the physical world" is the simple definition, I am operating from. If you feel (within construct of natural science) that this excludes/precludes something (concept) that you normally use when referring to nature, I welcome that. I would like to add that to the discussion and discuss it rationally/logically. My response to this is whether intent is observable in phenomena of the physical world? If we are (seriously) entertaining whether intent is observable/detectable, I honestly believe we are entering into domain that is outside the simple point, I am putting forth. But I welcome further discussion on that as desired. This would be example of the simplicity in the point I am making. Again, I am asking about phenomena (observable) in the physical world. If man's "irrational mind" is observable, in your estimation, in said physical world, then I ask for that to be shown. I hope this helps clarify the definition that I am working from.

Demonstrate where you see me as anti-science. The claim shows up to be as baseless and intended as insulting. Who's playing the role of troll?

I see war as never necessary. Nor do I see it as inevitable. I see it as desired. Preferential approach to a desired outcome. If it were (truly) necessary, I believe we would engage in it far more often. As in any time we desired a specific outcome. Again, that is if the assumption is that it is necessary. From OP. The "should" question is a deceptive one, IMO. We did fight in them. And they have been justified as 'righteous action' for desired outcome. Bloodshed being a natural/normal aspect of human wars (or battles among animals). I don't believe we ever needed bloodshed. Wars are relatively 'okay' if they are still being fought now or in our past. To me, 'right' and 'wrong' are essentially what we're fighting about. I find the better inquiry to be along lines of how well is this working for us? There is never a time when I believe war is necessary. There is such thing as peaceful revolution, though, as I understand things, it comes through peaceful means. When it is desired through means of attack/defense, it is essentially delaying the inevitable/larger revolution. The one where peace is seen for what it is, rather than attempting to obtain it through what it is not. To me, and I feel this very important, peace in action is not a passive process. It is not "non-war" (only). Peace is received/earned/manifested on a daily basis via countless other ways to "serve community, country, way of life." The way in which service is regarded as "ultimate sacrifice" for one's country continues to show up to me as bold faced lie. And yet, I do realize that this sort assertion can alienate a whole lot of 'patriots.' To lay down one's life (in the body) doesn't necessitate war. If understanding that (true) freedom is not in need of any defense, then the perception of (necessary) sacrifice becomes a misnomer to what is actually occurring.

I just put up my first (multi page, commercial) website this week, but made sure I did at least some homework on SEO type tasking before publishing. All that is in this thread seems like sound advice. The one that stands out to me as most vital, in early going, is establishing ((quality)) links around vast landscape of the Web to your site. Both creates (marketing) buzz and makes search robots very happy/hungry for your site. Adding dynamic/syndicated data is close 2nd, but less applicable if site is static. If at all possible to include blog into the site, that can help.

I've been watching a great deal of curling (men and women's). I think I'm up to 60% of understanding it. But I voted for: Snowboarding and Hockey Shaun White showed me things that I didn't know were humanly possible until watching his gold medal run(s). Dude got the highest score in first run, final round, among all competitors and then beat that score in his 2nd run. Utterly amazing. Team USA's men's hockey win over Canada was an amazing victory. Really fun to watch. It seemed (still does) like Canada is the better team, but the defense in that game won it for USA, and I do think US's goalie (Miller) is better than what Canada is putting up. Btw, outside of the Olympics I barely care about Snowboarding and Hockey. Watched either one a collective of 4 times in past 3 years.

In some discussions? Sure. Show me this dichotomy of which you speak. May I observe it? I like that. Can we have that discussion after this one? Show me the dam and I'll try to provide you a precise explanation. If the dam is man made, it is also natural.