Jump to content
Science Forums

Jway

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Jway

  1. 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 w
  2. 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.
  3. 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 cons
  4. Are computers / devices indeterministic? I beg to differ. When things are produced in the natural order, I feel they become / are deterministic.
  5. 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 wit
  6. 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 w
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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 de
  10. 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?
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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 g
  14. 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.
  15. Thanks freeztar for the link to that thread. I read just about every post. I see it as tangential to the point for discussion that I am making. As noted in OP, I just assume forbid the word "supernatural" in this topic. In the other thread, I don't think I could count as many as five posts that don't contain that word. I see that thread making a related point, but I feel this one transcends (or bypasses) the theme of the other one. I don't see it as 'necessary' that natural be a precise term for what I consider to be simple point. I understand that there are several (sub) versions of "natur
  16. As noted elsewhere in this subforum, I have read every single post on this thread. Including the mod entries / pleas for thread responders to go back to the original point. Which is what I intend to do. I would say I'm totally grooving with this approach to the discussion. But at same time, in OP and then this 2nd post by author, I felt like there was a personification of Darwin's theory occurring. It kept striking me (not that this is bad) as an over simplification. With that said, my understanding is that it (life as we know it/experience it) is all evolution / creation inside-out.
  17. Hey all. Been awhile since I posted on Hypography. Hope you are all doing well. I, for some reason, am compelled to preface my topic, with some commentary. First, I came here tonight with this topic in mind, and felt Philosophy of Science was most appropriate place. In clicking on that subforum, I saw this thread. I read all 10 pages, checked out at least a paragraph from every post. It seems very much related to what I wish to present / discuss, but the more I read, the more it came off as (I think) making closer to the opposite of the point I am making. I then did a search on the term "nat
  18. Turtle, your use of emoticons is very good IMO. DD - I zoomed right on in the word "automatically" in inquiry you raised. With that in mind, I would say it does imply the engine is demonstrating free will. If - the car does NOT automatically open the throttle of the carburetor whenever it is close to stalling - then this too would be demonstration of free will. And IMO, this response is much deeper than most of will comprehend.
  19. Wiki entry, quoted earlier (minus Michael commentary): I lean toward the latter in my understandings. But I perceive myself and all you (bodies) as experiencing the former. Thus, I think both are plausible. I've read every post in this thread. Just kidding. I'm not that geeky about this topic. But, I was reading this page (79), then went back to 77, and was grooving on what AnssiH was saying in #764. There are times (irony intended) where the prediction value of a time-model is simply of no value to me. I would say, much of my time / experience in human land, it is of value to me. I
  20. Thanks Turtle and freeztar. I thought there was correlation between my posting earlier and you adding positive rep, as it was a little too coincidental. At any rate, it's nice to get the bump from anyone who has the power and who can be a bit light hearted about things.
  21. Water on the moon seems like scientific news of astronomical proportions. Pun intended. But this is huge. And can change the way we explore space, and how we structure our long term missions.
  22. My preference is to discuss it out here because it seems like community issue, more than say issue with just an isolated few. But if it means my rep is at stake, then PM might be better route. Since you are saying not to put too much weight in the rep system, then I just assume have discussion out here. Having posts that skirt with site rules, and how that leads to -4000 points seems lopsided. I've reviewed by 110+ posts to date, and I think I found 5 to 10 that were in vein of "religious." I use your word, because I see that is how I am perceived, but IMO, it is not religious speak that is
  23. I said weekly. In last 6 months, it's been higher like 2 to 4 times weekly. But recently, it's closer to just over once a week. IMO, it matters. It directly correlates to energy (along with diet). And without a routine or gameplan for exercise, it can compound factors like stress. That may not be scientific (can't back this claim up off hand), but I notice that if I go say 10 days without exercise, and have stress from anything, my mind-body will store that stuff in ways that equal unhealthy and dis-ease. But then again, it can become motivator for me to get back on the exercise regime.
  24. I meant to bring this up last time I visited this site. This is issue that confuses me, and really is something I likely just desire simple clarification on. I've read most every post in this thread. I think arkain101's post comes closest to my attitude with rep system. Part of my 'bottom line' is I don't feel welcome on this site. The other part is, there are plenty of other places online that I enjoy that it doesn't matter that much to me how welcome I am here. Admittedly, if my rep was much higher here, I would likely come back, but say I was green (rather than red), I still don't see
×
×
  • Create New...