Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment
- Thread starter sushil yadav
- Start date
Exactly. Why isn't this thread in pseudoscience?
Chicken little, constantly warning of the impending collapse of the sky. All due to an acorn falling on her head. The end result? Her and all her followers eaten by a fox.
And the rest (well over a hundred flights) went off without a hitch.
So far he has not tried.
[No answer yet...]
So, what's the point of the word 'unnatural' ?
Everything is apparently perfectly natural..
The point of the word "unnatural" is to con someone into thinking the same way as the person assigning the label.
It's often useful to use the term to distinguish between something that simply seemed to occur, or something that someone seemed to create or do. IMO, it's not really accurate, as humans are part of natural processes. It can be useful, but in the context of "the big picture" the term "unnatural" is a con, IMO.
So language is unnatural. All forms of things resultant of purposeful thought are unnatural?
Dogs are sentient and therefore their activities are unnatural?
All human activity, ever, is completely unnatural.
Sure.
Pardon, but as you're aware, definitions are sticky, generally annoying issues.
Again, I think what you're getting at is a useful definition, but only in certain contexts. When you discuss something for instance, on a global scale - it can sometimes be useful to attempt to discern human influence vs. other stuff. I think though, that humans are naturally occurring beings and by extension, all human activity is indeed, perfectly natural. To assert otherwise IMO, is to separate humanity from nature - which I find contradictory, excepting of course the sky-daddy type theories which of course neither of us particularly dig.
You can use the word however you want of course, but I contend it's wrong to view humanity as unnatural, and I think many misleading thoughts follow from that assumption (or conclusion or whatever).
Dogs are sentient and therefore their activities are unnatural?
All human activity, ever, is completely unnatural.
Sure.
Pardon, but as you're aware, definitions are sticky, generally annoying issues.
Again, I think what you're getting at is a useful definition, but only in certain contexts. When you discuss something for instance, on a global scale - it can sometimes be useful to attempt to discern human influence vs. other stuff. I think though, that humans are naturally occurring beings and by extension, all human activity is indeed, perfectly natural. To assert otherwise IMO, is to separate humanity from nature - which I find contradictory, excepting of course the sky-daddy type theories which of course neither of us particularly dig.
You can use the word however you want of course, but I contend it's wrong to view humanity as unnatural, and I think many misleading thoughts follow from that assumption (or conclusion or whatever).
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Who said anything about activity ? I'm talking about physical things.
Depends on how you look at it.
If you think of "sentience" as loosely analogous to a really complicated dust storm...
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
A dust storm doesn't have senses.
Come on Wes.. you're stretching it quite a bit here. Are you really prepared to define dust storms as sentient beings ? lol
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I didn't see this before.
Of course my definition is only useful in certain contexts. But I think the context of this thread is one that the definition applies to.
One can most likely spot constructions of sentient beings anywhere in the universe, regardless of environment. Barring purposely disguised or camouflaged constructions of course.
If you see a cellphone lying on the ground in a dense and desolate rain forest you know a sentient being left it there. You know it did not form without intervention from a sentient being. You don't start looking for a cellphone tree..
I realize the superficial resemblance to intelligent design, which is perhaps unfortunate.. lol
Hey I said "really complicated"... lol. Give me a break.
In time you'll see what I mean, yungin.
And I don't necessarily think it so, I'm just saying I think it's a valid and perhaps interesting point.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Hey I said "really complicated"... lol. Give me a break.
In time you'll see what I mean, yungin.
And I don't necessarily think it so, I'm just saying I think it's a valid and perhaps interesting point.
Ok, Wes. I guess I'll just have to wait until I'm old and wise like you then
Ok, Wes. I guess I'll just have to wait until I'm old and wise like you then
pfffffffffft.
whatever.
lol.
just hit 40 recently, pardon for the age-crack.
nah man for real though:
isn't thought a natural process?
i mean, unless there's something 'supernatural' about it, which I don't think possible. unknown, not-understood, perhaps.. but exactly natural. A natural process like a river cutting a canyon, except much more complicated and funky. yeah that's right, funky.
i agree that i wouldn't look for a cell-phone tree based on my world-view. nor would anyone i can... ok i know a few freaks who might think it fun to look just to have fun pretending silly things (possibly including myself, but I'd probably scoff instead of cutting loose like a child). surely I've stumbled across a drunken lunatic who'd put some effort into finding that damned tree.
but yeah.
weak, half-assed proof:
humans are natural.
thought is a natural process in humans.
thought determines human interaction with their environment. (and if not then they're not really sentient as I see it).
therefore,
human activity is natural.
how is that not check-mate?
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Because it doesn't touch on human-made objects.
human-made objects are a byproduct of human activity. kind of like a plant blossom or a pile of shit. Figured you could walk it that far alone, but okay there you go.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
human-made objects are a byproduct of human activity. kind of like a plant blossom or a pile of shit. Figured you could walk it that far alone, but okay there you go.
Doesn't compute. Not according to my definition at least.
Plant blossom forms without intervention from a sentient being. The shit pile, well.. that can be debated about.. lol
Sure but they only form for that type of plant. Others have other blossoms, etc.
Cell phones only form as a by-product of human though which you implicitly agreed above was naturally human behavior. Some build cell phones, some build houses, some talk shit on the internet. Ahem. Erm... okay so different people blossom in multiple different ways but it's at least roughly analogous.
Is sentience somehow separate from nature? It defies the natural order?
It must by the notion of nature be part of it. If it is in the universe, it is part of the universe, the universe is nature. Thassit.
Unless you find sentience super or un - natural or perhaps "not of this universe" which seems profoundly unlikely, you should yield.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Sentience of the kind humans possess certainly gives rise to unnatural objects.
And cell phones don't form, by the way. They are constructed.
I think "sentience" is irrelevant in that it is part of nature, and again that setting it apart as "unnatural" falsely skews perspective, dangerously even. Does sentience somehow magically depart from nature itself? I don't think so, and don't think it possible, as I define nature as basically "all that actually is, regardless of and including opinion".