Should motorcycles be considered "natural"?

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, let's go with your theory. Is anything not "natural"? If so, what and why?

Yes, because its all a product of nature, given that man is a product of nature

 

[Slartibartfast]

Again, not true. See item #2 of this thread for the correct definition of natural.

That is certainly one definition of natural, but pulling out a dictionary for a philosophical question is minor league, so I ignored it and will continue to ignore it.

 

[Dragonfly]

That is certainly one definition of natural, but pulling out a dictionary for a philosophical question is minor league, so I ignored it and will continue to ignore it.

If people want to redefine a word for the sake of a discussion that's fine, but it should be defined from the start of the discussion.

Plastic is not natural.

Gasoline is not natural.

Using common definitions for a word is not minor league if the person trying to make a point hasn't bothered to be clear about what they want to words to mean.

As it's often said, context is everything.

 

[Slartibartfast]

If people want to redefine a word for the sake of a discussion that's fine, but it should be defined from the start of the discussion.

Plastic is not natural.

Gasoline is not natural.

Using common definitions for a word is not minor league if the person trying to make a point hasn't bothered to be clear about what they want to words to mean.

As it's often said, context is everything.

Human processes (including invention) are natural processes and our products are a result of our biological function, given that it is literally impossible to escape our biology (at least at the current level of technology). The differentiation is arbitrary and only serves to make humans think that they are in a separate category from the rest of existence somehow.

 

[Dragonfly]

Human processes (including invention) are natural processes and our products are a result of our biological function, given that it is literally impossible to escape our biology (at least at the current level of technology). The differentiation is arbitrary and only serves to make humans think that they are in a separate category from the rest of existence somehow.

I've watched guys on TV, and on the internet, eat light bulbs. That doesn't mean you can classify light bulbs as food.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I've watched guys on TV, and on the internet, eat light bulbs. That doesn't mean you can classify light bulbs as food.

I would not classify lightbulbs as food.

 

[Dragonfly]

I would not classify lightbulbs as food.

But some people eat them.

People love to eat natural stuff. It's quite the rage.
A huge industry has cropped up in the last few decades over "natural foods".

Are light bulbs natural? Guess it depends on the definition of natural now doesn't it?

Some here would say a light bulb is natural.
People eat natural foods.
People eat light bulbs.
Light bulbs must be food.

 

[Slartibartfast]

But some people eat them.

People love to eat natural stuff. It's quite the rage.
A huge industry has cropped up in the last few decades over "natural foods".

Are light bulbs natural? Guess it depends on the definition of natural now doesn't it?

Some here would say a light bulb is natural.
People eat natural foods.
People eat light bulbs.
Light bulbs must be food.

Natural foods, at least in the market, tends to be a branding consideration more than anything. That is a completely different context than the other discussion.

The other issue is different people are going to not use the word interchangeably when it comes to natural food. One may consider it to be only something very strict like a paleo diet. Another may consider it to be stuff that isn't GMO. Another person might consider the word to be useful for anything that is either a meat or a plant, regardless of any alterations (such as injecting saline or having it freeze dried) or even be so loose with the term that a fig newton is natural to them.

That's why something like the dictionary or other distinctions of the word isn't useful, it really depends on who you are talking to and in what context. With the definition being mutable, it presents an issue. That's why using the dictionary term for something like this is minor league.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Motorcycles are man made, from natural materials...:2razz:

OK, but so are nuclear weapons and roadside dumps. The point is that man made and natural are not synonymous.

 

[Dragonfly]

Natural foods, at least in the market, tends to be a branding consideration more than anything. That is a completely different context than the other discussion.

So context matters?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So context matters?

yup, and also I had further thoughts and will repost them to keep the conversation on the same page:

Natural foods, at least in the market, tends to be a branding consideration more than anything. That is a completely different context than the other discussion.

The other issue is different people are going to not use the word interchangeably when it comes to natural food. One may consider it to be only something very strict like a paleo diet. Another may consider it to be stuff that isn't GMO. Another person might consider the word to be useful for anything that is either a meat or a plant, regardless of any alterations (such as injecting saline or having it freeze dried) or even be so loose with the term that a fig newton is natural to them.

That's why something like the dictionary or other distinctions of the word isn't useful, it really depends on who you are talking to and in what context. With the definition being mutable, it presents an issue. That's why using the dictionary term for something like this is minor league.

So there are two problems

1. context
2. different standards between different people

a potential third problem is that I cannot think of a food that is not altered by man in some way, even if its through selective breeding. So if we are going by a strict definition, perhaps no food could be considered natural.

 

[Dragonfly]

yup, and also I had further thoughts and will repost them to keep the conversation on the same page:



So there are two problems

1. context
2. different standards between different people

a potential third problem is that I cannot think of a food that is not altered by man in some way, even if its through selective breeding. So if we are going by a strict definition, perhaps no food could be considered natural.

So going back to the OP.

Is a motorcycle natural?

Are you changing your answer to that?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So going back to the OP.

Is a motorcycle natural?

Are you changing your answer to that?

My belief is that its natural given that it is the result of human intelligence and ability, both qualities being something that arose in nature, so its just a continuation of nature, but perhaps in a form we are not used to.

So say otherwise, would mean that humans are somehow and in some way not natural or otherwise separate from nature, which there is no evidence for that.

 

[Dragonfly]

My belief is that its natural given that it is the result of human intelligence and ability, both qualities being something that arose in nature, so its just a continuation of nature, but perhaps in a form we are not used to.

So say otherwise, would mean that humans are somehow and in some way not natural or otherwise separate from nature, which there is no evidence for that.

So light bulbs are food.


Just because a natural process is used to create something, doesn't mean the creation then must be classified as natural.

Humans are natural. We can however make/invent unnatural creations. Can't we?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So light bulbs are food.


Just because a natural process is used to create something, doesn't mean the creation then must be classified as natural.

Humans are natural. We can however make/invent unnatural creations. Can't we?

Are we talking about natural things or are we talking about foods?

I clearly stated I do not consider a light bulb to be a food, but it can be considered natural.

You appear to be crossing up two different arguments here. A good example of a natural thing that I would also not consider a food would be lava. Natural and food are two distinct and separate categories that have nothing to do with each other. By your definition of natural, you have four distinct categories that would work. Natural/food (apple) || unnatural/food (cheese) || unnatural/not food (shoes) || natural/not food (lava), so I am not sure the logic of your argument based on that.

Creation/Invention is a natural process, if our brains had never evolved the ability we would not be capable of it or perhaps even conceiving of it. The results of a natural process are natural.

 

[Dragonfly]

Creation/Invention is a natural process, if our brains had never evolved the ability we would not be capable of it or perhaps even conceiving of it. The results of a natural process are natural.

We're going to have to agree that we disagree on that.

One more question if you don't mind.

Can you list off a few things that are "unnatural", as it pertains to the context of this discussion?

Please and thank you.

 

[Slartibartfast]

We're going to have to agree that we disagree on that.

One more question if you don't mind.

Can you list off a few things that are "unnatural", as it pertains to the context of this discussion?

Please and thank you.

God maybe, given that such a being would be supernatural (meaning not fully part of the processes contained within the universe). Perhaps people who have received the holy spirit are not fully natural, i am not sure.

 

[Dragonfly]

God maybe, given that such a being would be supernatural (meaning not fully part of the processes contained within the universe). Perhaps people who have received the holy spirit are not fully natural, i am not sure.

Cheeky. :mrgreen:

I'm sure a few here will have an issue with that comment.

So an unnatural "thing" can create natural "things", but natural "things" can't create unnatural "things"?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Cheeky.

I'm sure a few here will have an issue with that comment.

So an unnatural "thing" can create natural "things", but natural "things" can't create unnatural "things"?

I admit my definition is not conventional and possibly not even socially acceptable

But I guess I see it this way, you have two categories:
1. Natural (thing exists within the context of the rules of the universe (math and physics) and is wholly contained within the universe)
2. Super Natural (thing partially or wholly exists outside the context of the rules of the universe) but can still interact with the universe -- But one interesting and amusing side effect of this line of thought is that there might be such a thing as super-super-natural and beyond (its elephants all the way down! or "how many layers to reality?")

In terms of God, if the universe were a simulation (as an analogy), God would be the programmer and designer of the computer that the program runs out. In terms of that anology, God created the "stuff" that runs the universe or the stuff is the universe itself. We will never quite know how it works because we are unable to step outside the universe and have that observer point of view. God then exists within some sort of context wider than the universe and is either subject to no rules (God can do what God wants with no boundaries beyond those that might be self imposed) or God exists in a universe with its own rules that is subject to those other rules (but from our point of view, it is omnipotence).

We will never know unless God decides to tell us and it probably doesn't even matter anything beyond philosophical musings that have no practical importance. At the end of the day, God is God and I am a Christian so I follow Jesus as best as I can. And honestly, the truth is probably something else entirely, this is just what I can conceive with my limited mind.

But as I see it, it is impossible for something man made to be unnatural since it is subject to the same math and physics that everything else is. Any definition of unnatural is just a social one.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Yes, because its all a product of nature, given that man is a product of nature

Did you mean "no"? Nothing is unnatural?

If that's the case, what's the point of having the word "natural?"

 

[Slartibartfast]

Did you mean "no"? Nothing is unnatural?

If that's the case, what's the point of having the word "natural?"

There is a social use for the word

 

[watsup]

That is certainly one definition of natural, but pulling out a dictionary for a philosophical question is minor league, so I ignored it and will continue to ignore it.

Actually, this is not a “philosophical” argument. It is a reality-based argument. Honest and thoughtful debate requires at least a modicum of objectivity, and that is founded in the proper use of a word in a particular context as normally defined. If anyone is simply allowed to make up any definition that they want for any word, then the result is not “philosophical”, but just gobbledygook, people talking past one another.
The definition that I posted is similar to all the definitions that I looked at and comes from the Oxford dictionary, which is an extremely reliable source. Continue to “ignore” it it’s you wish, but the debate then becomes basically meaningless because it is out of bounds of normal use of the English language.

 

[watsup]

There is a social use for the word

“Social use” means nothing. To repeat, if anybody is simply allowed to define any word in any manner that they want, then the result is just gobbledegook and not thoughtful debate.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, this is not a “philosophical” argument. It is a reality-based argument. Honest and thoughtful debate requires at least a modicum of objectivity, and that is founded in the proper use of a word in a particular context as normally defined. If anyone is simply allowed to make up any definition that they want for any word, then the result is not “philosophical”, but just gobbledygook, people talking past one another.
The definition that I posted is similar to all the definitions that I looked at and comes from the Oxford dictionary, which is an extremely reliable source. Continue to “ignore” it it’s you wish, but the debate then becomes basically meaningless because it is out of bounds of normal use of the English language.

Given that I already outlined how natural can mean different thing to different people, then that shows your definition is just that, your definition. Yet you try to claim objectivity. Interesting.

 

[watsup]

Given that I already outlined how natural can mean different thing to different people, then that shows your definition is just that, your definition. Yet you try to claim objectivity. Interesting.

I already defined objectivity as the standard use of the word in context as shown by definition from a reliable source. If you want to hang your hat on “meaning different things to different people” without using some objective standard, then I will repeat the word that I used to define “debate” about it: Gobbledygook”. If that is how you want to debate, so be it, but it really has no more meaning than just making up definitions of a word without a true source.