Unsubstantiated utter nonsense! If you thought you could disprove my syllogism you'd be doing it already instead of just trying to save face.
Refusal to Accept Conspiracy
- Thread starter matthew809
- Start date
- Status
Unsubstantiated utter nonsense! If you thought you could disprove my syllogism you'd be doing it already instead of just trying to save face.
"Syllogism" my ass. You are nothing but a troll with fancy words.
Unsubstantiated utter nonsense! - Ugh... it gets tiring doing that after a while, doesn't it?
Now quit it with the ad homs and passive aggressiveness and tell me what you think is wrong with my syllogism and why.
The subject of this thread is not your ego masturbation. Read back your initial objections and answers.
For this very matter, I defined human affairs as unnatural. Because they didn't born out of "nature". They are evolved within human culture and social interactions. Since the carriers and symbols, as well as very logic of these interactions are not "natural" (you can not find examples of them in nature), human affairs do not belong to what you or anybody else calls "nature".
I asked you above, I'll ask again: Show me single human affair, even if it looks like natural -such as breeding, eating, etc.- which is not baked, redefined, contaminated and/or formulated by distinct (not in terms of distinct style, in terms of entire structure of representation) human ways. I'm not even asking the central unnatural linguistic or logical human organisations such as conceptualization, institutions and various types or organisations.
And where do human culture and social interactions come from? Nature.
But I can find them in nature. We are all in nature as we are typing this messages right now. Are you really going to argue that we're in another dimension outside of the earth and the universe? That seems to be your only possible route with this kind of argument.
The only meaning the word "artificial" has to me is as a warning sign not to eat something.
No, there is nothing in the universe that is unnatural because everything is born from nature. What is there in the universe that is outside of nature?
Why would you not eat it, since it's natural?
I wonder how many other people have this strange view that doesn't accord with science or the dictionary.
In nature there are poisons everywhere. Cobra poison is natural but I doubt you'd want to have it for breakfast...
The burden of proof is on you to prove that humans are unnatural. It is your belief, not mine.
So you equate "artificial" with "poisonous".
How very strange.
Do you do the same for "artificial fibres"? And refuse to wear, say, nylon, in case it kills you?
You persist in repeating this lie.
It is not a claim I or Baftan have ever made.
Reported again for misrepresentation.
If you can't be intelligent you could, at the very least, attempt to be honest.
No I don't equate artificial with poisonous... I don't believe anything is "artificial" in its strictest sense. All I meant by my statement was that food that generally advertises "artificial" flavors or substitutes or whatever are usually not very good for you.
Baftan did assert that human affairs are unnatural which leads one to assume that he also thinks humans are unnatural. If he only asserted that it is just human affairs that are unnatural and not humans (which creates its own can of worms) then that really doesn't affect my point at all. So what's your point?
But can't actually give any valid reason...
Then you're not reading what he said.
Doesn't affect your point?
But human affairs/ society etc are not regarded as natural by science. They are man-made artefacts.
I repeat:
It was pretty much a joke, the word doesn't mean anything to me.
Whether science regards them as natural or not is beside the point. The fact is, it is a belief, and one which you have yet to support.
Prove that human affairs/society are unnatural.
Let's say unrecognisable origins comes from nature. But if we stick to our subject of conspiracy just for the sake of satisfying both the quest of "how much natural we are" and the topic itself, I'll give you this example: Take a chimpanzee group and imagine the level of conspiracy might be going on among group members. For a starter, we (humans) define what is conspiracy and/or what is not. Yet, let's say we can still find the traces of "conspiracy" among chimpanzees since they are also social mammals like us. They practice some natural deception tactics among group members (without having the knowledge of what they are doing; some call this "instinct") for the sake of attention diversion, grab a piece of meat or steal females from other chimps; mainly very straightforward and practical reasons. How can we compare these deception tactics to substantially and categorically different, sophisticated and complex structure of human conspiracy methods and objects? We are talking about secret business deals, governing international politics, playing with consents and perceptions of masses through mass media and politics. On what level you can compare humans and their nearest social cousins?
I don't deny the fact that our very existence in many levels (being a social mammals, being consist of atoms, molecules, etc.) depends on nature. Yet this doesn't explain how we (humans) are unrecognisably different than the rest of nature. I find it difficult to claim that "computers are coming from ancient Greek civilization" for a good reason: Yes, maybe many of mathematical logic were first formulated by them, and our current level of mathematics owe too much to this historical background. However, our computers and the mathematical algorithms behind their working mechanism also represent totally unrecognisable universe for their own sake. They are not working similar to Ancient Greek's some mechanical inventions. We are talking about a categorical shift in existence, dynamics and meaning.
It depends how you approach and interpret "nature". If you take nature with full of atoms and forces; yes, undeniably everything belongs to this definition, including all our messages, civilizations, just name it. But in this perspective, nature doesn't make any sense other than "element provider", "being an environment". You see, even whole concept of nature itself requires certain mental interpretation to make any sense.
Kind of; for instance if you are taking this "another dimension" as an alternative expression using raw materials of nature, yes, we live in another dimension. You can say that DNA is a different type of expression of atoms. And human beings have created a totally different type of expression among all other creatures has ever lived on this planet. But this is nothing more than an analogy.
Because at the end, none of the natural beings and orders have ever been able to think of, being aware of what they were made of, what is all this universe and existence all about, what are the alternative survival methods or dramatic strategy possibilities against harsh demands of their surrounding. When you think of what humans are capable of, with all their imagination and transformation power, with all their isolated universe in their minds and with all their possibilities, I think it would be misjudgement of human beings as calling them "same as other things in nature" in terms of their place in entire existence.
We haven't just started to feel this difference; it's a thousands years of history: Actually, our ancestors must have been shocked when they started to realise and appreciate their uniqueness; that's why I can understand how they came up with imaginary plans behind their existence, Gods, souls and other unnatural stories. They were not able to contemplate their roots, connections, and evolution history. So they thought they were different because they were simply created that way. They were right, we are different; but we have developed and built up this "difference" throughout our human history step by step; nobody or nothing gave it to us: Neither nature nor anything else. Now we have started to see our own historic steps and our own self creation.
Again you persist in missing the point.
The definition means they are regarded as unnatural.
Science does not treat human affairs as natural occurrences.
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or actually don't understand this point.
Humanity has definitions and conventions (which, apart from various people, you among them, are generally agreed upon).
What is constructed by humans is regarded as artificial i.e. not natural.
I don't argue that a human is the same as a dog; nor that a dog is the same as a cat; nor a cat the same as a moose... you get the idea.
You're eulogy on the uniqueness of man does not prove that we are unnatural, or to put it another way, something that nature is incapable of creating. There's no basis for this assertion unless you insert divine intervention somewhere - which I suspect is something you don't want to do.
You're eulogy on the uniqueness of man does not prove that we are unnatural, or to put it another way, something that nature is incapable of creating. There's no basis for this assertion unless you insert divine intervention somewhere - which I suspect is something you don't want to do.
You have yet to provide even the scantiest of evidence that this is justified. The native americans used to dance for rain - did it do anything? Why should I believe that because the people you regard as representatives of "Science" do not treat human affairs as natural occurrences, that they are justified in doing so? Because you said so? Sorry, that's just not very convincing. Try again.
AND, whether you support the field or not (it doesn't affect the point either way), a behavioral psychologist WOULD look at them as natural occurrences. I guess it depends on who you ask, ay?
- Status