Refusal to Accept Conspiracy

[baftan]

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.

Then you should simply come up with another example as human if this nature is capable of creating something as we did.

Trilogy works like that:

Nature: Real
Human Universe: Real
Divine: Product of Human Universe (unreal: imagination).

Human Universe stands in between everything for humans. We take what we call nature/natural reality with our understanding. Then we imagine things. Whatever we create categorically unnatural (or "artificial" as Dywyddyr said) as we produce them out of human universe (our minds).

Human Universe is the product of itself.

 

[stateofmind]

Reported again.

Lol. Nobody likes a tattle tail, didn't you know that dywyd?

 

[stateofmind]

Human Universe stands in between everything for humans. We take what we call nature/natural reality with our understanding. Then we imagine things. Whatever we create categorically unnatural (or "artificial" as Dywyddyr said) as we produce them out of human universe (our minds).

But the human imagination was born from nature, therefore it's natural.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You have yet to provide even the scantiest of evidence that this is justified.

What do you mean "justified"?
I'm supposed to go through the whole of human history and find where and when the decision was made?

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?

Depends what you mean by "them". An individual's behaviour? Probably. Society as a whole? No?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Lol. Nobody likes a tattle tail, didn't you know that dywyd?

And no one likes a person who has to lie (repeatedly) because he can't actually make his point any other way.

 

[stateofmind]

What do you mean "justified"?
I'm supposed to go through the whole of human history and find where and when the decision was made?

I mean this: (maybe you missed it the first time?)

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.

 

[stateofmind]

And no one likes a person who has to lie (repeatedly) because he can't actually make his point any other way.

I'm not lying. I'm being absolutely sincere.

 

[baftan]

But the human imagination was born from nature, therefore it's natural.

I tried to give you some analogies in my above post: Your perspective simply reject the categorical difference of humanity. Your saying is similar to that "computers came from Ancient Greece". Your logic is similar to living things are nothing other than collection of atoms; A book is nothing other than combination of pieces of papers and ink.

I bet I can give you at least a thousand of examples like that. If you get the central theme, please produce other examples yourself: Human imagination is capable of thinking non-existing things; how come it is natural? Is it because neurons are evolved in nature?

 

[stateofmind]

I tried to give you some analogies in my above post: Your perspective simply reject the categorical difference of humanity. Your saying is similar to that "computers came from Ancient Greece". Your logic is similar to living things are nothing other than collection of atoms; A book is nothing other than combination of pieces of papers and ink.

I bet I can give you at least a thousand of examples like that. If you get the central theme, please produce other examples yourself: Human imagination is capable of thinking non-existing things; how come it is natural? Is it because neurons are evolved in nature?

Here's a question for you: How can nature produce anything other than different combinations of itself?

It is possible that computers hinged on the existence of Ancient Greece. Wouldn't the world today be very different had Greek civilization and the Golden Age not existed? Who knows, we might have been a computerless world without them.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm not lying. I'm being absolutely sincere.

On the contrary you're lying. You have repeatedly misrepresented what Baftan and I have said, despite multiple clarifications.

I mean this: (maybe you missed it the first time?)
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.

Again, you're expecting me to go back into history and find out who (and why) certain people became authorities on what science is and isn't.
But my position is this: the people that are actually doing something in a particular field should be the ones who decide what it does and does not cover and what definitions they'll use.
I'll also point out, again, that it's not just science that makes this distinction (between natural and non-natural) it's dictionaries and most of the human race. Your position is untenable in the real world.

 

[stateofmind]

Again, you're expecting me to go back into history and find out who (and why) certain people became authorities on what science is and isn't.
But my position is this: the people that are actually doing something in a particular field should be the ones who decide what it does and does not cover and what definitions they'll use.
I'll also point out, again, that it's not just science that makes this distinction (between natural and non-natural) it's dictionaries and most of the human race. Your position is untenable in the real world.

But there's no justification to believe that what humans create is unnatural. Your justification so far is "well... everyone's doing it!"

 

[Dywyddyr]

But there's no justification to believe that what humans create is unnatural. Your justification so far is "well... everyone's doing it!"

Wrong on both counts.
As you'd see if you'd ever bothered doing anything technical and complicated.
Such as opening a dictionary, or learning science.
For example:

ar·ti·fi·cial (ärt-fshl)
adj.
1.
a. Made by humans; produced rather than natural.
b. Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated forces or influences: set up artificial barriers against women and minorities; an artificial economic boom.
2. Made in imitation of something natural; simulated: artificial teeth.
3. Not genuine or natural: an artificial smile.

nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

Heh, looking at that last I suppose you'd also contend that the law is wrong when it doesn't count murder as "natural causes".

 

[stateofmind]

I like that last definition of "artificial" - not genuine or natural. That's how I think of artificial.

Heh, looking at that last I suppose you'd also contend that the law is wrong when it doesn't count murder as "natural causes".

^ This, along with the dictionary.com post is just an appeal to "well... everyone's doing it!" - like I said.

Answer me this: Do you think human affairs are an expression of nature?

 

[baftan]

Here's a question for you: How can nature produce anything other than different combinations of itself?

OK, this is another definition for you, this time we are selecting "nature" word from the definition of science. from Wikipedia again:

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

As you can see, it is a broad concept. Yet, nowhere in this broad picture neither human imagination nor any human creation is included. Leaving them aside, your central question "How can nature produce anything other than different combinations of itself?" comes to the scene: That's exactly what I have been trying to illustrate: Human imagination is not a combination of natural elements. Infrastructure of human mind (human brain, neurons, neural activity) can be the combination of nature, I agree this bit and no one can refuse this bit. Yet human imagination only uses this infrastructure to built up its unnatural construction. What human produces are not "the combination of natural elements", they are the products of human consciousness.

I understand what you are trying to say, but your answer is bound to end up to human mind, human imagination and/or human consciousness which are not the product of nature per se even though the raw material comes from the nature. Can you seriously see no difference at all between a computer and an elephant? Elephant is what nature produces by combination of its elements. However, nature can not produce a computer as it is the product of human imagination.

It is possible that computers hinged on the existence of Ancient Greece. Wouldn't the world today be very different had Greek civilization and the Golden Age not existed? Who knows, we might have been a computerless world without them.

This is a wild guess. Overall, computers are the products of human universe and it has evolutionary connections to entire human history of thoughts. Yet, if we go deep and try to entertain "what if" theories, I can also claim that human beings could have invented computers a thousand year ago if certain thinking connections and/or civilization opportunities were made before Ancient Greek civilization. Or, using same "what if" logic, I can also claim that maybe Islamic Civilizations were going to able to discover mathematical connection without the help of what is left to them from Greek Civilization. Using this type of logic, we can produce alternative scenarios and/or alternative time scales for any given human invention. This is not the point, Ancient Greeks or Islamic Civilizations are just names, historic figures; I give them credit for we are having computers today: But these bastards might have also caused delay for the invention of computers for 500 years. Who knows? We think they helped the development of mathematics; but maybe their way of thinking stopped another path and we don't have quantum computers now. Who knows?

But none of these "what if"s are relevant to main issue: The main issue is, nature is out of equation in any case... With or without Ancient Greeks.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I like that last definition of "artificial" - not genuine or natural. That's how I think of artificial.

Yet you have claimed that everything is natural, so artificial has no real meaning for you. If it's natural how can it not be genuine?

^ This, along with the dictionary.com post is just an appeal to "well... everyone's doing it!" - like I said.

And again you show that you fail to read. Did I not say that these were agreed upon definitions?
How the hell do you think definitions get to be definitions?
Humanity has conventions.
And your position STILL remains as "I think everyone else is wrong but I can't actually prove it".

Answer me this: Do you think human affairs are an expression of nature?

No, they're artefacts of mankind, by definition unnatural.

 

[stateofmind]

As you can see, it is a broad concept. Yet, nowhere in this broad picture neither human imagination nor any human creation is included.

Are you asserting that human creations aren't physical? Are you asserting that human imagination isn't physical? What proof do you have of this claim?

Yet human imagination only uses this infrastructure to built up its unnatural construction. What human produces are not "the combination of natural elements", they are the products of human consciousness.

You're saying the things humans create aren't physical because humans made them?

I understand what you are trying to say, but your answer is bound to end up to human mind, human imagination and/or human consciousness which are not the product of nature per se even though the raw material comes from the nature.

So the raw materials come from nature but nature didn't put them together?

Can you seriously see no difference at all between a computer and an elephant? Elephant is what nature produces by combination of its elements. However, nature can not produce a computer as it is the product of human imagination.

I agree that a computer is different from an elephant. Nature made human imagination therefore nature produced the computer - for how could the computer exist if the nature didn't first create human imagination?

This is a wild guess. Overall, computers are the products of human universe and it has evolutionary connections to entire human history of thoughts. Yet, if we go deep and try to entertain "what if" theories, I can also claim that human beings could have invented computers a thousand year ago if certain thinking connections and/or civilization opportunities were made before Ancient Greek civilization. Or, using same "what if" logic, I can also claim that maybe Islamic Civilizations were going to able to discover mathematical connection without the help of what is left to them from Greek Civilization. Using this type of logic, we can produce alternative scenarios and/or alternative time scales for any given human invention. This is not the point, Ancient Greeks or Islamic Civilizations are just names, historic figures; I give them credit for we are having computers today: But these bastards might have also caused delay for the invention of computers for 500 years. Who knows? We think they helped the development of mathematics; but maybe their way of thinking stopped another path and we don't have quantum computers now. Who knows?

I only said it was possible. I had no intention of reveling in "what if's".

 

[stateofmind]

Yet you have claimed that everything is natural, so artificial has no real meaning for you. If it's natural how can it not be genuine?

Technically it is genuine. Let's take the "artificial smile" example. When someone gives an artificial smile it is a genuine representation of their current condition. But they have a smile that is uninhibited which which we would call "genuine".

And your position STILL remains as "I think everyone else is wrong but I can't actually prove it".

No, because I'm not making any assumptions about human affairs being unnatural. It is up to you to provide evidence that some third party outside of the universe is responsible for human affairs.

No, they're artefacts of mankind, by definition unnatural.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Categorically, since nature made mankind and mankind led to human affairs, human affairs still fall under the category of nature and are therefore "natural".

 

[Dywyddyr]

Technically it is genuine.

No, not "technically", if it's natural (and according to you everything is natural) then it's genuine. Period.

Let's take the "artificial smile" example. When someone gives an artificial smile it is a genuine representation of their current condition. But they have a smile that is uninhibited which which we would call "genuine".

Yet since the smile (and their feelings) come from nature then it's natural, not artificial.

No, because I'm not making any assumptions about human affairs being unnatural. It is up to you to provide evidence that some third party outside of the universe is responsible for human affairs.

And again you show how utterly obtuse you are and again you misrepresent the argument. Reported again.

Categorically, since nature made mankind and mankind led to human affairs, human affairs still fall under the category of nature and are therefore "natural".

Except, categorically, you have persistently lied in this thread, and also been a hypocrite. Even if you genuinely believe this "everything is natural" crap you WERE FULLY AWARE of the distinction that Baftan and I have been using, as evidenced by one of your posts where YOU yourself made that exact same distinction:

Could it be that a child's heightened ability to learn, absorb and acquire skills never diminishes in a natural state but that the schooling system itself is partly what diminishes it?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2121066&postcount=96
You're beneath contempt.
I'm done with you.

 

[baftan]

Are you asserting that human creations aren't physical? Are you asserting that human imagination isn't physical?

I have discussed this particular questions extensively in here and here. But if you are not interested, my answer is simply "no": Uses physical connections of brain, makes neural connection during the imagination process. But imagination itself is not physical.

What proof do you have of this claim?

Superman.
Snow White.
God.

You're saying the things humans create aren't physical because humans made them?

No. Human imagination also use physical environment (and its physical rules) in order to make its imagination real working tools, machines, etc. But don't forget, this is not always the only way for expression of human imagination: Can you show me "justice", "state", or "government"? No, they are concepts but our physical bodies are putting ties and making speeches in buildings; our physical bodies are put into jail because of all these physically "non-existing" concepts of human imagination.

So the raw materials come from nature but nature didn't put them together?

Oil and sand comes from nature. We make computers out of them, not nature.

I agree that a computer is different from an elephant. Nature made human imagination therefore nature produced the computer - for how could the computer exist if the nature didn't first create human imagination?

If this is "which came from which" game I can go back to Big Bang. Again, nature did not make human imagination: nature only provided an ape brain. We managed to construct a human imagination out of it by our own efforts.

I only said it was possible. I had no intention of reveling in "what if's".

I didn't take it as an offence or anything. I only wanted to entertain some possibilities. I am not standing here as an offender and you are not representing prosecution, calm down. Just ignore the bits that you find irrelevant.

 

[stateofmind]

No, not "technically", if it's natural (and according to you everything is natural) then it's genuine. Period.

It is natural in the sense that it is an expression of nature.

Yet since the smile (and their feelings) come from nature then it's natural, not artificial.

You can have an artificial smile that is an expression of nature.

And again you show how utterly obtuse you are and again you misrepresent the argument. Reported again.

Oh how I love being the "bad kid" :mufc:

Except, categorically, you have persistently lied in this thread, and also been a hypocrite. Even if you genuinely believe this "everything is natural" crap you WERE FULLY AWARE of the distinction that Baftan and I have been using, as evidenced by one of your posts where YOU yourself made that exact same distinction:

I was using "natural" in the sense of "uninhibited".

You're beneath contempt.
I'm done with you.

Damn... beneathe? I thought I was at least level with contempt... Dywyd!.. come back!!