Conservative Minority. F**king glad its all over.

[EnviroTO]

Because it is a word usage and not a phenomenon. You can refer to my previous post about that.

"Natural" is an adjective whereas "phenomena" would be nouns. When a word like "natural" is put in front of another it further explains that word. "Black Hole" is a phenomenon but the "hole" is still "black". If "nature" meant "everything on this plane of existence" then "natural selection" could have been called "legitimate selection", "natural science" could have been called "legitimate science", and "natural evolution" could have been called "legitimate evolution" yet none of those words was chosen and a new scientific word was not created.

As a word, as a convenience, but not as a complete description as a phenomenon, so the word is quite limited. A word is not a phenomenon, whether that is your opinion or not.

I don't think a word is a phenomenon, you think I think a word is a phenomenon. I think a word is a group of letters or sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning. You seem to think that a word has no meaning by itself and that people just randomly select a word and put it in front of other words to have completely new meaning. I don't believe that the word "natural" was randomly selected to be the word put in front of "natural evolution" regardless of what your opinion is.

So now you claim that thinking is "natural" when previously you have been claiming it to be "unnatural." But just where do you think an idea is "conceptualized?" If not in that "natural" brain, or by way of what you now accept as the "natural" process of thinking, where? Our inventions, etc., are simply an extension of that fact of thinking, which you now accept as "natural."

Let me clarify. Thinking consists of the physical which is not controlled directly by the human consciousness (the brain cells, the electrochemical, etc) and that which is controlled by the human consciousness (the thoughts, the ideas, the decisions, the imagry, etc.). An unnatural idea is conceptualized in the natural and physically existing brain. The unnatural idea is stored and analyzed in the natural brain via natural electrochemical reactions. Our thoughts are indeed created by natural changes in the brain but the interpretation of those natural properties of the brain is "man made" and are hence artificial which is the opposite of natural. A tree in our thoughts is an artificial tree, not a real and natural one.

But your sentence is suggesting the "miraculous" because you are once again splitting the brain up.

No. Miraculous would mean that it is supernatural which goes beyond unnatural. Unnatural just means that it is a product of a conscious decision or that it is man made, not magical or miraculous. If the human brain comes up with F=m^2*a and makes that a scientific law that would be the unnatural sciences... not supported by nature and a completely man made fabrication.

Once again you contradict your own assertions.

It isn't a contradiction... it is the difference between man made and not man made. Man does not make his brain, nor does he make the chemicals and electrical impulses in his brain, he makes ideas in his brain. I can imagine a tree on demand but I cannot tell my brain which electrochemical reactions to perform.

I can't stop you from holding your own point of view, but sadly we go in circles; can a thought or its outcomes be "unnatural" when its only source is a "natural" brain?

Can orange be the outcome of mixing the colours red and yellow. Yes, because that is the definition of orange. Can man's consciousness move natural matter according to natural laws and create unnatural objects from it. Yes because what man creates is unnatural. Man's unnatural creations are made up of natural particles following natural laws. Man cannot manipulate matter and break natural laws. Man's creations are unnatural just because it is artificial.

You get completely bogged down in splitting hairs between what you believe is one thing or the other. in the end, you have merely stated an opinion that something is "unnatural." It is not a fact.

In the end you are also stating an opinion on what "unnatural" means and that does not make your belief a fact either. You have a different understanding of the meaning of "natural" and overlay your meaning of that on top of all the phenomenon that I do not dispute exists and I have a different interpretation of the meaning of "natural" and overlay that meaning on top of all the same phenomenon and categorize some things as man made and some as not man made.

 

[Ed007Toronto]

I wonder where this thread would have ended up if the Conservatives had obtained a majority.

 

[EnviroTO]

Probably no different since this is a tangent from bizorsky stating his distaste for the Green party.

 

[bizorky]

You seem to think that a word has no meaning by itself and that people just randomly select a word and put it in front of other words to have completely new meaning.

There are words that become useless or forgotten and fall out of the general vocabulary. Words are social constructs, they operate on a set of shared recognitions. By themselves words have no meanings; they work only when people use them. The operational qualities of a word depends on the given word.

I don't believe that the word "natural" was randomly selected to be the word put in front of "natural evolution" regardless of what your opinion is.

Sure, it could have been any other selection of vowels and consonants. But yet again, its sounds as if you take the word "nature" to actually embody nature. It is a word that was generated and has been taken by traditions of common usage to stand for a wide range of phenomena. But the word "nature" is not the phenomenon for which it serves as a label, or description, or noun.

By focussing on your concerns over the word nature, you keep avoiding the problem introduced by your absolute belief that there is a split in the world between what is "natural" and what is supposedly "unnatural." If I want to use the word nature, I accept that it is label for something, a vast range of phenomena that is global and which I am a product of and a part of. I actually sound more like an environmentalist than you because I accept it - nature, natural systems, environment, global system, whatever one wishes to call it - through and through. I make no appeal to any notion of "unnatural" as a part of the larger continuum of the world around me, or which I am a part of.

In the end you are also stating an opinion on what "unnatural" means and that does not make your belief a fact either.

To be brief, I am arguing a position which suggests that "unnatural" is just a tiny product of natural, in that it is simply one of those little inventions a human mind (part of nature, etc.) can come up with. You hold an opinion and persist in stating that there are two kinds of worlds, the natural and the unnatural. But you have provided no clear place where the two seperate out, except for some vague and particularistic notions of something that goes on somewhere in the brain. It looks more like a guess than anything else. It sounds like a prejudice.

Since the brain is an evolving organ of the human body, and the human species evolved on this planet, and is subject to the physical laws and biological constraints all around, we and what we do are all defined by the natural physical continuum. I think that the pursuits of science have shown this quite nicely, so it is more than opinion. Nothing we, as a species, has ever exceeded known physical laws or limits. We have never tip-toed out into some "unnatural" realm and never had an "unnatural" thought; we just imagine we do from time to time (imagination being a natural activity of that brain), or label people as doing such, when it the process of being upset demands a word-reference to make some act appear out of the norm.

How many times must this general idea be repeated?

You, on the other hand, want the right to select out "unnatural" things on the basis of your own prejudices and judgements, forgetting all along that this is based on the (natural) thoughts from your (natural) brain (now taht thinking has been "naturalized" according to your updated views on such things).

Can man's consciousness move natural matter according to natural laws and create unnatural objects from it.

Again, what do you mean by "unnatural?" Something you don't like? All this activity is happening in the natural world. Is there "unnatural" object if it is just the hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen, for example, that is found throught the universe?

Man's creations are unnatural just because it is artificial.

You go back and repeat yourself. That's just according to you, according to your own prejudices. You want to call things "unnatural," you want special status to judge on the basis of this concept. If humans are natural, part of nature, made of nature, constrained by nature, then how can humans do anything "unnatural" and make "unnatural" things? This is just your prejudice.



If you want to make judgements on human actions, find a better measure, a better intellectual tool. Your notions are too vague and your conclusion don't fundamentally have any basis.

 

[EnviroTO]

By focussing on your concerns over the word nature, you keep avoiding the problem introduced by your absolute belief that there is a split in the world between what is "natural" and what is supposedly "unnatural."

I don't state that there are two "worlds". There are things in this one world and one universe that are "man made" and "not man made".

But you have provided no clear place where the two seperate out, except for some vague and particularistic notions of something that goes on somewhere in the brain. It looks more like a guess than anything else. It sounds like a prejudice.

Mountains are "not man made" and were not designed by man whereas buildings are "man made" and are designed by man. Brain cells are created without man consciously deciding to make them, decisions in the mind are created by man consciously deciding to make them.

Since the brain is an evolving organ of the human body, and the human species evolved on this planet, and is subject to the physical laws and biological constraints all around, we and what we do are all defined by the natural physical continuum. I think that the pursuits of science have shown this quite nicely, so it is more than opinion. Nothing we, as a species, has ever exceeded known physical laws or limits.

True. All matter and energy must follow natural laws because man does not create matter and man does not create energy.

---
Off topic:

Let me ask you this. To interpret art scientifically how would one go about that? What is the natural science which could explain art? Science can explain all the matter in a piece of art, it can explain how the colours are a product of materials and their reaction to light, etc but can science interpret art? In the end wouldn't all the measureable properties of art be open to individual interpretation free of some absolute science?

Do you believe all our decisions and ideas are predetermined and beyond our control, that they are a sum of the inputs made into our mind and that no choice actually exists because the electrochemical reactions, the development of our brain, and the genetics of our brain, and the sum of all properties of our brain will naturally come to the same result through predictable science?
---

You, on the other hand, want the right to select out "unnatural" things on the basis of your own prejudices and judgements.

No prejudice here. Simply pointing out that things can be "man made" or "not man made". "Man made" can be good or bad, and "not man made" can be good or bad, but something that is "not man made" cannot be "man made".

Again, what do you mean by "unnatural?" Something you don't like?

No it isn't something I don't like. It is something that is "man made".

If it paints a better picture for you I will use the terms "man made" and "not man made".

 

[Mislav]

Get a room you two.

 

[bizorky]

I don't state that there are two "worlds". There are things in this one world and one universe that are "man made" and "not man made".

Concerning "man made" and "not man made," all I am saying is that they are both natural, both products of the natural world. I don't have any issue with "man made" and "not man made" as descriptive terminology.

Brain cells are created without man consciously deciding to make them, decisions in the mind are created by man consciously deciding to make them

I would disagree with the last part since thinking and decision-making are all in the brain. Consciousness and mind eminate from the brain and its cells. We didn't decide to be conscious, we describe the sensation as "consiousness." We couldn't have invented it since there is no agreement of what it exactly is as of yet.

No prejudice here. Simply pointing out that things can be "man made" or "not man made". "Man made" can be good or bad, and "not man made" can be good or bad, but something that is "not man made" cannot be "man made"

You were using different words and arguing different things in earlier posts. But as I stated above, if you want employ "man made" and "not man made," I have no issue. I just view it all as ultimately natural, part of nature, eminating from the natural world.

Let me ask you this. To interpret art scientifically how would one go about that? What is the natural science which could explain art?

There are a number of people working in evolutionary psychology who do research in this area. You'll have to look around because the little material I have read on this I have not kept. A long while back I read something by E. O. Wilson (article or book exerpt) that spoke of beauty and creativity possessing evolutionary advantages. If you can manage to find it, he has references. There is also John D. Barrow's book "The Artful Universe." This is actually quite a interesting book and quite wide ranging. Again, the references might be helpful.

Do you believe all our decisions and ideas are predetermined and beyond our control, that they are a sum of the inputs made into our mind and that no choice actually exists because the electrochemical reactions, the development of our brain, and the genetics of our brain, and the sum of all properties of our brain will naturally come to the same result through predictable science?

Do I "believe" all of that? I am not even sure what you are asking. Maybe you want to break things down a little more. We would not be making decisions if they were pre-determined, we would just be experiencing the illusion of making decisions. Again, I can't be too sure what you asking because the question is unclear.

 

[EnviroTO]

You were using different words and arguing different things in earlier posts.

No I was arguing the exact same thing using the definition of artificial as "man made" and the antonym of artificial as being natural as per the thesaurus and dictionary. I meant to imply nothing more than "man made" vs "not man made" and was simply using the words in the dictionary which closest match that meaning.

 

[adma]

And this, my friends, is why the Green Party remains mired in the 4-5% range...

 

[EnviroTO]

Yep. Looks like I will have to contact Oxford University to come up with new words as suggested below since it seems that perhaps no single word exists to describe the concept of "man made / sentient being made" or "not made made / not sentient being made". I thought I made it clear I was talking about "man made" vs "not man made" many posts ago but I guess not.

ur·to·na·ture n.

- The material world and its phenomena which exist not as a product of conscious decisions by man or other sentient beings.
- The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world which are not being controlled by the conscious decisions of man or other sentient beings.
- A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to urtonature.

ur·to·nat·u·ral adj.

- Present in or produced by urtonature.
- Of, relating to, or concerning urtonature.
- Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of urtonature.
- Not produced or changed unurtonaturally; not conditioned.
- Not made directly or indirectly by the conscious decisions of man or other sentient beings.

un·ur·to·nat·u·ral adj.

- Made directly or indirectly due to the conscious decisions of man or other sentient beings; produced rather than urtonatural.
- Brought about or caused by sociopolitical or other human-generated or sentient-being-generated forces or influences: set up unurtonatural barriers against women and minorities; an unurtonatural economic boom.
- Made in imitation of something urtonatural; simulated: unurtonatural teeth.
- Not genuine or urtonatural: an unurtonatural smile.

 

[Ed007Toronto]

And this, my friends, is why the Green Party remains mired in the 4-5% range...

lol

 

[bizorky]

Yep. Looks like I will have to contact Oxford University to come up with new words as suggested below since it seems that perhaps no single word exists to describe the concept of "man made / sentient being made" or "not made made / not sentient being made". I thought I made it clear I was talking about "man made" vs "not man made" many posts ago but I guess not.

You are simply repeating yourself over and over, and your repetitions have grown to be quite dull. It is very nice that you can use a dictionary to look up words, but not all that interesting. But just to let you know, yet once again, the Oxford dictionary is hardly sufficient to contain a full accounting or explanation for what humans define euphemistically as nature, or all the things that can possibly go on in it. If you can't accept the idea that the environment, the the continuum, the reality around you and beyond you (and that includes you and all you are and capable of - including the dictionary), or whatever one wished to call it, is far more extensive than mere word definitions, then your thinking is simply stuck and limited.

You keep invoking words as if they are truth. Is mathematics merely "an "abstract science of number, quantity and space"? Is that it? Is that all there is to say about it? Following your rather repetitive assertions, that's all there could be because it's the dictionary definition. That is until you actually spend some time studying mathematics. Then it's something else, something much more. But you might not want to bother yourself with that effort.

Maybe you should just spend even a small portion of your time taking a look at the study of language, word origins, semantics, concepts clarification and so on, rather than just rifling through your dictionary. But you might not want to bother yourself with that effort.

Also, maybe if you (and by extension the Green Party) put aside the mere moralizing and take a concerted effort at understanding problems without appeals to over-simplification, then the process of acquiring more useful information and a more informed conceptual understanding may evolve. The world is an utterly fascinating place, and still has many surprises for us if we go looking for them with a mind to finding that things are not the way we want them to be. The universe is not limited to our thinking, but our thinking is ultimately limited by the universe (that would include all your "unnatural" stuff). But then again, you (and the Greens) might not want to bother yourselves with those troubling notions.


Getting back to party politics (finally):

The Green Party purports to be the party of environmentalism. Why should I trust a party shaped by incomplete knowledge about the environment? Fine, they are concerned about the environment, but then who isn't these days? At the end of the day, worries and platitudes bound up in a party platform don't make for helpful, useful policies, do they? The environment is not something manageable like the economy, and make no mistake about it, the Green party is all about managing the environment.

 

[EnviroTO]

You are simply repeating yourself over and over, and your repetitions have grown to be quite dull. It is very nice that you can use a dictionary to look up words, but not all that interesting. But just to let you know, yet once again, the Oxford dictionary is hardly sufficient to contain a full accounting or explanation for what humans define euphemistically as nature, or all the things that can possibly go on in it.

I found your arguments equally repetitive. Hopefully a new word like urtonatural and unurtonatural could save people a lot of time in the future from debates about whether unworldly powers are at play when the initial context of the discussion was centered around mans involvement in his environment. It makes no sense that if a coroners report comes back and states a conclusion that someone died of natural causes that lawyers see an opening to make a fortune in legal fees arguing that everything is natural so murder has not been ruled out. What purpose does going off topic into the unworldly serve? Perhaps is the coroners report stated the person died of urtonatural causes they can save themselves from the frustration of a discussion such as this.

Also, maybe if you (and by extension the Green Party) put aside the mere moralizing and take a concerted effort at understanding problems without appeals to over-simplification, then the process of acquiring more useful information and a more informed conceptual understanding may evolve.

I fail to see how the party platform of the Greens is any different from those of others as far as having priorities that fit the beliefs of their supporters. The NDP might claim homelessness is immoral, the Liberals might claim the lack of public healthcare is immoral, and the Conservatives might claim gay marriage, abortion, or the current levels of taxation are immoral. Any discussion about priorities gets into ones personal beliefs. Many of the parties had an anti-crime platform and all were different... if they were all fully understanding of crime and not over-simplifying wouldn't the platforms have all the same treatments since they all have the same goal?

But then again, you (and the Greens) might not want to bother yourselves with those troubling notions.

I don't think the Greens are anti-science and as a person employed in a scientific field am definitely not anti-science. One needs to decide that research into environmental protection is a priority before the money will be there for research but picking a party which admits that the environment is a low priority to them is unlikely to increase the research money available in the field.

The Green Party purports to be the party of environmentalism. Why should I trust a party shaped by incomplete knowledge about the environment?

Will there ever be someone or a party with a complete understanding of the environment? Knowing more and doing more research is always good but is there any evidence that other parties know more about the environment than the Green Party? Do the other party platforms pass the test of not mentioning priorities that they don't fully have the full answers to as of yet?

Fine, they are concerned about the environment, but then who isn't these days?

The Conservatives have flat out stated that the environment is not a high priority to them. Greens have stated it is a top priority, the NDP say it is a high priority, and the Liberals say it is a priority. One can decide how much of a priority it is to themseleves and whether they think a party will deliver any meaningful results and vote accordingly.

At the end of the day, worries and platitudes bound up in a party platform don't make for helpful, useful policies, do they?

I agree that simply stating that one is going to deal with the environment is not useful... it is how they will do it and if they will do it that matters. The same can be said about other platforms such as poverty, homelessness, and crime.

The environment is not something manageable like the economy, and make no mistake about it, the Green party is all about managing the environment.

If complete control over the economy was possible then Cuba would be booming. The truth is that only partial control of the economy exists or recessions would be a thing of the past. Complete control over the environment is impossible as well but partial control and improvements over the status quo are quite realistically achievable. I agree that one of the top goals of the Green Party is to increase management of the environment.

 

[bizorky]

Hey everyone, we're back to talking about party politics. No need to stay away now.

It makes no sense that if a coroners report comes back and states a conclusion that someone died of natural causes that lawyers see an opening to make a fortune in legal fees arguing that everything is natural so murder has not been ruled out.

Because the word itself is not sufficient as proof, get it?

I fail to see how the party platform of the Greens is any different from those of others as far as having priorities that fit the beliefs of their supporters.

It is in so far that the Greens make the environment central. For the other parties environmental issues are, generally speaking, side issues.

I don't think the Greens are anti-science and as a person employed in a scientific field am definitely not anti-science.

I have no proof to say they are "anti-science." My concern is that their party platform is very often vague, but is supposed to be built on science. To say that desease is caused by environmental degradation is incredibly vague.

That is not anti-science per se, but represents an interpretation that could do long-term damage to funding research, carrying it out, and the necessary questioning of results as a means to further verification.

Will there ever be someone or a party with a complete understanding of the environment? Knowing more and doing more research is always good but is there any evidence that other parties know more about the environment than the Green Party? Do the other party platforms pass the test of not mentioning priorities that they don't fully have the full answers to as of yet?

Most other parties tend to focus on economic issues and their downstream impacts, and over time, in some cases, have managed to mess that up quite well. This is interesting since our market structures are mediated directly by us. If we find disagreement on economic issues, I assume there will be disagreement on environmental issues as well at the level of political parties.

As for a party with complete knowledge of the environment, they will first need access to that body of knowledge, and that scope (complete knowledge) is still way, way off. Hence my earlier point that much more arms length research needs to be done, and the sooner the better.

As I said earlier, my issue with the Green party is that they put environment front and centre. They must then take the responsibility to show that they have a better grasp of those issues and not succumb to the easy mode of just advertising their general interests by way of vague platitudes. If they want to form a government one day on the basis of the centrality of the environment, then they will have to exhibit a sound knowledge of it, and the consequences of altering human activities so as to mitigate the damages they are so concerned about.

The Conservatives have flat out stated that the environment is not a high priority to them.

Then it's easy to know where they stand. As for the other parties, they can also be criticized for their similar lack of actions. None, other than the Greens, have made environment central, or have attempted to make environment so extensive in their platforms, either.

If complete control over the economy was possible

That is why I used the word "manageable."

Complete control over the environment is impossible as well but partial control and improvements over the status quo are quite realistically achievable.

I would agree; but understanding how to improve is the issue that is most relevant to people because (broadly stated) it does concern what we do and how we do it.

I agree that one of the top goals of the Green Party is to increase management of the environment.

I would disagree, as this runs contrary to your own statement that control of the environment is impossible. Management is a form of control. It is human actions that can be mitigated. We need the knowledge to go about doing this.