E
EnviroTO
Guest
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.