As I have stated
over and over again, you are the one who is splitting the world into two pieces, one you determine to be "natural" and "unnatural." To me, there is just one world here and we are all a part of it. That would include what we think and what we do, because thinking and the full menu of human capacities are a part and product of this world we evolved on.
I have stated in response (too many times now) that everything is part of nature, part of the ecosystem, part of the planet, defined and limited by natural laws and so on. This would include our thoughts, our fanatasies, our creations, our interpretations, our theories, our inventions, our techniques, our technologies, our lives, our deaths and so on. The stuff in our brains and the stuff outside our brains: it is all part of this real world, this continuum that we are completely enmeshed in. There is no seperate realm defined by some constraints of "unnaturalness," no bubble of "un-ness."
You are choosing to make your own judgement when you define "unnatural" versus "natural." You are imposing your point of view. There is no natural and unnatural worlds sitting side by side. There is this world, which includes us, with our brains, and our thinking capabilities, our imagination, our capacities to adapt, our ability to move alter and build, our creativity to invent and change.
Dictionaries are filled with words that are figures of speech, words that have had their meanings and applications evolve, and change over time; words that define phenomena or ideas that require considerable exposure to fully understand what they are attempting to signify. The portion "un" of unnatural is a prefix, it is not a word. It is used to draw opposites, that's all, including prejudicial ones. Everything after that becomes a linguistic convenience, an artifical categorization to split things into smaller portions so as to aid elements of simple communication between people. Words don't reify the world. The word "tree" is not a tree, is it?
I suppose because you find the word "evil" in the dictionary that you must believe the extensive meaning of the word, as in its biblical use and beyond, for example. Or do you take it for something else? Do you accept evil as the work of the devil, a real portion of the world like water, or do you find the notioned loaded with baggage that actually blinds understanding of what might actually be going on in given situation? Or do you use the word because it is convenient and available for conversation?
Yes we do. Our thoughts are the domain of the unnatural. What happens in our dreams or thoughts is a product of the human mind and does not follow any natural laws.
Again, what do you mean by "unnatural?" A dream is the work of a brain? Is the brain "unnatural?" Can you understand that it is you applying the term "unnatural" on dreams and thoughts, and that just because you do, it isn't so? And by the way, the brain is most certainly defined by natural laws, including physiology, biochemistry and biophysics. Plenty of stuff out there to support the brain and its neuronal processes, which is the stuff of mind, as being a real bonafide natural human organ.
For someone who views himself as an environmentalist, you have an interesting view of human beings vis-a-vis the world around you. You claim to accept the theory of evolution, but have a belief that particular aspects of human beings are somehow seperate from the natural evolutionary processes, such as our thoughts and thinking. You proclaim that thoughts are not the product of natural laws, but argue that words invented by human beings are, by some unexplained process, accurate descriptions of actual things. If humans didn't think them up, who provided them? And according you, thoughts are unnatural (see your many assertions on this topic).
All of this would suggest that you view the environment as something external to yourself; you are divorced from it by way of your thinking, unlinked to it, not part of it, since the only way to understand it requires you to think about it. If your thinking is, by your own description, "unnatural," how could you ever pretend to even remotely understand the world around you, or even your own body for that matter? How could you ever assert to make such a claim to comprehend something by way of an activity you declare as unnatural?
Following that, how could you then claim to do something about solving environmental problems in that world if you are so absolutely sure that your unlinked, "unnatural," thoughts are so incapable of even grasping the world around you due to their unnaturalness?
By your own description, and by your own apparent beliefs on such things, you could actually be a danger - and you wouldn't even know it.
Now that's a big problem.
