Hazzystan wrote:I don't see how you can treat a metaphysical question like "what is unnatural" with anything other than philosophical enquiry.
To discuss a topic, you need to have a clear definition of what you are talking about. I simply set out the standard definitions of the word we are discussing. Understanding of the word doesn't dictate the level in which we discuss the topic. It's standard communication.
Hazzystan wrote:I was under the impression that we were discussing the much more interesting question of "what can be defined as part of the natural world?". We wouldn't have much of a debate if our discussion was based on the third definition of what's probable and what isn't. There's no room for discourse in that definition, since I could just give you a list of probable and improbable occurrences.
He actually asked us what was our opinion on what is unnatural. That being said, Artem motus's view on the subject was completely within the realms of the question. He can interpret it however he likes, metaphysical or not. I was just commenting on how you were arguing about the question, and not about the content.
Maybe the subject has little room for discussion? If you take the more literal view of the subject, any variance with what is normal or to be expected is unnatural.
If you take the more "philosophical enquiry" view, as you put it, everything on the earth is natural.
Octane wrote:Less normal does not make it unnatural. Because it still happens, due to natural effects. Making it perfectly natural.
Would you class a concrete building in the middle of the forest unnatural? By your logic, as humans are a part of nature, and what we build becomes part of nature too, the building is actually natural?
I can understand this logic, but in my opinion, it's a rather silly way of thinking.