animator 0310 wrote:I think unnatural is when something that doesn't break the laws of physics but nature doesn't mean for it to happen

To say that "nature doesn't mean for something to happen" is basically the same as saying that something is unnatural, so that logic is kind of circular. Whether or not "nature means for something to happen" is the basis of what we're all arguing about here. What is to say that being shot to death is not intended by nature? We naturally evolved to the point where we have technology.

Unnatural could be more than a human could do. Like past their physical abilities and their technology. Just a thought.

Hazzystan wrote:

artem motus wrote:I see where you guys are coming from, but unnatural is opposite to the ordinary course of nature. If someone is born with a defect because they were exposed to a chemical or radiation as a fetus, the process happened "naturally" since everything is part of nature, but humans aren't normally, or meant to, be born with a deformity, making it unnatural.

I'm sure you'll agree that deformities and abnormalities happen a lot in nature, whether it's due to hereditary defects or exposure to certain chemicals. Why then, if the deformities are a product of nature, are they somehow unnatural? People seem to define rare and abnormal occurences as "unnatural", but the truth is that rare and abnormal things happen within nature a lot.

Yes, I agree defects happen a lot, but compared to the amount of times defects do not occur, they happen very rarely. This isn't like a 50/50 type of thing. My point was that deformities are a product of nature only because everything is a product fo nature. However this doesn't happen regularly as, for lack of better words, nature intended.

Hazzystan wrote:

artem motus wrote: but humans aren't normally, or meant to, be born with a deformity, making it unnatural.

I picked this part out because I have a specific problem with it. It's random genetic deformities which are part of the driving force of evolution. Since you've argued that deformities are unnatural, then surely you also believe that evolution is unnatural? Just as a forewarning, you can't escape this problem by saying "but human-induced deformities are less natural than other deformities", because humans are equally a product of nature.

No, i don't think evolution is unnatural, quite the opposite, by deformities I didn't mean a slight change in genetics between person to person through procreation that allow us to evolve and survive, not at all. What I meant was a grand defect that is very different to an average human and that hinders the person. I'm not too good at explaining things, but all i mean is that people are naturally born and are naturally generally the same to other humans. If someone is born missing a limb or with an extra toe or with brain damage, it's not because of chance it was because something intervened in the natural process of birth(ie. a chemical like orange agent, or a mother who drank excessively). I'm not sure if you understand what i mean base on how i worded it :/ hopefully you do.

artem motus wrote:Yes, I agree defects happen a lot, but compared to the amount of times defects do not occur, they happen very rarely. This isn't like a 50/50 type of thing. My point was that deformities are a product of nature only because everything is a product fo nature. However this doesn't happen regularly as, for lack of better words, nature intended.

I don't think you understand that nature doesn't intend anything. Nature and everything within it functions on two levels: randomness and probability. There's no guiding force that intends nature to be any way, so an occurrence within nature which has a low probability makes it no less natural than one which was probable. I feel like I'm saying the same thing as I did before.

artem motus wrote:No, i don't think evolution is unnatural, quite the opposite, by deformities I didn't mean a slight change in genetics between person to person through procreation that allow us to evolve and survive, not at all. What I meant was a grand defect that is very different to an average human and that hinders the person.

So you're saying that a genetic mutation which by chance happens to be beneficial to us is natural, but if it by chance happens to be bad for us it becomes unnatural?

artem motus wrote:I'm not too good at explaining things, but all i mean is that people are naturally born and are naturally generally the same to other humans. If someone is born missing a limb or with an extra toe or with brain damage, it's not because of chance it was because something intervened in the natural process of birth(ie. a chemical like orange agent, or a mother who drank excessively). I'm not sure if you understand what i mean base on how i worded it :/ hopefully you do.

No I understand, and I'm not going to bother directly addressing this point because I argued against the exact same one in the last part of my previous post. I understand where you're coming from, since you're defending a very widely and informally used description of the word "unnatural". You continue to repeat that if an occurrence isn't a part of the natural norm it's unnatural, but you base this on the false premise that abonormal and man-made somehow equates to unnatural. Your version of the word "unnatural" would be fine in informal discussion or conversation, but in a philosophical discussion like this you have to actually show why what you describe is unnatural, and not just unusual. Why is physical damage to an unborn child caused by the mother literally not part of nature?

Hazzystan wrote: Your version of the word "unnatural" would be fine in informal discussion or conversation, but in a philosophical discussion like this you have to actually show why what you describe is unnatural, and not just unusual. Why is physical damage to an unborn child caused by the mother literally not part of nature?

Well is this a philosophical discussion thread? I'm sure all forms of debating are equally welcome here.

dictionary.com wrote:1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.

Artem motus is arguing for definition 3, and a deformity is not normal by definition. The physical damage to an unborn child is literally unnatural because it is at variance with what is considered normal.

Hazzystan wrote:I don't think you understand that nature doesn't intend anything. Nature and everything within it functions on two levels: randomness and probability. There's no guiding force that intends nature to be any way, so an occurrence within nature which has a low probability makes it no less natural than one which was probable. I feel like I'm saying the same thing as I did before.

By being less probable, it makes it less normal, which makes it unnatural. By less normal, I mean it strays from the average, which you can't deny.

Lerky wrote:

Hazzystan wrote: Your version of the word "unnatural" would be fine in informal discussion or conversation, but in a philosophical discussion like this you have to actually show why what you describe is unnatural, and not just unusual. Why is physical damage to an unborn child caused by the mother literally not part of nature?

Well is this a philosophical discussion thread? I'm sure all forms of debating are equally welcome here.

dictionary.com wrote:1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.

Artem motus is arguing for definition 3, and a deformity is not normal by definition. The physical damage to an unborn child is literally unnatural because it is at variance with what is considered normal.

Hazzystan wrote:I don't think you understand that nature doesn't intend anything. Nature and everything within it functions on two levels: randomness and probability. There's no guiding force that intends nature to be any way, so an occurrence within nature which has a low probability makes it no less natural than one which was probable. I feel like I'm saying the same thing as I did before.

By being less probable, it makes it less normal, which makes it unnatural. By less normal, I mean it strays from the average, which you can't deny.

Less normal does not make it unnatural. Because it still happens, due to natural effects. Making it perfectly natural.

Lerky wrote:Well is this a philosophical discussion thread? I'm sure all forms of debating are equally welcome here.

I don't see how you can treat a metaphysical question like "what is unnatural" with anything other than philosophical enquiry.

Lerky wrote:

dictionary.com wrote:1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.

Artem motus is arguing for definition 3, and a deformity is not normal by definition. The physical damage to an unborn child is literally unnatural because it is at variance with what is considered normal.

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.

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.

Lerky wrote: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.

We can't simultaneously debate more than one use of the definition "unnatural", since they're all equally valid in different fields but mean very different things. The definition of unnatural which we are debating should be decided so that there's no more confusion over who's debating what version. Although no definition would be "wrong" to discuss, the metaphysical question has far more room for disagreement and debate. I think that everyone with a basic grasp of logic would agree that in its definition of "out-of-the-ordinary", all improbable things are unnatural by pure definition.

Hazzystan wrote:

Lerky wrote: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.

We can't simultaneously debate more than one use of the definition "unnatural", since they're all equally valid in different fields but mean very different things. The definition of unnatural which we are debating should be decided so that there's no more confusion over who's debating what version. Although no definition would be "wrong" to discuss, the metaphysical question has far more room for disagreement and debate. I think that everyone with a basic grasp of logic would agree that in its definition of "out-of-the-ordinary", all improbable things are unnatural by pure definition.

I'm glad you can see your argument with him was pointless.

However, I disagree that the more philosophy based viewpoint has any more depth than the alternative.
Everything on Earth is natural.
Not much of an argument.

We as humans use the term "unnatural" mainly for things that we aren't accustomed to more or less.Deformities is one of them.Yes, the term is used for the sake of having a counterweight for the term "natural" but it helps in terms of differentiating things we are and aren't necessarily used to.Some people tend to use the term too loosely however.

Deformities are in fact natural.Parasitic creatures cause deformities in animals and sometimes plants so deformities in birth due to different circumstances shouldn't be considered unnatural in that case.

In my opinion, for something to be "unnatural" it has to be beyond nature.Something that is supernatural could count as one of those.