What is "natural"?

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn,

100% agreement, here.

Isherwood,

I like how you turn awareness of the stigmata into the more "negative" response, whether you meant to or not. I was going to point out something similar.

Kamehameha,

The part that analyzes sensory input objectively is at the core of your mind, so to speak. Most things pass through emotional filters, which is why you apply certain emotion to factual things and events. "Unnatural" probably passes through a "negative" filter for many people before it gets to the more rational mind.

[Kamehameha34]

I was trying to go into the cause for that negative connotation.

[Jack]

It's easier to take an existing word and manipulate it into having a negative meaning than to invent a new word to mean what you want. That's the first reason that popped into my head.
Also, those with an agenda will take a term favored by their opposition (let's say, oh, faith, for example) and by use of context (in writing) or inflection (when speaking) manage to give it a sinister or negative implication. A Christian saying "All I have is faith" is totally different in meaning and intention than if I were to say "All you have is faith".
In the instance of natural/unnatural, nature is associated with trees, bunnies, clouds, the Earth. So most people would assume that anything unnatural must be in opposition to those things. Not just meaning the opposite, but opposed to those natural things. So homosexuality, if labeled unnatural, can be made to appear to threaten the "more natural" heterosexuality. We have come to associate the word unnatural with the bad and evil by using it to mean opposed to nature to instead of the more realistic not natural. Then we misapply the term to things that we want to portray as negatives.

[Kamehameha34]

But what is the criteria for labeling something as "natural"? You're listing examples.

[Jack]

I would think it would depend on the context. Are we talking sexuality, technology, hair color? Ultimately, I would suppose that natural infers untouched by outside influences, not man-made or influenced by man, non-artificial. But it's a word that nuances easily.

[Kamehameha34]

I mean strictly in the skyscraper vs. beaver dam sense (If that peculiar analogy helps explain it :confused:)

So the term "natural" is used by humans to refer to the world that remains untouched by humans?

[Jack]

In the extreme, yes. But there'd be many lesser examples as well. A man-made lake as opposed to a natural or naturally occurring lake. A skyscraper could be built with natural materials even though the structure itself is quite unnatural. Something that was naturally occurring wouldn't be caused by any outside influence.

Earlier you asked why unnatural was used in a negative way. The definition of the word has nothing to do with the inferences we add to it. I think it's less important to know the precise definition of the word than it is to understand the intentions of the person or group using it. What they intend it to mean may be quite divorced from its true meaning.

[pikatore]

The word 'natural', in it's traditional sense, includes our external environment and everything in it, and anything not altered in a way that can be easily seen to be man-made.

Natural, in a broader sense, can actually include man and man-made things.

[Praxius]

If we use something that is pretty much still at it's basic design, then I would considder it natural..... if we manufacture or modify that object to be something else, such as coal/oil to fuel.... or trees for homes, I would considder it somewhat un-natural.... in the Nature point of view.

Whatever we do as humans, no matter how screwed up or how dynamic, it is still our nature, so it is also Natural.......

Technically it's both.

[Zinkovich]

"Artificial" concepts rely on natural/biological precedents almost always. In this sense, nurturing is always in some way influenced by nature.

For example, I could argue that one of the reasons the dichotomy between homosexual and heterosexual relationships exist is most likely due to the cultural/biological(?) precedent of monogamous relationships that either evolved into or was invented and later integrated into the mindsets of man. If polygamous relationships were the norm, not only would many of the "issues" with homosexual relationships go away, but so we any child-rearing issues as, believe it or not, without the precedent of monogamous families it is possible for children to be comfortable with two male parents, or even a shifting number of numerous "parents" sharing the load of raising a child(not that that is a common condition for a child to homosexual parents, however- just as an aside).

Unfortunately, our psychological makeup that has come from a result of our integrating the certain aforementioned precedents allows for some rather unpleasant relations between those that seem to have integrated them into their minds a bit less than others and those who have been completely entrenched in reinforcement of these precedents growing up.

So, what am I getting at? The entire above debate I used as an example is natural. It happens as a result of natural aspects of the human mind and human psychology- natural dichotomies of "for" and "against" that is in and of itself part of the progressive adaptation from one generation to the next. Time will tell which attitude is beneficial, by deeming which attitude prevails and survives in our relatively newly formed artificial setting(which, I argue, is a natural paradigm that could still be deemed "natural" as biology is still the core of the entire functioning of it). Nature does not speak, it results in certain conditions and attitudes- these conditions and attitudes in and of themselves will be natural regardless of the moral nature of it's many aspect in the minds of certain individuals or groups.

I also argue that the only reason the word natural originally needed to made as a dichotimism was due to the formation of metaphysical concepts and to further establish the seperation of causes and realms(you know- "supernatural" versus just "below" i.e. "natural") within primitive societies everyday language and viewpoints.

Edit: I know this seems a little bit deviated from the original thrust of the topic, but I felt this viewpoint needed to be brought to the forefront, here.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 This may belong in miscellaneous, but it's in line with another subject that has been allowed in this forum, so I'm assuming it belongs here. The term "unnatural" has been used to describe anything that is the product of human intervention - such as castration. Our tools of intervention are just that - technologies which we employ to accomplish a job. This is no different in principle to monkies that use sticks to eat bugs out of logs, or elephants that use trees to scratch themselves. Since humans have, indeed, come into existence by the same process as other animals, what makes our usage of technology "unnatural" in comparison to the usage of technology of other animals?

Basically natural is the nature of the universe that we may observe objectively through our senses, and ultimately express in the sciences and to some extent through our philosophies.

The unnatural, supernatural or miraculous developed as an artifical constrant to deal with the world that we could not observe, investigate and understand objectively through our senses. This realm has progressively shrank with the advance of the sciences, which demonstrates the shaky ground that beliefs considered unnatural, supernatural or miraculous. Since recent history shows no evidence or verifiable observances outside the natural other than anecdotal and unverifiable claims.

If God exists, it has become apparent that God would be a very natural God, and the ancient unnatural, supernatural and miraculous nature found in ancient scripture. The ilence of the unnatural, supernatural and miraculous in the modern world indicates that it is an allusion.

[sevendogs]

Natural things are those, which exist, regardless of our state of mind. We can apply scientific method to understand natural things. Any scientific article concerning a certain subject or process, includes "material and method".Supernatural things are products of our mind and cannot be defended or proved or disproved by experiment or observation. Usually they are only in "the eye of the beholder". Supernatural things are entirely products of fantasy and die with one who produced them. Of course, they can be developed and preserved through generations in a form of religion... A lot of religions were born and gone with peoples, who used them. Only scientific knowledge persists and becomes cosmopolitan. Education is good for everyone, but religions come in may shapes and colors to choose from. This is because natural is here, but supernatural is only in someone's head.

[5010]

Consider a natural and artificial protein that are both considered healthy and cost the same:

natural protein = real and healthy = honest and healthy = good + good
artificial protein = fake but healthy = dishonest but healthy = bad + good

What's considered better? Natural protein. So we see it in the marketting.

Or consider a natural and artificial poison ()again same price and effectiveness):
natural poison = real but lethal = honest but lethal = good + bad
artificial poison = fake and lethal = dishonest and lethal = bad + bad

But people buy poison to inflict maximum badness on their pests (including trickery), so you don't see 'natural' as a marketting plus for poison but rather: "includes our finest scientifically formulated armaggedium!"

Of course there are people who want that organic poison to kill pests, but I'm guessing they see the pests as unfortunate intruders, not evil invaders.

[Mozart1220]

OK, how about the word "normal"? I hear people all the time saying "Homosexuality isn't NORMAL".

I say it IS "normal" for homosexuals, but "abnormal" for hetrosexuals.

I tried to get a definition for "normal" on another board and the conservative factions shouted it right off the board with "Don't be stupid, you don't need a definition! EVERYONE knows what "normal" means".

In other words, they didn't know either.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: 5010 Consider a natural and artificial protein that are both considered healthy and cost the same: natural protein = real and healthy = honest and healthy = good + good artificial protein = fake but healthy = dishonest but healthy = bad + good What's considered better? Natural protein. So we see it in the marketting. Or consider a natural and artificial poison ()again same price and effectiveness): natural poison = real but lethal = honest but lethal = good + bad artificial poison = fake and lethal = dishonest and lethal = bad + bad But people buy poison to inflict maximum badness on their pests (including trickery), so you don't see 'natural' as a marketting plus for poison but rather: "includes our finest scientifically formulated armaggedium!" Of course there are people who want that organic poison to kill pests, but I'm guessing they see the pests as unfortunate intruders, not evil invaders.

In the overall picture of the nature of existence, both the natural and artificial protein or poison are still natural. If the artificial protien or poison are indeed the same chemically they would be indistinguishable from each other. An artificial chemical would not be fake as such.

The modern synthetic diamonds cannot be distinguished from natural methods by their physical properties. They have to rely on subtle methodes of identification, such as the fact that it is usually to pure, flawless, and near perfect.

[pikatore]

I agree with mozart, its better, if you want to be technical, to say that everything is natural, even global warming due to our actions, and use the word normal instead when comparing things derived directly from our environment to man-made, synthesised stuff.

But, i couldn't be arsed being technical. This thread is silly, because the word natural can be used in many ways. Asking what 'natural' is like asking the best way to cook a steak. Some say raw, and others say well done. There is no right answer here.

You want to know what 'natural' is? Look in the dictionary - its got plently of material.

[5010]

Quote by: shunyadragon In the overall picture of the nature of existence, both the natural and artificial protein or poison are still natural.

I agree with that, but for an audience of common consumers is it not true that a company who labels a synthetic product as 'natural' would get in a lot of hot water, even if there was no structural difference?

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: 5010 I agree with that, but for an audience of common consumers is it not true that a company who labels a synthetic product as 'natural' would get in a lot of hot water, even if there was no structural difference?

In food and other products like cosmetics natural (non-manmade) products is preferred by some over synthetic products, but nontheless, when I made banana oil in my Organic Chmistry class it was chemically the same as banana oil form real bananas. The preference for 'natural' products has been over taken by what is called 'organic'. The main difference between 'organic' food and regular food is price, about three times as much.:rolleyes:

[atheist]

__________ is a state of mind.

In some rural village in Africa, it would probably be 'unnatural' to dye one's hair blue. In some urban city in America, it would probably be 'unnatural' to walk about top-naked through the streets. We are what our culture shapes us to be, most of the time.

In the end, everything is everything and nothing.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: atheist __________ is a state of mind. In some rural village in Africa, it would probably be 'unnatural' to dye one's hair blue. In some urban city in America, it would probably be 'unnatural' to walk about top-naked through the streets. We are what our culture shapes us to be, most of the time. In the end, everything is everything and nothing.

I think the threads intent was to differentiate natural from the miraculous and supernatural, and not the unnatural world in the eye of primative humanity as opposed to western urban society.

Walking naked through the streets of some urban city in America today would likely be considered very natural, but illegal.