What is nature? How would you explain it?

[ex member coconino]

I don't agree, where's the cut-off point where cognitive thought is/isn't natural?
A crow has cognitive thought, if it uses a twig to get some food from a hole in a tree is that natural?
It had a thought process, made a conscious decision to extract that food using a tool, that piece of food would still be there if the crow hadn't removed it.
What's the difference between that and you cutting a tree down?

I didn't know that crows had conscious decision-making abilities!

As I asked earlier on. At what point in evolution did man suddenly become unnatural?

I don't consider humans to be unnatural, and when it comes down to it one could say that everything in the universe is natural, but that makes the question pointless to start off with. In order to answer it meaningfully one first needs to conjecture that the universe is divided into natural and unnatural aspects, and therefore the question becomes one of where that division is drawn. My proposal is to mark the difference between conscious and unconscious action, and so if it is true that crows are capable of conscious thought (a power hitherto assumed to be unique to humans) then it follows that the consequences of a crow's actions are unnatural (by the proposed definition).

The wikipedia entry for Nature says, '...manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind.', which—I'm gratified to discover—accords with the definition I proposed (I promise I didn't look it up before!) but the question is so broad that it is open to endless debate, which of course is what makes it fun!

 

[Bushwhacker]

I didn't know that crows had conscious decision-making abilities!

There are other examples but this is my favourite - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PmkreJHw4k

And this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeQppJmOWJA&feature=related

 

[ex member coconino]

There are other examples but this is my favourite - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PmkreJHw4k

And this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeQppJmOWJA&feature=related

Next question... what is consciousness? It used to be thought (in some traditions at least) that animals don't have a soul, but we've solved that one easily by dismissing the entire notion of a soul (or at least atheists have, amongst which I count myself). But the idea that conscious thought is common in animals aside from humans is a long way from the mainstream. The idea that apes have the capacity for a degree of conscious thought has only recently become accepted, let alone crows. That your examples show crows behaving cleverly is clear, whether their behaviour is a result of a conscious decision process is not evident, and in the Attenborough example the selection of the camera shots may give a misleading impression of how thought-out the behaviour is.

 

[Hoodoo]

But then won't that make ANY response to 'nature' meaningless, since it only exists as a concept within human hearts and minds?

If we apply your logic to the extreme, then all things are natural. Rape is natural. Murder is natural. Pedophilia is natural. Necrophilia is natural. It's all part of "nature."

 

[durulz]

If we apply your logic to the extreme, then all things are natural. Rape is natural. Murder is natural. Pedophilia is natural. Necrophilia is natural. It's all part of "nature."

Crikey.
That's a bit of a conversation stopper.

 

[ex-member Raikey]

Nechrophilia is,nt natural?????

you havent seen some of the women in my village,.....



i,ll get me coat

 

[Wallenstein]

If we apply your logic to the extreme, then all things are natural. Rape is natural. Murder is natural. Pedophilia is natural. Necrophilia is natural. It's all part of "nature."

I don't see any argument with that. But "natural" doesn't automatically mean "morally good", or even "evolutionarily advantageous".

The key is that, as humans, we overlay nature with morality, and ascribe abstract moral qualities (right, wrong, good, bad) to natural acts and processes.

As Hamlet says to Rosencrantz: "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so".

A fox killing rabbits is a morally neutral act, whereas a soldier killing a bunch of nuns is not; that doesn't mean both acts are not "natural", it's just one group of animals killing another group.

NB. "natural" gets misused to mean "most common", or "best suited for passing on the genes", when actually we're making a value-judgement when we say that.

 

[Bushwhacker]

If we apply your logic to the extreme, then all things are natural. Rape is natural. Murder is natural. Pedophilia is natural. Necrophilia is natural. It's all part of "nature."

It's natural that out of all the good folk there are, there's bound to be some bad ones too who, by their very nature, will commit a heinous act.
You're almost asking if it's normal rather than natural. Normal within our moral code it certainly is not.

 

[ex member coconino]

@Wallenstein: Drat your corrected "Hamlet"! I was just about to post, "was this before he set up the toy shop on Regent Street?"

 

[Wallenstein]

@Wallenstein: Drat your corrected "Hamlet"! I was just about to post, "was this before he set up the toy shop on Regent Street?"

lol - yeah, same thought went through my head!

Cuddly toys with a sideline in scandinavian ghost stories!

 

[ex member coconino]

lol - yeah, same thought went through my head!

Cuddly toys with a sideline in scandinavian ghost stories!

Yes, please don't be so quick on the draw next time, at least give the smart-Alec a fighting chance!

 

[Retired Member southey]

All those acts are of course natural. As in they are acts of nature. Morality, right, wrong has nothing to do with nature. There are probably lots of animal behavior that if it gappend on the highstreet we would find it moraly wrong. That's why I find it funny when people talk of getting back to nature? So your going to fight other males to the death if needs be for the right to force your genes on a herd of the best looking women around then just strut about munching stuff? Hang on that sounds like a great weekend!

 

[Melonfish]

On one hand "nature" is simply the anthropomorphism of the vibrant and ever flowing life that inhabits this planet.
On the other its a spiritual force that ebbs and flows with the seasons and guides our path in life.

rather then writing about what nature is by defining it, why not define what nature is by writing about what others see it as?

 

[Hoodoo]

All those acts are of course natural. As in they are acts of nature. Morality, right, wrong has nothing to do with nature. There are probably lots of animal behavior that if it gappend on the highstreet we would find it moraly wrong. That's why I find it funny when people talk of getting back to nature? So your going to fight other males to the death if needs be for the right to force your genes on a herd of the best looking women around then just strut about munching stuff? Hang on that sounds like a great weekend!

Maybe. But the term "nature" and "natural" are concepts. Creations of the human mind. We also have the concept of unnatural. If all things are natural, thne there is no need for the concept of unnatural. Yet one has to wonder why such a concept exists eh? If the term nature encompasses everything, then it really has no meaning as something distinct. If all is nature, if all is natural, then the terms become almost meaningless. The fact is, what is and isn't "natural" involves moral and ethical decisions, also manifestations of the human mind.

By implication, if all things are nature, and all things are natural, then morality and right and wrong have everything to do with nature. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[ged]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

But you can't blame a fellow for trying.