Unnatural versus Natural

[swansont]

And I'll repeat one more time, speech may be part of our evolution, but the reason you speak using words is because of rote education.

 

Repeating doesn't make it true. Has rote education been around for tens of thousands of years, much less hundreds of thousands? You're drawing a distinction between words and grunts that isn't real. We developed (naturally, not artificially) a finer resolution on the sounds we were able to make, which allow for a higher information density. That's the difference between us and other animals in this regard. Later we were able to use our intelligence to read and write and we developed formal education, which expanded our vocabulary, but your designation of what is and isn't a word is completely off base.

 

At a fundamental level, a word is simply a sound that can be uniquely identified with some concept or object. There is nothing unnatural about our development of a large vocabulary. You have yet to support your disagreement with this, other than to repeat your claim.

[Arete]

I remember the film Jurassic Park when the Rapters talked to each other using high pitched sounds, and that's the type of speech I think you're suggesting we evolved to have.

 

Just to be clear, this unequivocally NOT what or the papers I've cited state. I fear you're dismissing the evidence provided to you without even looking at it. The specific anatomy of the supralaryngeal vocal tract specific to humans allows for the production of quantal vowels - i.e. "i" "a" and "u" sounds. Not grunts.

 

Also, I've asked a few times for a demonstration of your word-free communication, or at least an explanation of how you would convey the idea you are presenting here without the use of words. Currently your inability to do so makes this thread a superbly ironic example of the fundamental flaws in your stance.

[s1eep]

 

Just to be clear, this unequivocally NOT what or the papers I've cited state. I fear you're dismissing the evidence provided to you without even looking at it. The specific anatomy of the supralaryngeal vocal tract specific to humans allows for the production of quantal vowels - i.e. "i" "a" and "u" sounds. Not grunts.

 

Also, I've asked a few times for a demonstration of your word-free communication, or at least an explanation of how you would convey the idea you are presenting here without the use of words. Currently your inability to do so makes this thread a superbly ironic example of the fundamental flaws in your stance.

If two people are focused on the same objective, a simple grunt can suffice for yes or no, or serve as a reminder for something that happened prior. All you need is synergy between two or more people. We are here to survive, and you can understand what my grunt meant because we have the same objective, and it's related to that objective. How do you know? You just know because we have built synergy between us. The evidence you provided is not 100% proof of anything, what I'm saying is 100% true, and my evidence is in the back of everyone's mind who reads this-- you all went to school and learned words through rote education, or from your parents rote-education. That is not natural because it does not come naturally, it is forced into society, and it separates us from the natural world because we are more consumed by the word than we are the world.

 

You know what this means.

Edited March 11, 2014 by s1eep

[Fuzzwood]

Yeah, ever seen how the communication in a pack of wolves works? That is NOT instinct, but taught by the pack.

[Arete]

You know what this means.

 

If it means that you can't demonstrate how your supposedly "natural word free" communication actually works, and the only thing supporting your assertion that words are bad is you repeating "words are bad" ad nauseam, then yes, I do.

[swansont]

If two people are focused on the same objective, a simple grunt can suffice for yes or no, or serve as a reminder for something that happened prior. All you need is synergy between two or more people. We are here to survive, and you can understand what my grunt meant because we have the same objective, and it's related to that objective. How do you know? You just know because we have built synergy between us. The evidence you provided is not 100% proof of anything, what I'm saying is 100% true, and my evidence is in the back of everyone's mind who reads this-- you all went to school and learned words through rote education, or from your parents rote-education. That is not natural because it does not come naturally, it is forced into society, and it separates us from the natural world because we are more consumed by the word than we are the world.

 

You know what this means.

 

You are continuing to ignore that rote education does not date back as far as language. Ignoring counter-arguments does not render them untrue.

[s1eep]

 

You are continuing to ignore that rote education does not date back as far as language. Ignoring counter-arguments does not render them untrue.

But then you keep forgetting the fact I say "use words to the EXTENT of humans". And I think the evolution of the word and our own evolution are separate.

Edited March 11, 2014 by s1eep

[swansont]

But then you keep forgetting the fact I say "use words to the EXTENT of humans". And I think the evolution of the word and our own evolution are separate.

 

At what amount of vocabulary does it become unnatural? What is unnatural about our development of vocalization that permitted a larger vocabulary? What was the unnatural agent that caused it?

[s1eep]

 

At what amount of vocabulary does it become unnatural? What is unnatural about our development of vocalization that permitted a larger vocabulary? What was the unnatural agent that caused it?

When it is being used for non-survival reasons (I.e. reasons that do not coincide with the family objective: survival). And I don't have an answer for the other questions, unless by agent you mean rotary education.

Edited March 11, 2014 by s1eep

[Phi for All]

Other animals kill things with their teeth, and live happily. Your opinion is, again, egotistical. You are obsessed with the human ego, you love the fake character you put on and you love to upper-converge. You like human reality, and I don't think your opinion is just when we are comparing the natural to the unnatural.

 

I don't think I'd be happy at all killing things with my teeth. They aren't very good at it, and they're not designed for replacement if I break one, and my dentist will be too busy trying to feed his own family to help me out.

 

And we haven't established this distinction between natural and unnatural. You make the assumption that what humans are doing isn't natural, but you can't tell us why. You make this fallacious special pleading case that humans doing things other animals do isn't natural, and it sounds downright silly. You claim our problem is "rote" education, but when shown that our system is not completely rote, or that rote education hasn't been around that long, your explanation fails and you have no answer but to repeat yourself.

 

I asked you a question on the first page that you ignored, so I'll ask again. What would be your reaction if we started observing great apes building houses in the trees? Should we stop them? Should we blow up that evolutionary bridge? Should we assume that's not natural or do apes automatically get a pass because... well, they aren't human?

[swansont]

When it is being used for non-survival reasons (I.e. reasons that do not coincide with the family objective: survival). And I don't have an answer for the other questions, unless by agent you mean rotary education.

 

So your arbitrary claim has no support. Shocked, I am.

[Phi for All]

When it is being used for non-survival reasons (I.e. reasons that do not coincide with the family objective: survival). And I don't have an answer for the other questions, unless by agent you mean rotary education.

 

You've also been told that survival is NOT the primary function you think it is. Procreation is a much stronger evolutionary pressure.

 

Why do you insist on being so close-minded about this? You do realize, I hope, that YOU are the one who is reducing this problem down to a single, narrow, untenable explanation with no room for interpretation? You've determined that everyone else is wrong and you are right, based on some criteria that's been shown to be faulty or outright wrong.

 

I've had my ideas picked apart before. They always make sense to me until people show me the points where I made a hasty conclusion, or my information was flat out wrong, or I misunderstood the relevance of other data. It's tough to let it go after you've put so much thought into it.

 

In this case, I think a lot of people grow up feeling slightly guilty about animal husbandry, or bad ecological decisions made by their communities, or any of a number of problems we haven't quite mastered, and they get the idea that humans are on one side, and the rest of Earth's species are on the other. THAT'S what's unnatural, and I think we're getting better at integrating ourselves with our environment, but we still need to work harder and smarter at it. We have this weird meme that "chemicals" are unnatural, and that should change too. "Chemical" shouldn't be synonymous with "caustic" or "poisonous" or "man-made".

[Arete]

I think we're all overlooking the elephant in the room here - the evilness of walking.

 

Walking is inherent in all the bad things people do. Without walking, you can't go to war or cut down a rainforest.

 

Also, walking is unnatural - babies don't come out of the womb walking, they have to learn it from their brainwashed walking parents. Learning from your parents is also inherently evil, making walking doubly bad.

 

In fact the only sensible thing to do to ensure we live long, happy and prosperous lives is to go back to our proper, natural means of locomotion of scooting around on our butts. I for one hope you all join me in forsaking the evilness of walking and creating a butt-scooting utopia for the sake of all mankind.

[s1eep]

 

I don't think I'd be happy at all killing things with my teeth. They aren't very good at it, and they're not designed for replacement if I break one, and my dentist will be too busy trying to feed his own family to help me out.

 

And we haven't established this distinction between natural and unnatural. You make the assumption that what humans are doing isn't natural, but you can't tell us why. You make this fallacious special pleading case that humans doing things other animals do isn't natural, and it sounds downright silly. You claim our problem is "rote" education, but when shown that our system is not completely rote, or that rote education hasn't been around that long, your explanation fails and you have no answer but to repeat yourself.

 

I asked you a question on the first page that you ignored, so I'll ask again. What would be your reaction if we started observing great apes building houses in the trees? Should we stop them? Should we blow up that evolutionary bridge? Should we assume that's not natural or do apes automatically get a pass because... well, they aren't human?

The point is, they're not making houses in trees, that's beyond them. If they started to build houses, it would probably be a product of our reality and not by natural means.

 

Words are not natural, the things which they label are natural, know the difference.

[Phi for All]

The point is, they're not making houses in trees, that's beyond them. If they started to build houses, it would probably be a product of our reality and not by natural means.

 

Words are not natural, the things which they label are natural, know the difference.

 

NO! Stop dodging the parts of questions you don't want to answer!

 

I'll make it even more specific. You see apes building shelters in trees, using vines to lash together other materials. There are no nearby humans they could have learned this from, they have discovered it on their own. It can probably be traced to an individual ape who tried it, found it useful and showed others how to do it. Similar to how we probably learned to build shelter.

 

That's the given scenario. Don't touch it, don't mess with it, leave it as it is.

 

Now. How do you treat this under your philosophy? They're apes, so everything they do is natural, right? But they're doing something apes don't normally do, so should you stop it or see where it goes, no matter how it affects the apes and the environment around them?

[swansont]

 

Words are not natural

 

Bald assertion is not conducive to discussion.

[Phi for All]

Sound may be a part of our evolution, but as I said earlier, words are a product of rote-education.

Words and speech are not the same, words are defined, whereas speech can be undefined.

 

If this were exclusively true, I wouldn't be able to make up words, would I? Yet I can, and not nonsense words like glarple, but words that create images that haven't been used before. For instance, your philosophy seems a little borderloony to me, since it seems to say we should scrap all our progress and live like any other animal, and maybe over time we'll become stupid again and finally get some happiness.

 

A word, not rote-learned, a part of speech now because the message was successfully transferred from one person to another.

 

You are obsessed with the human ego, you love the fake character you put on and you love to upper-converge.

"Upper-converge"? For someone who thinks words are evil, you're able to put them together to suit your purposes fairly well. Please explain what the verb "upper-converge" means, and why you think I love doing it.

[s1eep]

 

Bald assertion is not conducive to discussion.

Words are not natural because they are a human creation. They may be made by natural means, but the word-product itself is unnatural, a human creation, not like a child or tears, an opinion against that of the natural world-- that the sound means anything other than a sound.

[swansont]

Words are not natural because they are a human creation. They may be made by natural means, but the word-product itself is unnatural, a human creation, not like a child or tears, an opinion against that of the natural world-- that the sound means anything other than a sound.

 

You continue to tap-dance around how something made by a human without the use of tools is somehow unnatural. You imply or state that it is, but give absolutely no justification for this. A word is a sound to which we have assigned a particular meaning. Sounds have meaning to other animals, too. The only difference is the degree to which we have evolved, because it gives us an advantage. There is absolutely nothing unnatural involved in any of that.

 

It's like saying that our opposable thumbs are unnatural, or as Arete mentioned, bipedal locomotion. You have offered no justification for the bizarre definition you appear to have for unnatural.

[Phi for All]

Words are not natural because they are a human creation. They may be made by natural means, but the word-product itself is unnatural, a human creation, not like a child or tears, an opinion against that of the natural world-- that the sound means anything other than a sound.

 

I normally don't like the reductio ad absurdum argument, but it may help you see how non-viable your position is.

 

You claim "words are not a natural because they are a human creation". OK, wow, that's horrible, let's do away with words then. This removes most of our fine control over cooperative efforts, and completely destroys our fantastic communication skills (which seems unfair now, since other animals can communicate using their version of words, but what the hey). So we'll have to scale back on population, but those folks were going to die anyway, since without words and intense cooperation, we can't produce enough food to support them.

 

That's also OK, because they won't be able to eat the same food anyway. Nothing can be cooked. Since other animals don't know how to create fire, I'm assuming you're taking that skill away as well. Now we have some big problems.

 

We've evolved a stomach that needs to have our foods cooked to digest them properly. Without that, we can't get enough of our dietary requirements to support this really big brain we have. You probably could have just banned cooking, and then eventually we'd all die off or become just another dumb animal. Ignorant, savage, and doomed to extinction since we have no natural weapons to compete with and you've taken away our tools, cooperation and communication skills.

 

Humanity is dead, because s1eep thinks evolution is wrong, or at least got it wrong with us. The one species that might have carried Earth's diversity to other planets is gone, because one guy didn't entertain the possibility that we're reaching for the potential the planet needs us to have.

 

If evolution did have a goal, what if it was to develop a species that could protect the planet from meteor collisions? Isn't that the ultimate in environmental consciousness, protecting the whole planet?

[Lightmeow]

My spell check isn't working, FYI

Words are not natural because they are a human creation. They may be made by natural means, but the word-product itself is unnatural, a human creation, not like a child or tears, an opinion against that of the natural world-- that the sound means anything other than a sound.

 

What you are saying is half vallid, but we have done studys to show that animals can cummunicate to each other using certain sounds and gestures. Therefor, by your argument, their communication is unnatural.

 

 

I don't think it is evidence to say we were meant to use words, maybe it's evidence to say we were meant to speak, but not using words, using our instincts.

 

Who are you to say that the sounds that we use are words. All our words are sound. Who are you to say we are more evolved.

 

Not true, we could be peaceful, we can follow a greater good. And even if we were more wrathful at times, it would be for a greater good like for food or again, family or village.

 

What greater good would we follow. There would be no greater good if we couldn't invent anything.

 

Sound may be a part of our evolution, but as I said earlier, words are a product of rote-education. Is Xbox One part of our evolution? We evolved opposable thumbs, clearly to hold the controller.

 

There have been studies with dolphins that say that they do stuff for fun, i.e., sexaul intercourse; for enjoyment and pleasure, not to procuate. Dolphins have "hobbies", why can't humans. I assume you have a computer because you are posting this, so you are a hyprocrite.

 

When it is being used for non-survival reasons (I.e. reasons that do not coincide with the family objective: survival). And I don't have an answer for the other questions, unless by agent you mean rotary education.

 

So, what is your difinition of survival? Living naked, eating raw food, and procuating.

 

But then you keep forgetting the fact I say "use words to the EXTENT of humans". And I think the evolution of the word and our own evolution are separate.

 

How?

 

If two people are focused on the same objective, a simple grunt can suffice for yes or no, or serve as a reminder for something that happened prior. All you need is synergy between two or more people. We are here to survive, and you can understand what my grunt meant because we have the same objective, and it's related to that objective. How do you know? You just know because we have built synergy between us. The evidence you provided is not 100% proof of anything, what I'm saying is 100% true, and my evidence is in the back of everyone's mind who reads this-- you all went to school and learned words through rote education, or from your parents rote-education. That is not natural because it does not come naturally, it is forced into society, and it separates us from the natural world because we are more consumed by the word than we are the world.

 

You know what this means.

 

What is your point? Then why do humans have free will?

 

Words and speech are not the same, words are defined, whereas speech can be undefined. Interpretive dance is a good example, as is grunts, I could simply grunt at the correct time to convey a picture that tells a thousand words. We could create speech that was only understood by a family, like with certain tribes. The point of the matter is that we use words to an extent greater than any other known being. And I'll repeat one more time, speech may be part of our evolution, but the reason you speak using words is because of rote education. If we cut out education, there would be no words, but speech would remain. I remember the film Jurassic Park when the Rapters talked to each other using high pitched sounds, and that's the type of speech I think you're suggesting we evolved to have.

 

Other animals kill things with their teeth, and live happily. Your opinion is, again, egotistical. You are obsessed with the human ego, you love the fake character you put on and you love to upper-converge. You like human reality, and I don't think your opinion is just when we are comparing the natural to the unnatural.

 

I doubt it. I wouldn't be able to talk to you. People would be isolated, and their would be no far cummunication. Speach saves a lot of time. And the way you're preaching, I feel like you are doing everything you are trying to say is wrong. LISTEN TO YOUR EGO!!!

 

A word is not part of the body, it's man-made, entirely fictional. It's stupid to compare it to a giraffes long neck. No tool should be the dominant factor of someone's life, unless you are seeking a profession, a hammer is a dominant part of the blacksmith's life, a word is a dominant part of the word-mammals life; and the tool is too destructive, so much so that in under a thousand years the Earth will be a desolate wasteland, or at least too unhealthy to live in stability. We cease to be natural when we start using words, a tool which we let dictate our lives. It is not part of our evolution, it's something teachers invented and taught through rote-education to the populous. Words do not come naturally, we have to be taught words either by our parents when we are young, or in school, but our parents were educated, so the source is education. Why do we let education dominate our lives instead of the purest natural world with a natural untouched mind? Animals bark, or grunt, or send messages that relate to prey, food, or things which are important for survival. A human can, and will, become obese, waste lots, and many other stupidities, primarily because of civilization, and the word and what it allows us to accomplish. Do we really accomplish anything if the accomplishment kills us? I don't think so. You are unwise to think the word is not deadly, you are too lost in pseudo-science to care about the world falling apart around you because of the education you support-- so highly.

 

Yes, and this thread is fictional. We are in this reality. Take it and be productive, or go naked in the middle of nowhere and I want to see how happy you will be.

 

It's not only unnatural, it's also anti-nature with waste output. We only waste as much as we do because we adapted so much with the word. I imagine it was dragged along by the rich and people were educated stupid to be social androids who hold the word, and education, in high regard. We don't have the resource to live in this luxury, and it's unfair to enslave humans under the enmity between the rich and the poor just to satisfy wants. You're wrong by thinking words are part of the self, and that it's natural to use them, because I'm sure they have to be forced through human effort into the mind-- it does not come from thin air, and it began at some point, it hasn't been around since the beginning of time. I assert that your idea of a high-intelligence is diminished by your love for the word and egotistical hate for the natural world.

 

Lightning that burns down trees is anti-nature, all the oil is anti-nature. You froget that everything gets recycled eventully.

 

To begin I would like to announce that I do not believe in God, but I believe that Nature is more significant than myself, and I worship our bond. I am all the small things, I prefer to be alone, I tend to associate with one or maybe to people; I like to see how things interrelate, and often find cool representations like fire, it's effects, being related to anger and it's effects. Did humans inherit what relatives left behind? Can I be angry because fire is possible, do these two states connect? Reality, to me, is evil-- if I had my way a lot of things would change; for instance, I would be kinder to nature and prioritise it; being wise, I don't want future humanity to perish due to global pollution. Everything in our world created by us is unnatural (i.e. not created by nature); these inventions are not only different to nature, but they are against nature-- in the light of humans being greater. Most unnatural things plunder nature and harm the environment either by waste or poison (and a lot more I'm sure). Are humans progressing in a different direction to nature, and could we be more natural for our own prosperity? If this is the case, then I would like to assert that the entirety of nature existent is one thing and life is experience orientated, a part of the meta-consciousness that is nature. Where nature comes first, there should be no unnatural. Humans are egotistical to deny their natural roots, and the respect it deserves, and continue to build an unnatural world, that kills them. Are humans educated stupid? Are humans evil (in accordance to what is wise)?

 

Humans by that difinition are evil.

I'm passionate about nature, not angry, but my dedication to voice relatively similar concepts can make me come across as angry, or wrathful. The difference between human reality and natural reality is great; if we were like other animals, if we didn't talk and create pseudo-reality, nature would have been at optimal health, and we would have been in the perfect conditions for our own evolution. Because we don't hunt like other mammals, we don't have the capacity to evolve in special ways-- we halt our evolution with our less natural lifestyles. What is evolution to somebody? Why would we value evolution? Is it through what we could become, or is it just a insignificant natural process? What I'm suggesting is that there is a life long lost with the presence of human reality. The lives we lead are an abstraction; they are not natural, we do not live how we should live for the betterment of ourselves. It doesn't matter if we have improved, and the improvements themselves are not enough to counter our waste output. The only way to truly perfect planet Earth would be to destroy modern civilization and remove the human ego that separates us from nature-- give no aid to anyone, remove money and close down all shops, and allow humans to slowly return to natural living.

 

Basically what I think you are saying is learning is unnatural, as I understand it. And you dissagree with free will, and want no truck with it...

 

Regards,

 

Lightmeow

[s1eep]

 

I normally don't like the reductio ad absurdum argument, but it may help you see how non-viable your position is.

 

You claim "words are not a natural because they are a human creation". OK, wow, that's horrible, let's do away with words then. This removes most of our fine control over cooperative efforts, and completely destroys our fantastic communication skills (which seems unfair now, since other animals can communicate using their version of words, but what the hey). So we'll have to scale back on population, but those folks were going to die anyway, since without words and intense cooperation, we can't produce enough food to support them.

 

That's also OK, because they won't be able to eat the same food anyway. Nothing can be cooked. Since other animals don't know how to create fire, I'm assuming you're taking that skill away as well. Now we have some big problems.

 

We've evolved a stomach that needs to have our foods cooked to digest them properly. Without that, we can't get enough of our dietary requirements to support this really big brain we have. You probably could have just banned cooking, and then eventually we'd all die off or become just another dumb animal. Ignorant, savage, and doomed to extinction since we have no natural weapons to compete with and you've taken away our tools, cooperation and communication skills.

 

Humanity is dead, because s1eep thinks evolution is wrong, or at least got it wrong with us. The one species that might have carried Earth's diversity to other planets is gone, because one guy didn't entertain the possibility that we're reaching for the potential the planet needs us to have.

 

If evolution did have a goal, what if it was to develop a species that could protect the planet from meteor collisions? Isn't that the ultimate in environmental consciousness, protecting the whole planet?

I hate to use the old lion and computer example, but it seems well put here. A lion is a natural being, whereas, a computer is an unnatural being. The same logic can be applied to humans and the word, one is natural, the other, being a man-made creation, is unnatural (i.e. egotistically formed around man; defined separate to nature). You are not too optimistic about the future of nature, but I am very. I think we will one day evolve new abilities, abilities that could better entertain us or help us to survive. By being "good", and thus natural, we advance naturally.

Edited March 15, 2014 by s1eep

[Arete]

By being "good", and thus natural, we advance naturally.

 

So, how do you feel about smallpox and cholera - which are all natural versus vaccines and antibiotics - which are "unnatural"?

 

 

 

 

is unnatural (i.e. egotistically formed around man; defined separate to nature)

 

 

And yet, you have and obviously use one. Where the line? Is a rock tied to a stick "unnatural" because a man made it? How about pig iron? or is it only "unnatural" when it's made of forged steel?

 

The whole argument smacks of hypocrisy, special pleading and subjectivity.

[swansont]

I hate to use the old lion and computer example, but it seems well put here. A lion is a natural being, whereas, a computer is an unnatural being. The same logic can be applied to humans and the word, one is natural, the other, being a man-made creation, is unnatural (i.e. egotistically formed around man; defined separate to nature).

 

So if I make a footprint in the sand, that's unnatural? How can I measure how much ego is used in doing this?

 

When in the course of evolution of man did actions become unnatural?

[s1eep]

When footprints are concerned, we are using our natural body parts to create them. When technology is concerned, we use words we have learned to hypothesise inventions. I'm not saying the use of plans or blueprints is wrong, only the words we use which abstract sound. In the natural world, we could live quite harmoniously-- it doesn't have to be savage or barbaric, we can use our aptitude to form working communities far greater and fairer than the ones we see today. Why is the word unnatural as oppose to, let's say, water? We see water as 2 hydrogen 1 oxygen atom, but in all fairness it is a being in itself and has value beyond the resource plunder-- the word compresses the whole being of water into a singular perspective, the human ego. We act as if we are God's of our environment, and secure our egos with broadcasts of our word-based intelligence that goes entirely against our situation. Words assume that other beings have the same genius as humans, and that they can be understood in this manner, even though the truly comprehend a subject like the Sun would take much greater mental ability. We only say things do not have meaning because we can't find meaning as evidence, but truly some meaning is beyond what you can comprehend. Until you can reproduce the Sun in mind, in the same format as it lay in the natural universe, you have not correctly comprehended the Sun. Any word you can create is a replacement, and it serves to provide understanding, in so far as the human ego and it's abilities. You have been educated to be a submissive android to everything that supports the unnatural movement or to covering it up so no-one sees the true abstraction of reality. Sound is part of a human, the word is part of our human ego, the two are together and synonymous. We first have to believe that we are different to nature before we can start using words, our educated opinion that the sound means anything other than a sound. We are egotistical because we are self-promoting creatures with our own special idea of intelligence, and we reinforce our ego with exerts of this intelligence (for example, we use the word lots to keep the illusion real feeling); the word is a major factor of our intelligence. The human ego is fictitious, and so is the word it withholds.