Definition Of Natural
Definition Of NaturalProposal 0:
Definition by defining the opposite of natural:
Some process is anatural, if it is based on a future state.
This is a very short definition. Try shorter. And also, it is sharp in the sense, that it allows to clearly separate natural from anatural processes.
For a discussion about this definition see WhatIsNatural.
An anonymous commentor notes, that this definition of anatural would be better suited as a definition of intentional. But if that is true, at least we could shorten this proposal 0 even further to Some process is 'natural' if it is unintentional. If you don't like it, provide some better one.
Proposal 1:
Natural processes make no interaction with knowing of future. Nature is the set of all natural processes.
To use intentional is not possible. An intentional process is only a very special anatural process. It implicates an intention to the future state (you must know what you want), this is not necessary for anatural processes, that only make interaction with knowing of future anyway.
The rain drops know where they are falling and want to fall there. They know the future and intentionally move in the predestined direction. So rain in anatural.
To resolve this one, we have to define what "to know" means. And I exclude rain drops knowing their future. C.K.: No you have not!
Go on, define "to know". Why do you think rain drops do not know their future?
(C.K.) It is not so important what means "to know" exactly. The Point is there is no interaction with these "knowing". The falling of a rain drop is complete determinate by its past and the past of its enviroment. (And an umbrella in its way, is the anatural part of its life ;-)) A short explanation: knowing of future does not mean knowing of the future, it means knowing the concept of future.
Sorry, but how can you know that the rain drops do not know the concept of the future? Another problem with your definition is that is is based on how deterministic a process is. Well, natural atomic fission is not deterministic.
(C.K.) The point is the interaction with the knowing of future, not the knowing of future itself. Rain drops behave like things that do not know future. And fundamental physical principles are deterministic, only the observation is not. But if I am wrong about that, it do not change the problem. I only use the word "deterministic" to explain the behavior of a rain drop, it is not part of the definition and not a consequence. Indeterministic fundamental processes would also behave like processes that do not know future. And if you think about something metaphysical, I think it is right to call such a process "not natural".
Not all fundamental physical principles are deterministic, or at least the modern physics assumes that. You cannot tell or compute when one single atom of Uranium splits until it does. Still even though you can never tell when the split occurs, I will call the fission of Uranium atoms natural. The trajectory of a rain drop can be compute, it is deterministic, yet I still call it natural. When a lion attacks an antelope, even thou I can predict the outcome only with certain amount of precision, I call that natural. But I still distinguish between a natural person and an legal person, or between natural food ingredient and man-made artificial one, natural conception vs in-vitro, etc...
(C.K.) Okay, I made a misleading or maybe wrong statement about physical fundamentals. But I think this it not the place to explain what is my basic idea behind. That is the reason why I wrote ?... it do not change the problem. ...?. The indeterministic processes you describe are natural in the meaning of the definition too and without a deeper anlaysis I think the others fits also. You give good examples for a nice consequence of the definition. In not fundamental Systems, processes also are not fundamental. So it is possible to analys parts of the process. That give you a chance to talk about the degree of "natural". For example it is not so easy to know what people mean by natural food. How you would classify genetic manipulated plants? I think there is no consens about. But you would solve this senseless discussion, if you have seen, it is only a question of which part, the natural or anatural, is emotionally more important for the one or the other side.
Proposal 2:
Natural processes are all processes not influenced by human soul or G-d. Anatural processes are processed influenced by human soul. Supernatural processes are processes influenced by G-d.
That is a very interesting proposal! It is also very sharp. I just fear that all those who don't like the concept of a soul will also dislike this proposal, because it is of no use for them. May we call this the religious definition?
Perhaps. Here is the version for atheists:
Proposal 2b:
Natural processes are all processes not influenced by human mind. Anatural processes are processed influenced by human mind.
That might be ok, if you could give me a definition of (human) mind. And I think that this "knowing the future" is part of that.
Do not put the word human in parentheses; it is as important as the mind part. So here is the definition: Human mind is the part of a human which is not (part of) their body.
I do not think, that you can draw a sharp boundary between the body and the mind (and the soul) to use it in the definition. At best it goes the other way around. And I didn't put it in parentheses because I didn't want to explicitly exclude potentially other minds (artificial, animal, others).
Well, I wanted to explicitly exclude animal minds, since they are natural (by my understanding and so by my definition). Artificial minds are created by humans with their minds, so not natural (according to this definition). Regarding the separation of mind from the human body: You are probably right, no sharp boundary can be drawn - so no sharp boundary between natural and anatural can be drawn.
Messy. Must one distinguish natural hunting (by animals) from anatural hunting (by humans)?
Of course messy :-) Whether you have to distinguish depends on your agenda.
(C.K.) I think there is a problem in your definition. It is not a definition for everyones understanding of natural. If you read the discussion on the site WhatIsNatural, you found a person who think everything in nature and make the conclusion everything men do is natural. Is he simply wrong? I do not think so and have tried to explain it in this discussion. I think proposal 1 includes both, yours and his understanding of natural, its only a problem of the system you ask the question about natural. Its not a new concept of language, words allways depends on the system. And there is no canonical system. The meaning of a word varies with the used system. But in the case of natural and other words is it not important to give a definition for every possible system, one is enough. Everything else following forceless. The process of abstraction in science is nothing else.
Of course :-) This word is used in many meaning, some of them even contradict each other. So I suppose, no definition of this word which would describe the usual meanings of this word can by formulated.
(C.K.) Okay, but in my opinion you can solve this contradictions from case to case, with the descision of the right system you are talking about.
(C.K.) I think there is a little mistake in the first definition, one I do by myself too. Many people not understanding "not natural" and "anatural" in the same way. In this case please substitute in mind "anatural" with "not natural" or try the second definition. With the second definition, you can also ignore the problem of "future states".
Consequences of definition 0:
This definition obviously makes most actions of humans anatural, but this is intended. It allows e.g. to clearly separate instinct and emotion from reason and intelligence or possibly unconsciousness from consciousness (at least if we use the DefinitionOfConsciousness).
Please note that it also makes environmental protection anatural.
It makes most life processes natural (as expected). According to this definition, humans do not live Their life-processes are very natural.
(C.K.: This is no consequence of the definition. Nowhere is said, that all human behaviors are anatural.)
Learning is not necessarily anatural. Because a process that simply adapts to some stimuli in some way to minimize some (e.g. evolutionary selected) function can do so without recourse to possible future states.
See also (found by searches for "Natural"):
Then they are natural, because they do not know (or interact) with their future. Even so. This also holds for all other kinds of numbers. Is this an example where the definition of 0 cannot be used?
Actually, numbers have no future. So, if they know nothing about it, they know everything about it. So numbers are a singularity, they are natural and anatural at the same time.
Why no future?
Numbers are abstract, they simply are at best. I think we should exclude abstracta from the definition.
Aren't minds also abstract, like beauty?
Yes. Are numbers (and the like) something special?
(C.K.) I think we have a misinterpreting of language. The attributes natural and anatural on a thing always content a reference to the process that results in this thing they describe. This concept of language is not new. In that way Natural Numbers are natural and others not (in the mind of mathmaticans, who give this name to this set of numbers). You have nothing to do for getting Natural Numbers, the others have to construct which a special intention for future using. In this case you have no problems with abstract things.
(C.K.) Beauty is a good example. Imanuel Kant tried to understand what beauty is. In his discussion he made a distinction between natural beauty and not natural beauty, not explicit but he defined the "real beauty of something" as the beauty of something that exist without any special reason. But on the other side people use beauty in a context that implicates the benifit of the thing. The distinction between this two versions of understanding beauty is given by the definition.
I believe the definition of 'natural' will always be irrelevant for anything other than day-to-day usage, where it usually means 'earthly, and not man-made'. The only accurate classification of WhatIsNatural is that everything is natural. Name one thing that isn't derived in any way from nature.
You mean "everything in nature", which is one meaning, but this page is attempting to find a suitable wording for the secondary meaning, which (roughly) excludes man-made things.
What is the use of such a definition? Why not just use the everyday version?
(C.K.) Because there is no everyday version for all, everyone has his own! This discussion proves it. Some people think human behaviors are natural, some think not. Proposal 1 contains the statement, that its only a problem of the system you use. The question is, what are the processes in your special system? Are you talking about fundamental physics or maybe of social-systems? In the system that explains the world on fundamental physics principels, everything is natural. In system used by not Nature-Sciences there are some anatural processes. The proposal 1 fits for both. For serious discussions you need a definition of the words you use. And there are many fruitless discussions about nature, that could solved by such a definition.
Hypothetical: So let's say we can finally agree on whether human actions are natural or not. What have we gained? What problem have we solved? What use does this definition have? None, in my opinion. In other words, 'So what?' It's a DifferenceThatMakesNoDifference. In a PhilosophyOfPragmatism, utility is the only justification.
(C.K.) First: The language will losing words, there would be no communication, if words you use were not understanding, it would be simply waste of time. On the other side there are always conclusions you implicate with words inside of your own. You would make the wrong conclusions to a special situation, if you believed someone who described it to you with these words, but something different in mind.
Too abstract. In this case, what is a specific concrete example of where the definition of 'natural' would have important RealWorld consequences.
(C.K.) I think many people have in mind if something is 'natural', you can not really change it. And some make the conclusion 'natural process' have to prefer. On the other side their are persons who make publicity for things they call 'natural', like racialism, neoliberalism, social-darwinism, etc.. With a definition of 'natural' you can prove they are wrong, without a definition discussions about have only to do with believing.
Why don't you just point out that they are succumbing to the NaturalisticFallacy? Whether the thing is actually natural or not is irrelevant; the fallacy is in the reasoning, not the definition.
(C.K.) I am not sure understanding your argument. I think we are not so different. Of course you are right, the real work to do, is not to define something, it is to make the conclusions. And to prove a fallacy is a conclusion. But without a well defined starting point, even the first steps of conclusions implicates a lot of believing. Definitions are always only the starting point, the conclusions are the real work. But if there is no consensus about a definition, these work will be, exaggeratedly saying, simply waste of time.
In my opinion my examples can not be solved with arguments of NaturalisticFallacy? I think it is not only a case of wrong logical argumentation.
My point is that whatever definition of 'natural' you choose, it will not help you to 'prove they are wrong'. Let's say, hypothetically, that we define natural to be 'anything that happens between midnight and noon, GMT'. The actual definition is unimportant, so don't get hung up on it. People who believe that 'natural == good' will then believe that anything that happens between midnight and noon is good. But if instead, we had arrived at the exact opposite definition, 'anything that happens between noon and midnight, GMT', then people who believe that 'natural == good' will then believe that anything that happens between noon and midnight is good. It is not a question of which argument is correct (they are both obviously wrong in this case, but that's just for illustrative purposes), it is simply the belief that 'natural == good' that is the problem.
There are two solutions. First, you can try to come up with a definition of natural that exactly maps all natural things to all good things. The problem here is that you will never reach consensus. Second, you can point out that naturalness does not necessarily correspond to goodness. This, IMO is the most practical solution. Anything else is just wasting time.
Also, the questions about the relevance of future state still stand, even for the secondary meaning: How can anything be based on a future state? The future hasn't occurred yet. Predictions aren't based on the future, they're based on the past. Decisions based on predictions aren't based on the future either, they're based on the present.
(C.K.) Second: I agree with you, that is one reason for trying a slightly different alternate version of the first definition. It is not really the future state, it is only the knowing, that decisions have consequences to the future state, your decisions depending on.
How do you know whether something 'knows' something or not? This just goes back to the definition of consciousness and/or intelligence and/or knowledge, all of which are nowhere near being resolved (after literally millennia of debate).
A proposition, please?
Could someone who is pushing for one definition or another please offer a proposition in which the concept you're getting at would be useful?
To put that another way, if you were to get agreement on a definition of natural, what would you say that uses that definition? I'm digging for something like, "We ought to destroy all natural things" or "We can safely trust that natural things will behave in predictable ways and unnatural, anatural, and supernatural things won't." Or whatever you would like to say.
Etymology
The word "natural" comes from the same Latin root as "natal", "nation", and "née". An accurate translation of the word "nature" into Anglo-Saxon roots would be "bornness". A definition of the core sense of "natural", still at the back of most people's minds when they use it, would be, "The quality of having been born: of or pertaining to the way things are by virtue of their being living things or part of the system of life, as opposed to modifications made to suit other living things or chance effects that block their development. Of or pertaining to the wholeness and completeness of a living thing."
The word "physics" comes from the Greek word meaning the same thing: "to be born". MrAristotle's treatise "The Physics" is an attempt to understand all forms of motion as expressions of things' "nature". The word "nature" started with Cicero's translation of Aristotle into Latin. (See http://www.nyu.edu/classes/gmoran/2NATURE.htm) For centuries, what we now call science was called "natural philosophy".
EditText of this page
(last edited August 14, 2010)
or FindPage with title or text search