More CIP Questions.

[The_OG_Nelta]

Hi everyone,

Please take a minute to answer my three CIP questions regarding "Nature":


1. What are some different definitions you have for the word "nature"?

2. What is the difference between something "natural" and something "artificial"? Consider both physical objects and intangible qualities.

3. If man is a natural entity, is there a difference between something man created and something nature created? Why or why not?

4. Is pure happiness found in the acceptance of society itself or in the individual wants and desires even though they may be morally wrong? Explain


I know many of you have CIP questions posted as well. Please post me the link to your questions (or just your questions), and I will answer them as soon as possible.

Thank you!

EDIT: Please don't post anything stupid, if you aren't going to answer, then just don't answer =[ This is just for school, and I need other people's opinions.

Edit: Also, please list any literary works that you know of with some connection to the theme of nature. Thanks!

12. Sin goes hand in hand with many different topics – desire, man, good vs. evil, punishment, etc. What do you normally associate with sin? Consider both ideas/concepts and more tangible objects. Explain.

13. Why do you think people sin? Do you think that most people do it just because they enjoy the mere act of sinning? That they sin just because the idea of disobeying itself is pleasing? Explain.

14. What is the difference between original sin and acquired sin? Which do you consider more important to the grand scheme of life? Explain

[Correction]

lol homework threads.

Are you asking for 'nature' literature to read? or just polling people on what they've read?

[The_OG_Nelta]

Just honestly, their opinion. Literature or whatever else works. Examples etc.

[Seraph]

So, which of the following are you actually refering to?

CIP - What does CIP stand for? Acronyms and abbreviations by the Free Online Dictionary.

[The_OG_Nelta]

Conceptual Inquiry Project

[Maguspk]

1. What are some different definitions you have for the word "nature"?

I have two major definitions I attach to the word nature. The first being, generally, the world around us and it's workings; i.e. the plants and animals and the elements. There's also the definition I attach to behavioral analysis of human beings, as in nature being something someone is genetically predisposed to; e.g. It's in his nature to be confident and proud, his father was that way too.

2. What is the difference between something "natural" and something "artificial"? Consider both physical objects and intangible qualities.

I think something natural is unaltered from it's initial state. Anything that has to have something done to it from an outside source in order to achieve a certain state becomes "artificial." For intangible qualities I guess artificial just means something that isn't genuine, now quantifying that is tricky. I guess an artificial emotion for example is one that is not an initial reaction to something and who's sole purpose is to manipulate someone else into thinking it is "natural".

3. If man is a natural entity, is there a difference between something man created and something nature created? Why or why not?

Well I believe 'nature' gave rise to man, and so man can only give rise to artificial things because anything he does to something will only be a manipulation of something in an already natural/pure state. Therefore, yes there is a definite difference between something man created and something nature created. Nature's creations are natural whereas man's creations are artificial.

[The_OG_Nelta]

Thank you so much Mag :D

[sekaran]

Thought this was about Continuation In Parts. My patent knowledge is useless!

[The Stig]

1. What are some different definitions you have for the word "nature"?

Getting naked.

2. What is the difference between something "natural" and something "artificial"? Consider both physical objects and intangible qualities.

Natural, untouched (i.e. boobs). Artificial, modified (fake boobs)

3. If man is a natural entity, is there a difference between something man created and something nature created? Why or why not?

I'm not too sure how to answer this one...Change my answers to something more ... sensible to your paper. Perhaps explain about cosmetic surgery for Question 2 at least.

[Charla]

1. What are some different definitions you have for the word "nature"?

"The system of things, especially those on Earth, that exist or occur without intentional Human interaction or interference.

2. What is the difference between something "natural" and something "artificial"? Consider both physical objects and intangible qualities.

A natural thing exists or occurs without intentional Human influence. An artificial thing exists or occurs as a direct result of Human action. Clearly, this distinction is not absolute, and as such there are many things (both objects and intangible concepts) that are partly natural and partly artificial.

3. If man is a natural entity, is there a difference between something man created and something nature created? Why or why not?

The distinction I am making is one of intent and will. Although neither individual Humans nor humanity in general exist as a result of their own actions and are therefore essentially natural, the commonly made distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial' things appears to be based upon the Human will. Because an individual Human, as well as humanity in general, can be said to have a will, things that exist and events that occur as a direct result of that will can be seen as essentially different from things that do not, which appears to be sufficient to justify the commonly made distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial' objects and events. Obviously, this definition is dependant upon an interpretation of causality and neurobiology that allows Humans an individual and/or collective will. Furthermore, in terms of the actual characteristics of 'natural' and 'artificial' things, the distinction is primarily one made for convenience. As such, it can be said that this distinction itself is 'artificial'.

Edit: Also, please list any literary works that you know of with some connection to the theme of nature. Thanks!

I don't imagine that your teacher would agree with me, but I see this question as one of philosophy. In terms of nature, it's more of a meta-question.

[Kaelan?]

More posting just to add to possible discussion than to provide an answer, but I agree with the last sentence on the above post. This seems like one of those questions in which the more you think about it, the more you realize you have no good answer for it.

On one hand, I could probably provide a reasoning or pose a question that would poke holes in to the above definitions (especially on statements like "unaltered from its initial state", which immediately brought me thoughts of the definition of inertia and how you could open a whole new can of worms from just probing that idea around - but I'm digressing here), but then again I can't quite come up with a definition myself that I'm satisfied with that actually makes sense and doesn't either have some major flaw or is terribly ambiguous.

So I guess that was two whole paragraphs to say "I have no idea!" . It's an interesting thing to think about, though.

[sassophras]

1. Nature:

I guess my best definition for 'nature' would be whole set of living beings (it may be best to exclude humans from this for now, but I'll get back to this below) and how they interact in our environment. It's a horribly broad description that boarders closing on that of an 'ecosystem,' but it's the best I have. It's not just limited to the creatures but to how they interact to form the complex systems of our world. You can see nature in the forests, but also in the city with the flocks of pigeons and weeds growing up through the cracks in sidewalks. Even down to the micro-flora and fauna spread out across everything, this too can be considered nature.

The other definition I would say that works well has been put forward already. That is the inherent disposition of a thing. We may say it is in somethings 'nature' for it to be or act in a particular way. It may be considered 'unnatural' if the thing does something unexpected or surprising.

2. Natural vs. Artificial:

Looking at the first definition of nature, I would say that a 'natural' thing is something that exists as a part of the system from where it originates or resides in. It was not brought about through influence of forces outside of said system. An 'artificial' thing would be something that exists through the virtue of outside influences. This 'thing' or 'something' can also be seen as trait or disposition to fit with the second definition of nature.

3. Is man nature?

I think the answer to the third question depends largely on if one considers man to be apart from nature or a part of it. If we consider ourselves separate from the natural world as I did in the first definition, then the constructs of man must be then be seen as artificial and not of natural origin.

On the other hand, if man is considered to a part of 'nature' in the first definition, it is hard to not define man's works as a product of nature. It all depends on one's point of reference. To us structures such as bird nests and log dams can be considered natural. They were created by the natural actions of these creatures in their environment. Some birds create nests and some don't. Those birds that do create nests do not all create the same type of nest. Despite what a particular bird does or doesn't do, one may consider its actions to be natural and of nature.

Humans then, from an outside point of view do many things, all of which may be considered in our 'nature.' Not every human creates art, and those that do, don't create the same types of art or art pieces. As in different types of birds and their 'natural' dwellings, we can consider the products of humans, be they art or skyscrapers, to be of nature.

Book Club:

As for a good book to read I would recommend For Love of Insects by Thomas Eisner. It is not a great choice for those squeamish of giant pictures of spiders and other arthropods. But for those that can stomach this, it is a great look at the natural world by one of the greatest natural historians in our time.

[The_OG_Nelta]

you guys are awesome, i need like 7 more, so please feel free to keep answering !

[Lurking Badger]

1. Nature, I think, pretty much equals the biosphere. It consists of 3 parts - animals, plants and minerals. Nature only exists on earth, but if you'd imagine humanity having colonized distant worlds, their biospheres would also be part of a collective "nature". I guess this means that the sand on the moon is also part of nature.

2. Artificial means man made imo. A stack built by ants or a wasp nest is still a natural construction. A manmade pyramid made of rocks is artificial.

3. Man is no longer a part of nature when she gains self-awareness and free will. A natural man made creation would be something made out of instinct, with no thought or intention involved. The lung's process of converting oxygen to carbon oxide is a natural creation, but anything that man is willfully creating is artificial.

An excellent book with nature as a theme is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

[Khamsin]

That's easy.

What is nature?
The universe.

Natural vs Artificial
Naturally made things occur intrinsically within the universe, while artificial things are not inherent to innate processes of the universe. You could also examine the change in entropy involved in the creation of something. Naturally created things tend to have a more efficient use of energy and less extreme increase of entropy compared to man-made objects.

Are man-made objects nature?
They are a part of nature, but not made naturally. In the context of what this mental exercise is supposed to be getting at, I'll clarify: The connotation of nature and natural are slightly different. Compare the responses of the first two questions, one describing "nature" and the other "natural".

If "nature" is the universe, then anything man creates would be a part of nature.

However, as mentioned, "natural" pertains to things that are intrinsic to the universe. Man-made objects are the result of efforts not inherent to innate processes of the universe. Still a part of nature, but not made naturally.

Now, the real question is, are beaver dams and bird's nests made naturally?

[Neosutra]

Nature is all things that origiate via the simple flow of entropy in a system. i.e. any given occurance or molecular combination which developed via the "natural" attempt of the atomic structures to reach their equilibrium states. Atoms form into amino acids, amino acids into proteins, and proteins into "natural" life.

The difference between natural and "artificial" then becomes a terminology of differentiating objects that have been constructed in any manner that wasnt a simple development of the lowest entropic state. With that definition, an artificial object could very well be an object that can also be created through natural means, but for that specific purpose, was created via some process of directed control. The question should arise in one's head "did X arise via by following the physical mechanics of the universe, or did we act in addition/against these forces to develop this object".

The question becomes a bit more muddled when you start examining these that do occur naturally, but are actually man made, or when you delude the argument by stating that "man is natural, so isnt anything man made thus natural", in which case all objects that are artificial are just part of our eco-system (which in turn is just our collective way of most efficiently displacing the entropy in our own system). One would get into the philosophical debate of wether super-systems of cognitively driven societies can really be analyzed on as simple of a level as entropy. But then again, that is all we really are as humans, the most efficient way for our protein packets to store/process/manage their local entropy.

[Charla]

Nature are all things that originate via the simple flow of entropy in a system. i.e. any given occurrence or molecular combination which developed via the "natural" attempt of the atomic structures to reach their equilibrium states. Atoms form into amino acids, amino acids into proteins, and proteins into "natural" life.

This is an interesting way to look at it, and at first it seems counterintuitive to someone who knows how entropy is supposed to work. but now that I think about it, it seems like it makes perfect sense as long as you're talking about the entropy of the entire system. In an attempt to have a meaningful discussion, I will elaborate.

A protein has a good deal more chemical energy than all of its constituent amino acids, which in turn have more chemical energy than their constituent atoms would in various other states (that's why proteins can undergo combustion and release energy). The spontaneous generation of proteins (without enzymes nearby, that is to say) requires a significant source of free energy nearby (such as lightning, or the electrical spark in that one experiment). While the molecules themselves end up with more energy than they used to have, entropy is still occurring because the vast majority of the energy from the lightning didn't end up in the resulting protein's bonds. That means the usable energy of the entire closed system (which is to say that there's still the same amount of energy in the universe, but more of it is now ambient heat).

[Neosutra]

Yep, <3 bio-chem.

[The_OG_Nelta]

Thanks so much Neo, here's another question, i guess I can update the OP.


Is pure happiness found in the acceptance of society itself or in the individual wants and desires even though they may be morally wrong? Explain

[Neosutra]

Individual happiness is completely based on individual wants/desires, hence any social/relative morality are completely irrelevant. What happiness is based on and what an individual "finds" happiness in may overlap however. For example, an individual may find happiness in the acceptance of society's moral codes and dogmas, in which case your first premis would be correct. Another person however may find the bounds of the society they live in to be outside their own perseption of what is moraly acceptable or pleasing. Only a small % of people really ever question the world/culture around them, and only a few really choose to move outside their comfort zone. Wether these choices bring about "happiness" is a bit harder to answer. I for one, would rather see the world for what it is and be miserable, than live in a fairy tale and be stagnant in my contentness.