In fact, ‘that’ always depends on how all words and phrases are being defined.
Instead of bridging things that are only imagined, of which some are False, would you like to come to a shared mental construct that bridges with Truth, with Truth, always instead?
For example, there is only One Universe, only, and where “death” does not actually exist. ‘We’ can ‘look at’, discuss, and bridge these Facts with each other, if you would like to.
‘This’ depend upon how you define and use the word ‘you’, exactly.
How are you defining the words ‘supernatural’ and ‘natural’ here, exactly?
Very True, and those with curiosity and interest will ask for clarity here.
It was your posts to me which was taking away from what was being expressed and meant with misleading contents. I was just suggesting the right path for the direction of confused thinking in your post.
Look “corvus” you claim that some things are “unnatural” My posts have been asking you that if this was actually true, then just list those things which you believe are “unnatural”. you obviously have not yet provided one single thing. Therefore, the one who has been ‘trying to’ mislead here is ‘you’. Although ‘I’ have exposed the Truth here.
Asking you to back up and support your belief and claim with a list of things that you claim are “unnatural” is NOT misleading content. What it actually is is a challenge to you, which you obviously are not able to take up.
Again, you made the claim. I asked you to provide proof for your claim. you provided nothing.
The Right path is to provide proof for what is claimed to be true.
You need to go back and re-read my posts in this thread. If you cannot understand my points which are already in my posts, then there is no point discussing any further with you.
You only make up proofs, if the issue is too abstract or complicated in general. This issue is so simple and elementary, there is no need for proof. It would just be just space filling exercise doing so. Save time, energy and space where possible. Digital space is not limitless as you seem to be taking for granted.
you claimed that there are things that are “unnatural”, as well as claimed that the Universe also turns itself into being unnatural.
I asked you to back up and support these claims with examples and/or proof.
So far, you have provided neither.
LOL For ‘what’, exactly?
‘What’ proofs do you imagine I have made up here, exactly?
Again, you cannot get past the Fact that you claimed there are not just “unnatural” things in the Universe, but also that the Universe turns itself into being “unnatural”, and that you have not provided one singel example nor proof for your claim and belief here.
Talk about another prime example of one with absolutely nothing that backs up and supports what it believes is absolutely true.
Imagine claiming something that is not true, and when asked for examples or proof, your come back is “there is no need for proof”.
Instead of presenting just one example of some thing that you claim is “unnatural” you write ‘this rubbish’ and attempt at deflection that you just did.
It seems you are obviously not reading my posts, and blindly keep posting rubbish repeatedly. Maybe you are reading it, but not understanding the meaning of it. That is my impression on your posts.
I meant more along the lines of will our preserves and parks last to actually save pieces of nature in the future. Or will we end up using even the places we try to protect rather than continue to protect them? Although, I suppose it depends on whether land eventually becomes extremely scarce or if we manage to travel to other worlds and have access to resources not Earth-bound.
We categorize it in language to help us navigate the world. For example, a shared definition among humans doesn’t have to be universally true as long as said group of humans agree on it. It allows that group to distinguish between one of their categories and another within communication.
I wouldn’t actually argue with this. I was just trying to imagine a possibility where we became unnatural, but this example still just showed how it was about someone’s perception of natural rather than what is truly within nature.
When I think of our universe, I’m imagining what we think of as space and our planet within it. Whether that is a correct assumption about the universe is hard to say, but it’s how we typically think of it. Or at least I do.
I agree, we can’t really answer that question directly. I do think we might be able to liken it to different geographic regions. For example, if someone grows up in a heavily forested area and then moves to the desert, they often get homesick for the forest. I think they can still be moved by the desert and its unique beauty, but ultimately, they will yearn for what they think of as home. And I think that can be true for someone growing up in a completely urban environment. They might find a forest beautiful but still yearn to go home rather than stay in the wild.
This makes me think of something else I’ve wondered about. If life were a simulation and you didn’t know it, would it lose meaning? Or would all that matters is it was your life in whatever form you got to experience it in? And if that is true, then could the simulation be nature because as far as your experience it was real?
you TOLD me that I need to go back and re-read your posts in this thread. The first post of yours that I re-read clearly stated that, to you, the Universe turns itself into the “unnatural”. Which is what I have been questioning you about.
What you have also claimed is that there are things that are what you call “unnatural”, as anyone can clearly see you have written. Now, again, I asked you to name just one thing that you perceive to be “unnatural”. you, very clearly, are not able to do this.
The reason WHY is also, by the way, as clearly obvious.
Now, you can keep writing the rubbish that you did here, once more, in an attempt to ‘try to’ deceive the readers and deflect away from the fact that you are completely unable to provide just one example, but most readers see straight past what you are ‘trying to’ do here.
Adult human beings creating lots of plastic bags is not just ‘counter-productive’ it is destructive and destroying. But, this is the result of being greedy, which they learned in childhood from the greedy adults in their lives. However, and obviously, every plastic bag created does not come from “unnatural” products but from natural products only.
Also, the reason WHY all adult human beings in the days when this is being written do Wrong, or are ‘counter-productive’, naturally, will be learned, which will also explain further WHY this very natural process had to happen and occur.
you cannot ‘perform’ “unnaturally”.
All you are saying is that some of what you do isn’t detrimental, while some of it is.
However, everything you do is natural. Human beings could not do things “unnaturally” nor create things that are “not natural”. As to do so is impossible.
But, Nature, Itself, did create plastics. Again, this was through the naturally created human beings. Everything that has evolved into being created, for example, trees, human beings, plastic, pollution, and vacuum cleaners ALL evolved into creation and existence through Nature, Itself.
Yes, very much so. Now, although adult human beings can be the most stupid animal on the planet they will certainly not slowly kill “themselves” completely to extinction. Obviously, they might wipe “themselves” out completely quickly through something like a nuclear war. But, while there still exists some parcels of forests, the last few surviving human beings will not cut down those trees that would make “themselves” die off and become extinct.
They will ‘use’ those parcels of land for their intended purpose and will NOT destroy them.
Human beings could not populate enough that land became too scarce. Again, adults can be extremely stupid, but they are not that stupid.
This is what happens and occurs. But, if human beings are going to want to communicate “universally”, as what is continually happening and occurring, and with much more speed with the invent of the internet, then shared definitions among more and more human beings needs to become more and more “universal”, or become more widely-accepted.
The very main reason WHY there is so much misunderstanding, conflict, wars, and killings is because miscommunication happens. As the ‘group of humans’ keeps getting larger, as human beings are far more easily able to communicate in larger groups, what were once ‘shared definitions’ among smaller groups of people do not suffice with larger groups. This anomaly can be clearly seen happening and occurring through internet forums. What one thing means and refers to for one group of human beings, from one particular parcel of land, is not the same for another group of human beings, from another country or culture.
Is it even possible to imagine how something could become “unnatural” when absolutely EVERY thing is ‘natural’?
Again, absolutely EVERY thing is within Nature, Itself.
It would not matter how many simulations were created; they ALL exist within Nature, Itself.
What I would like people to realise when they say things like “our” Universe, is that do ‘we’ really have “our” own Universe? Why do ‘we’ call ‘the’ Universe “our” Universe?
The answers are very enlightening by the way.
Now, just to be clear ‘we’, human beings, do NOT have NOR own ‘the’ Universe. ‘The’ Universe exists, ‘we’, human beings, are a part of ‘the’ Universe and ‘we’ exist within It.
There is only One Universe, by the way, which IS infinite and eternal, also.[quote=“Quellcrist, post:132, topic:2837”]
I agree, we can’t really answer that question directly. I do think we might be able to liken it to different geographic regions. For example, if someone grows up in a heavily forested area and then moves to the desert, they often get homesick for the forest.
[/quote]
Exactly like if someone grows up in a barren desert are and them moves to the forest, they often get homesick for the desert.
Human beings who grew up in cities can also have this “homesick” sensation and yearn for what they think of as home, just as easily.
‘Life’, Itself, cannot be a simulation. Full stop.
However, ‘the life’ that you are living in can be a simulation. And, if ‘the life’ that you are directly living in is a simulation, then if you did not know this, you would only lose meaning if ‘you’ were programmed to.
Absolutely, whatever way ‘you are’ ‘you’ would have been programmed to be ‘that way’.
Again, it all depends on ‘the programmer’.
Nature, Itself, or the Universe, Itself, can NOT be a simulation. There CAN be simulations of Nature and the Universe, however, those things themselves can NOT be simulations.
Yes, it could be. But I wonder if our having evolved in the settings we evolved in would mean something. Say a pregnant woman from here was taken to a Coruscant-like planet, had the baby, and left or died, so the baby never knew the mother. And nobody on this planet had ever seen another planet. So the baby grows up, never knowing anything of Earth, and never hearing stories about Earth or any other planet. If, after growing up, she is brought here, and sees forests, oceans, deserts, plains, and mountains, would these things feel “right” to her?
Any new setting would be interesting to anyone. And someone raised on a farm who goes to a city like NYC might be amazed, and think it has a beauty totally different to what they know. But does it feel “right” to the farmer?
I don’t know, and couldn’t argue for or against in either scenario. I just think it’s an interesting thought.
My focus was on ontology not phenomenological, which is why. My take on what you’re saying is that the “truer essence” of nature is simply whatever experience appears normal and consistent to us. If so, I don’t see a contradiction between the experience feeling real and the underlying reality being constructed. To me, DNA is literal code executing biological rules, just like math executing rendering rules in a digital world. Both are rule-bound systems processing data to produce a consistent experience.
Defining nature as “whatever feels normal” misses the bigger picture to me. If our universe were proven to be an artificial construct tomorrow, biological chemistry wouldn’t suddenly become fake or stop feeling real—it would just mean nature is the software running on a deeper layer of rules. The experience stays consistent because the code behind it is consistent regardless of how we choose to justify it.
