How do you define nature

[boagie]

Without self-control, it is obvious, there is no control. Excellent post MJA!!

[lakeshoredrive]

To me, nature is. And that is how I define it. Everything that is, is nature. Not only what is, but when, where, who, and especially how and why.

This often leads me to disagreements with well-intentioned people who use the term natural to describe things that have not been 'tainted' by mankind in processing plants and chemical factories.

Look at it this way: Animal A produces chemical B, because chemical B is required to help the animal grow in its specific environment. Animal C also requires chemical B for its development, so Animal C consumes animal A, and chemical B, with it. This is considered 'natural'.
If Animal C requires chemical B for its development, and instead of eating Animal A, uses tools (which are made from substances that occur naturally) to produce chemical B, why is that not also natural? Did not Animal A also use tools to produce Chemical B? Why are Animal A's tools considered more natural than Animal C's tools?

Although I was referring to humans with Animal C, this example could work with any set of animals and chemicals.

Sorry if that example was a little unclear, I can't quite put the idea I have into words all that well.

[LWSleeth]

Understanding natural is made more difficult due what it means to us personally (like most subjects). A reasoning exercise I’d suggest to get around subjectivity and toward an objective meaning would be to inductively link “natural” to emergence.

Everything that exists, including us, came from prior conditions that were capable of causing a thing’s emergence. In that case, the conditions that cause emergence are what we call the “nature” of the emerged thing.

If only it were that simple . . .

Why? Because things are built on top of other things, and that can create the appearance of multiple natures. What deserves to be called THE nature? Our answer (and objectivity) is affected by personal concerns, especially survival. A personal concern for us, for example, is what caused Earth’s (and life’s) emergent conditions.

So part of how one defines nature depends on how far back we go along the emergent trail. Many of us respect the pre-existent conditions that created us, and so see that as THE nature. But such reverence is motivated by self-interest and so does not produce a good definition for the ultimate meaning of “nature.”

An objective definition might explain that the meaning of nature is tied to a perspective which observes how things emerge from prior emergent conditions, plus how emerged things’ continue to be dependent on prior emergent conditions.

[nameless]

Nature = existence

[Theaetetus]

nature = everything that is natural. For example, the toxic chemicals that were created by humans that kill living things are not nature.

[lakeshoredrive]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

nature = everything that is natural. For example, the toxic chemicals that were created by humans that kill living things are not nature.

No! Those toxic chemicals are indeed natural.

Look at it this way: Hyoscyamus niger, or Henbane, produces the chemicals scopolamine, atropine, and hyoscyamine in its leaves, stem and seeds. These chemicals are, indeed, toxic. Although, if you really think about it, everything in existence is toxic. Water, calcium, vitamin C, all of these natural chemicals are potentially toxic in the right dosage.

The point I'm trying to get at, though, is that we as humans need to stop looking at ourselves as detached from, and independent of, nature. If a simple human used stones to make a weapon, or a hammer, you would consider that natural, right? Stones are a composite of a number of different chemicals, possibly granite, or limestone. Where, then, is the line drawn between natural and artificial? It a human works to turn some granite slab into a tool, how is that essentially different from a human working to turn iron and steel into a machine (a tool, just like a hammer), or to turn sodium and chlorine into salt? Is artificial salt any different, in essence, from what you would call 'natural' salt? Regardless of who produced it, it is still sodium and chlorine molecules bonded together ionically. If I gave you a pile of natural NaCl and artificial NaCl, there would be no way to tell them apart.

[LWSleeth]

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive

No! Those toxic chemicals are indeed natural.

I’m going to challenge you a little bit because I don’t think your description helps explain what nature is (the theme of this thread). You are right to say Theaetetus’ definition doesn’t contribute since he relies on the term “nature” for his explanation and then says what is not nature instead of what is. Likewise, Nameless says nature equals existence; but since everything we know exists, then everything is natural and so why have a term such as natural when the term existence should suffice?

I suggested we use emergent conditions as an objective standard for defining nature because we tend to self-centrically describe nature merely in relation to our own existence. But to be objective it seems we’d try to see what is it about reality that gives things what we humans term a “nature.” I’ll give examples of how to use emergence as the standard.

Emergence describes how things we know exist (we “know” because we can observe them) came from prior conditions. For instance, life showed up on Earth some 4 billion years ago. Before that we assume there was no life, so what conditions caused the first emergence of life? Before Earth came into existence, there were only conditions that would allow Earth to appear (i.e., emerge). What were those conditions? Before that the universe appeared, and before that the Big Bang occurred . . . what were the pre-existing conditions that caused each to emerge where they did not exist before?

Now, pre-existent emergent conditions are only part of the story for us (“us” meaning, users of the term “nature”). We also are concerned (especially recently) about how dependent we still are on emergent conditions. The Big Bang no longer is relevant to us, nor is what created Earth, because those emergent factors are beyond our influence. However, what caused life to emerge on Earth is very much subject to our influence, and because we are life (or are alive at least), now life’s emergent conditions, and the degree we still are dependent on them, have become important to us.

You argued that we should accept “toxic chemicals are indeed natural” because:

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive

. . . we as humans need to stop looking at ourselves as detached from, and independent of, nature.

But if we look at it that way, we have eliminated any meaning for the term “nature.” So if nature is to have a meaning, I suggest seeing nature as describing a situation where: the nature of a thing is the conditions which allow it to exist now, and that those conditions are inextricably tied to what caused it to emerge in the first place.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

nature = everything that is natural. For example, the toxic chemicals that were created by humans that kill living things are not nature.

There is nothing 'created' by humans. We can push stuff around, together, add water, all 'natural' stuff, to get desired characteristics as the result; we don't 'essentially' create anything. We use what 'nature' provides, a 'natural' act. Other species do the same thing. No one would argue the 'naturalness' of that, why 'this'? We create no electrons, no photons, no particles.. we have learned to "float on our back with a flat stone balanced on our belly, to break clams open for dinner. Monkeys use tools. Many animals. We alone, perhaps, have the vanity to imagine ourselves 'creators'; another vain dividing line isolating 'us' from the rest of 'nature/existence/'the' universe.

[William]

Originally Posted by boagie

Nature is a complex condition, of which we are part. Should that complex condition change in any significant degree, it would still be nature, a complex condition, but, perhaps without us as part.

Let me throw in my two cents here. Yes, we are a part of nature, but we have a problem. There are close to 7 billion people on this planet that have their own nature. When we finally learn to allow each an every individual the freedom to express their nature we will arrive at that definition that will define ours as a whole. Then and only then will be learn what is "right" and what is "wrong" and how to utilize nature harmoniously.
For something to be "natural" you cannot tamper with it. When we "tamper" with it, we get false feedback. We get thrown "curve balls" and our reality is built on those curve balls.

Now as far as I am concerned, considering the minute time we have been making footprints 0n the granite planet and there was no set of instructions when we got here, it is understandable how we could get so out of whack. I think it had to be that way and was par for the course. Once we begin to truly understand what is to be humane as it relates to our fellow humans, then we will understand how we fit into this nature and align with it’s inexplicable, unimaginable simplicity. It becomes horrifically complex when we tamper with it. We just didn’t know any better.
So to answer your question, nature is "not" a complex condition, IMO. We are the ones who deem it complex. If we begin to alter that simplicity due to our confusion, it will no doubt eliminate that which disturbs that simplicity. Meaning us.
Thanks boagie for your post. Anyway this is what my tired noggin told me to say. Ha!
William