It's far worse than that. People behave as if nature is a goddess, the entire planet is interconnected and sentient. We are merely her humble servants, expected to do everything to appease her, or else she will punish us with natural disasters.
I guess I do think of Nature as a sort of machine and as you stated I never even realized I thought of Nature as a sort of machine. My concept of Nature is that it is no different than the Universe, chaotic organization in a way. Or accidental organization? I'm not sure. I'm struggling to think up an alternative to conceptualizing Nature; what is it other than rudimentary mechanisms that evolve into organized structures? Although, now that I've read that back it sounds wrong, like I'm describing life as a crystal structure or something. You have made me confused and now I must think. Thank you for your opinions, I will consider them. Do you have thoughts on an alternative way to conceptualize Nature? **ADDED THOUGHT** The issue I'm having is that I am trying to describe the whole of something by it's smallest parts. Like describing a painting by the kind of paint it consists of and not the picture it's presenting.
Thanks for these thoughts. I found them very fair. I understand that trying to think of Nature as something other than a machine, leads to all kinds of weird ideas. I guess it would be equally if not more absurd to try and affirm any of those other possibilities. I just felt that it's kindof fun at least to think the "what if" and see how far one can go with that. In terms of thinking of something by its parts, I was actually meditating on that thought last night. I related it to what the philosopher Spinoza called "the sequence of finite things". I think we assume we can construct the whole from its parts. Each part being maybe a type of observation. I'm not saying that one necessarily cant do that, but it also seems that its not the case that one necessarily can do that. You may be interested to read some of what Aristotle says about "substance" in his work "Metaphysics", he points to how there may be a difference between when we break something down into its material elements, and the overall effect things have before we go to do that to them. Thanks for the comment 🙂
Painting has idea of the painter. Accidental organization doesn't have an idea it's made by, it just works in environment. Describing whole by it's parts is part of scientific approach and I think it works.
@@Ryans_Science Other accidentally organized objects. There is space and time and matter that takes various forms. That forms are born from energy and consume it to exist. This is how I understand basic scientific view of the world.
@@pavel22222 i mean, that's a consistent speculation, but so is the speculation that its being ordered by an intelligence that for all intents and purposes we experience as infinite. My problem with the accident idea is that, when we have a perception, things seem to order for us in that moment, and in a way that does feel purposeful. but if the universal principle is accident, then there would also have to be a principle of deception in nature as well, since that sense of purpose, you would probably say (i'm assuming), is illusory, since all explains ultimately through the concept of Accident. and to say nature has a deception principle involved, to me seems just as if not less intuitive than the idea that there's a divine intelligence somewhere.
Have you heard the word “machine” before? What has it meant in that context? Can the meaning in that context be applied to this context either straightforwardly or with minor revisions or analogical modifications? These are the questions you should ask when you are not sure what a word means and see if that gets you anywhere. I think it will in this context. I don’t have a problem understanding what “machine” means here.
It's far worse than that. People behave as if nature is a goddess, the entire planet is interconnected and sentient. We are merely her humble servants, expected to do everything to appease her, or else she will punish us with natural disasters.
Very zizek of you lol
I guess I do think of Nature as a sort of machine and as you stated I never even realized I thought of Nature as a sort of machine.
My concept of Nature is that it is no different than the Universe, chaotic organization in a way. Or accidental organization? I'm not sure. I'm struggling to think up an alternative to conceptualizing Nature; what is it other than rudimentary mechanisms that evolve into organized structures? Although, now that I've read that back it sounds wrong, like I'm describing life as a crystal structure or something.
You have made me confused and now I must think. Thank you for your opinions, I will consider them.
Do you have thoughts on an alternative way to conceptualize Nature?
**ADDED THOUGHT**
The issue I'm having is that I am trying to describe the whole of something by it's smallest parts. Like describing a painting by the kind of paint it consists of and not the picture it's presenting.
Thanks for these thoughts. I found them very fair. I understand that trying to think of Nature as something other than a machine, leads to all kinds of weird ideas. I guess it would be equally if not more absurd to try and affirm any of those other possibilities. I just felt that it's kindof fun at least to think the "what if" and see how far one can go with that.
In terms of thinking of something by its parts, I was actually meditating on that thought last night. I related it to what the philosopher Spinoza called "the sequence of finite things". I think we assume we can construct the whole from its parts. Each part being maybe a type of observation. I'm not saying that one necessarily cant do that, but it also seems that its not the case that one necessarily can do that.
You may be interested to read some of what Aristotle says about "substance" in his work "Metaphysics", he points to how there may be a difference between when we break something down into its material elements, and the overall effect things have before we go to do that to them.
Thanks for the comment 🙂
Painting has idea of the painter. Accidental organization doesn't have an idea it's made by, it just works in environment. Describing whole by it's parts is part of scientific approach and I think it works.
@@pavel22222 but then what is environment?
@@Ryans_Science Other accidentally organized objects. There is space and time and matter that takes various forms. That forms are born from energy and consume it to exist. This is how I understand basic scientific view of the world.
@@pavel22222 i mean, that's a consistent speculation, but so is the speculation that its being ordered by an intelligence that for all intents and purposes we experience as infinite. My problem with the accident idea is that, when we have a perception, things seem to order for us in that moment, and in a way that does feel purposeful. but if the universal principle is accident, then there would also have to be a principle of deception in nature as well, since that sense of purpose, you would probably say (i'm assuming), is illusory, since all explains ultimately through the concept of Accident. and to say nature has a deception principle involved, to me seems just as if not less intuitive than the idea that there's a divine intelligence somewhere.
So what is it then? Is it sentient?
i'll let you decide. maybe a canvas that organizes to consciousness, idk. It was mainly just a thought experiment
no, i dont think ive ever heard anyone serious call nature a machine. interdependent systems, yes. machine? what does that even mean?
Have you heard the word “machine” before? What has it meant in that context? Can the meaning in that context be applied to this context either straightforwardly or with minor revisions or analogical modifications? These are the questions you should ask when you are not sure what a word means and see if that gets you anywhere. I think it will in this context. I don’t have a problem understanding what “machine” means here.
ok you sound like an obnoxious person