not sure anyone escapes this, some aspects of motivational theory involving ideas of nature, they surely influence social and political views.

I don’t know where to start, or perhaps that is the start in a sense, that each of us is born substantially ignorant.

the naive child, or be it our ancestors 200,000+ years ago on the African savanna.

what do instincts give us as a starter for dealing with nature, and what are our first experiences and lessons?

each of us is gifted with a bunch of cognitive tools, and categories, native categories (if you like) are no small part of that.

where to start…

I love thunder storms (except dry lightning storms during fire danger season), but lightning frightens me terribly if it’s very near (and very loud thunder). Clouds impress me, suspended water vapor, and the power in clouds impresses me, like thunder heads (the winds under/around).

what would have our ancestors thought of lightning strikes at night, for example. They must’ve had a feel. Thunder storms have been around right through the evolution of life.

the weather of course is a force, a force of nature.

so, my question is of the different views regards the indifference of nature, the indifference of the forces of nature.

do thunder storms impress you?

transition said:

not sure anyone escapes this, some aspects of motivational theory involving ideas of nature, they surely influence social and political views.

I don’t know where to start, or perhaps that is the start in a sense, that each of us is born substantially ignorant.

the naive child, or be it our ancestors 200,000+ years ago on the African savanna.

what do instincts give us as a starter for dealing with nature, and what are our first experiences and lessons?

each of us is gifted with a bunch of cognitive tools, and categories, native categories (if you like) are no small part of that.

where to start…

I love thunder storms (except dry lightning storms during fire danger season), but lightning frightens me terribly if it’s very near (and very loud thunder). Clouds impress me, suspended water vapor, and the power in clouds impresses me, like thunder heads (the winds under/around).

what would have our ancestors thought of lightning strikes at night, for example. They must’ve had a feel. Thunder storms have been around right through the evolution of life.

the weather of course is a force, a force of nature.

so, my question is of the different views regards the indifference of nature, the indifference of the forces of nature.

do thunder storms impress you?

I can approach the answer to that in at least three ways.

mollwollfumble has noticed what he calls the excitement-fear-sleep response. Car travel causes excitement, fear or sleep in different individuals. Similarly, a camp fire causes excitement, fear or sleep in different people. I suspect that the same holds true of thunder storms. Perhaps … the same response appears during elections.

I found thunder storms very impressive when I lived in Queensland, much less so now that I live in Melbourne. Part of that is due to a different spouse. Spouse in Qld was excited by thunder storms, enjoyed watching them. Spouse in Melb switches off all electrical appliances, closes all curtains, and won’t let me go outside during a storm.

While the reaction of pets to thunder storms is well known, I have not seen any scientific paper about how wild animals (eg. primates) react to thunder storms.

Instincts seem remarkably well reserved in startlingly diverse groups of animal. I have less trouble discerning what motivates a mosquito or locust than I have discerning what motivates my spouse.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

not sure anyone escapes this, some aspects of motivational theory involving ideas of nature, they surely influence social and political views.

I don’t know where to start, or perhaps that is the start in a sense, that each of us is born substantially ignorant.

the naive child, or be it our ancestors 200,000+ years ago on the African savanna.

what do instincts give us as a starter for dealing with nature, and what are our first experiences and lessons?

each of us is gifted with a bunch of cognitive tools, and categories, native categories (if you like) are no small part of that.

where to start…

I love thunder storms (except dry lightning storms during fire danger season), but lightning frightens me terribly if it’s very near (and very loud thunder). Clouds impress me, suspended water vapor, and the power in clouds impresses me, like thunder heads (the winds under/around).

what would have our ancestors thought of lightning strikes at night, for example. They must’ve had a feel. Thunder storms have been around right through the evolution of life.

the weather of course is a force, a force of nature.

so, my question is of the different views regards the indifference of nature, the indifference of the forces of nature.

do thunder storms impress you?

I can approach the answer to that in at least three ways.

mollwollfumble has noticed what he calls the excitement-fear-sleep response. Car travel causes excitement, fear or sleep in different individuals. Similarly, a camp fire causes excitement, fear or sleep in different people. I suspect that the same holds true of thunder storms. Perhaps … the same response appears during elections.

I found thunder storms very impressive when I lived in Queensland, much less so now that I live in Melbourne. Part of that is due to a different spouse. Spouse in Qld was excited by thunder storms, enjoyed watching them. Spouse in Melb switches off all electrical appliances, closes all curtains, and won’t let me go outside during a storm.

While the reaction of pets to thunder storms is well known, I have not seen any scientific paper about how wild animals (eg. primates) react to thunder storms.

Instincts seem remarkably well reserved in startlingly diverse groups of animal. I have less trouble discerning what motivates a mosquito or locust than I have discerning what motivates my spouse.

I’d suggest that you stand up for yourself and strip naked, duck out into the storm with arms outstreched, sing an aria.

I might come back to this later.

Good questions.

The reaction of animals to thunder storms is also interesting.

I’m thinking easily observable ones here, like pet dogs.

The chooks on the other hand don’t seem to care that much, one way or the other.

The fish, I don’t know. Can fish even hear thunder?

The shear power of nature can be quite intoxicating, storms are great to watch, hear and feel.

Cymek said:

The shear power of nature can be quite intoxicating, storms are great to watch, hear and feel.

You could probably include natural disasters, scary and exciting at the same time and seeing/hearing/feeling a huge ice shelf break away

Nature – wikipedia

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. “Nature” can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.

The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or “essential qualities, innate disposition”, and in ancient times, literally meant “birth”. Natura is a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord. The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage continued during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.

Within the various uses of the word today, “nature” often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature can refer to the general realm of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects—the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth. It is often taken to mean the “natural environment” or wilderness—wild animals, rocks, forest, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, “human nature” or “the whole of nature”. This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term “natural” might also be distinguished from the unnatural or the supernatural.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Nature – wikipedia

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. “Nature” can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.

The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or “essential qualities, innate disposition”, and in ancient times, literally meant “birth”. Natura is a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord. The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage continued during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.

Within the various uses of the word today, “nature” often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature can refer to the general realm of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects—the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth. It is often taken to mean the “natural environment” or wilderness—wild animals, rocks, forest, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, “human nature” or “the whole of nature”. This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term “natural” might also be distinguished from the unnatural or the supernatural.

more…

That’s very well written.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Nature – wikipedia

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. “Nature” can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.

The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or “essential qualities, innate disposition”, and in ancient times, literally meant “birth”. Natura is a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord. The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage continued during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.

Within the various uses of the word today, “nature” often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature can refer to the general realm of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects—the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth. It is often taken to mean the “natural environment” or wilderness—wild animals, rocks, forest, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, “human nature” or “the whole of nature”. This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term “natural” might also be distinguished from the unnatural or the supernatural.

more…

That’s very well written.

Yes, while I was reading it I thought of how long it takes both life and innate bodies to evolve.

Planets stars and galaxies take billions of years to evolve.

Life takes millions of years to evolve.

Makes one wonder how long life takes to evolve on other planets. faster, similar or slower.

Our growing understanding of planets might give us insights into this, maybe life developed quickly on other planets with different conditions

I wonder which planet holds the record for how fast life took to develop and how long it took?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Nature – wikipedia

Makes one wonder how long life takes to evolve on other planets. faster, similar or slower.

Our growing understanding of planets might give us insights into this, maybe life developed quickly on other planets with different conditions

I wonder which planet holds the record for how fast life took to develop and how long it took?

Faster evolution is easiest, slower evolution of life than on Earth would be very difficult. But on the other hand, too fast an evolution and it ceases to be “life”.

The speed of evolution is tied in with reproductive accuracy and mutation rate.

On Earth, RNA based life mutates fastest. DNA based life in the form of Eukaryotes has histones to minimise the number of mutations and DNA repair equipment to fix errors.

Too fast a mutation rate and reproductive success goes down, wasting much needed energy. And too fast an evolution rate stops sexual reproduction other than with close kin. So multicellular life on Earth strives to slow down the mutation rate as fast much as possible. Also, high mutation rates require smaller genomes and so lower physical complexity.

So, looking to other planets, I would say that all other things being equal, lower temperatures would lead to a lower metabolic rate, longer lifespan and slower evolution and vice versa.

But that also relates to carrier fluid. All other things being equal, a lifeform that uses methanol instead of water would evolve faster at 20 degrees C because methanol has a lower freezing and boiling point.

Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.

PermeateFree said:

Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.

Habitat change?

PermeateFree said:

Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.

Could technological adaptation being considered evolutionary in nature as intelligence gives us the means to adapt in a non biological manner

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.

Habitat change?

If hobbits adapted it would be a hobbitat change

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.

Habitat change?

If hobbits adapted it would be a hobbitat change

Would we then all have hairy feet?

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

roughbarked said:

Habitat change?

If hobbits adapted it would be a hobbitat change

Would we then all have hairy feet?

Quite likely

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.

Habitat change?

Yes sorry, my error.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.

Could technological adaptation being considered evolutionary in nature as intelligence gives us the means to adapt in a non biological manner

If it affected our survival. That what matters, if you can carry on as usual, then there is no need to change.

Can I have some, mum?

Nope. You’ve already had your dinner.

your.

>The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

strange works the constructions of minds – understanding

survival really is more death.

transition said:

>The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

strange works the constructions of minds – understanding

survival really is more death.

>>>>>>>>>> survival really is more death.

Please expand.

Michael V said:

transition said:

>The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

strange works the constructions of minds – understanding

survival really is more death.

>>>>>>>>>> survival really is more death.

Please expand.

survival = more death

welcome to the death factory of organic replicators.

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

>The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

strange works the constructions of minds – understanding

survival really is more death.

>>>>>>>>>> survival really is more death.

Please expand.

survival = more death

welcome to the death factory of organic replicators.

You my like to read my earlier post again, which involves the speed of evolution.

>>Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.<<

>You my like to read my earlier post again, which involves the speed of evolution.

I was having a poke at the outcome of thinking of the human experience (or conscious experience) as being about survival (of type, species, whatever), where that might go.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

>>>>>>>>>> survival really is more death.

Please expand.

survival = more death

welcome to the death factory of organic replicators.

You my like to read my earlier post again, which involves the speed of evolution.

>>Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.<<

Perhaps I need to clarify the difference between “rate of evolution” and “rate of speciation”.

Rate of evolution is the product of rate of mutation and survival of mutations. In a cosy environment, mutations are more likely to survive and so the rate of evolution is fastest.

Rate of speciation is the rate at which geographic isolation occurs. It is thus faster when the environment is adverse, such as during the anthropocene.

So I would expect a negative correlation between rate of evolution and rate of speciation.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

survival = more death

welcome to the death factory of organic replicators.

You my like to read my earlier post again, which involves the speed of evolution.

>>Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.<<

Perhaps I need to clarify the difference between “rate of evolution” and “rate of speciation”.

Rate of evolution is the product of rate of mutation and survival of mutations. In a cosy environment, mutations are more likely to survive and so the rate of evolution is fastest.

Rate of speciation is the rate at which geographic isolation occurs. It is thus faster when the environment is adverse, such as during the anthropocene.

So I would expect a negative correlation between rate of evolution and rate of speciation.

You are not talking about what I said. Please read my post again!

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

survival = more death

welcome to the death factory of organic replicators.

You my like to read my earlier post again, which involves the speed of evolution.

>>Evolutionary change happens faster after habit change, with the greater the environmental change, resulting in a faster evolutionary change. Evolution does usually happen over a long period with mutations happening periodically. However the incentive for evolutionary change, is the change in habitat, when the quality of life and life itself is at stake. The mutations that have happened over generations, but are not necessarily physically obvious, can either help or hinder with this environmental change. The disadvantaged will die out, whilst the advantaged will go on the breed via natural selection to improve their advantages still further, and by doing so ensure their species survival.

Adaptation to unoccupied niches (usually the result of environmental change) can also be quickly filled by other species that possess an advantage that permits them to do so. The physical changes that will then take place via natural selection, will rapidly speed the development of new species.<<

Perhaps I need to clarify the difference between “rate of evolution” and “rate of speciation”.

Rate of evolution is the product of rate of mutation and survival of mutations. In a cosy environment, mutations are more likely to survive and so the rate of evolution is fastest.

Rate of speciation is the rate at which geographic isolation occurs. It is thus faster when the environment is adverse, such as during the anthropocene.

So I would expect a negative correlation between rate of evolution and rate of speciation.

Speciation is very common and can be seen everywhere involving a slow transition from one species to another, often due to colony separation and/or habitat modification. However the fastest rate of species change occurs immediately following a calamitous event, such as previous mass extinction periods, when predators may become extinct and many new niches established. These niches are quickly filled with adaptive organisms and many new species rapidly evolve, which is evident in the fossil record.

mollwollfumble said:

In a cosy environment, mutations are more likely to survive and so the rate of evolution is fastest.

That doesn’t make much sense. In a cosy environment, the drive to adapt will be low.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Nature – wikipedia

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. “Nature” can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.

The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or “essential qualities, innate disposition”, and in ancient times, literally meant “birth”. Natura is a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord. The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage continued during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.

Within the various uses of the word today, “nature” often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature can refer to the general realm of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects—the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth. It is often taken to mean the “natural environment” or wilderness—wild animals, rocks, forest, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, “human nature” or “the whole of nature”. This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term “natural” might also be distinguished from the unnatural or the supernatural.

more…

That’s very well written.

It is apart from one thing. It seems to view humans as from outer space.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Nature – wikipedia

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. “Nature” can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.

The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or “essential qualities, innate disposition”, and in ancient times, literally meant “birth”. Natura is a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord. The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage continued during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.

Within the various uses of the word today, “nature” often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature can refer to the general realm of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects—the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth. It is often taken to mean the “natural environment” or wilderness—wild animals, rocks, forest, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, “human nature” or “the whole of nature”. This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term “natural” might also be distinguished from the unnatural or the supernatural.

more…

That’s very well written.

It is apart from one thing. It seems to view humans as from outer space.

NPOV

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Nature – wikipedia

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. “Nature” can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.

The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or “essential qualities, innate disposition”, and in ancient times, literally meant “birth”. Natura is a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord. The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage continued during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.

Within the various uses of the word today, “nature” often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature can refer to the general realm of living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects—the way that particular types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth. It is often taken to mean the “natural environment” or wilderness—wild animals, rocks, forest, and in general those things that have not been substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, “human nature” or “the whole of nature”. This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term “natural” might also be distinguished from the unnatural or the supernatural.

more…

That’s very well written.

It is apart from one thing. It seems to view humans as from outer space.

I don’t think so. It’s just discussing the word as it is commonly used, and in common usage human manufactured things are put in a separate category to other things, even things made by other animals, such as beavers or ants.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

That’s very well written.

It is apart from one thing. It seems to view humans as from outer space.

I don’t think so. It’s just discussing the word as it is commonly used, and in common usage human manufactured things are put in a separate category to other things, even things made by other animals, such as beavers or ants.

It’s what I would think of as nature and a third parts observer point of view works anyway