Top | Newest First | Oldest First
It's the other way round;
by definition:
1. an "artificial construct" is one produced by man; not occurring naturally. e.g. artificial materials of great strength.
2. something made in imitation of a natural product, esp. as a substitute; not genuine.
by definition:
1. an "artificial construct" is one produced by man; not occurring naturally. e.g. artificial materials of great strength.
2. something made in imitation of a natural product, esp. as a substitute; not genuine.
View 1 more replies »
@MethDozer While it's true that it's natural for humans to imagine new ideas (constructs), the constructs themselves do not evolve in nature - they arise solely via the human mind.
Most things invented by humans have already evolved in nature. For instance, many marine species have used electricity and electrical sensing for millions of years. But this is not a construct - it's a naturally evolved and automatic biochemical process.
It only becomes a "construct" when a human notices the process, theorizes about the cause, experiments, confirms the thesis, and then finds a way to replicate and control the process. In nature, these things don't arise as a result of thinking.
We are a part of nature and vice versa. One of the reasons why we're in trouble with global warming is that we separate ourselves from nature and treat it with disregard and disrespect, not putting its health ahead of our own in order to ensure the health of all.
In language, itself always a construct, we use the word "natural" to refer to that which is not made by humans.
If we were to redefine "natural" to include all things human, we would then need to invent another word to distinguish between constructs, artifacts and that which arises solely due to the laws of physics and evolution (with no human assistance).
Before trying to play with the language, first consider the role that a word plays in assisting with definitions and nuances of meaning. There are infinite ways to be creative with language, but just as many ways to dilute it and make words and phrases meaningless.
Think deeper. Rather than latching onto an idea as soon as you see it, explore and test it. See whether it really works in all contexts.
Most things invented by humans have already evolved in nature. For instance, many marine species have used electricity and electrical sensing for millions of years. But this is not a construct - it's a naturally evolved and automatic biochemical process.
It only becomes a "construct" when a human notices the process, theorizes about the cause, experiments, confirms the thesis, and then finds a way to replicate and control the process. In nature, these things don't arise as a result of thinking.
We are a part of nature and vice versa. One of the reasons why we're in trouble with global warming is that we separate ourselves from nature and treat it with disregard and disrespect, not putting its health ahead of our own in order to ensure the health of all.
In language, itself always a construct, we use the word "natural" to refer to that which is not made by humans.
If we were to redefine "natural" to include all things human, we would then need to invent another word to distinguish between constructs, artifacts and that which arises solely due to the laws of physics and evolution (with no human assistance).
Before trying to play with the language, first consider the role that a word plays in assisting with definitions and nuances of meaning. There are infinite ways to be creative with language, but just as many ways to dilute it and make words and phrases meaningless.
Think deeper. Rather than latching onto an idea as soon as you see it, explore and test it. See whether it really works in all contexts.
MethDozer · M
@hartfire If it is only in our nature, than it is natural.
Using different definitions of construct as well
an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence
"history is largely an ideological construct"
Also biochemical electricity is "used" by our nuerons to and there's no such thing as artificial electricty.
Anyway my thought point was meant that since it is in outlr nature to make constructs, we can decide what they are instead of staying in archaic thought because " it's what is natural".
Using different definitions of construct as well
an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence
"history is largely an ideological construct"
Also biochemical electricity is "used" by our nuerons to and there's no such thing as artificial electricty.
Anyway my thought point was meant that since it is in outlr nature to make constructs, we can decide what they are instead of staying in archaic thought because " it's what is natural".
@MethDozer I'm rather enjoying this. :)
I agree that in is in our nature for our minds to accept or reject the constructs of our culture or others, or invent them. In fact our minds are meaning making machines; we learn to do it at a very early age and often the process is unconscious.
Some constructs, models or systems of thought are indeed archaic, going back millenia and yet still actively transmitted via culture. We are so embedded in it that many of us see our models as reality, don't realise there is any other way of seeing things or see the views of others as wrong.
This can extend as far as not seeing facts as reality -- such as that the Earth is not flat but roughly spherical, which can be inferred from the horizons of vast plains or oceans being always curved no matter which direction one travels. Or such as the speed of light is faster than sound, we we can perceive when lightning flashes before we hear the thunder, even when the storm is right on top of us.
I think the human tendency to fixed and narrow-mindedness is one reason why travelling and reading widely is so valuable.
Will continue later on the thread of history as ideological construct.
It seems to me that you might have studied postmodernist thinking. Is that correct?
I agree that in is in our nature for our minds to accept or reject the constructs of our culture or others, or invent them. In fact our minds are meaning making machines; we learn to do it at a very early age and often the process is unconscious.
Some constructs, models or systems of thought are indeed archaic, going back millenia and yet still actively transmitted via culture. We are so embedded in it that many of us see our models as reality, don't realise there is any other way of seeing things or see the views of others as wrong.
This can extend as far as not seeing facts as reality -- such as that the Earth is not flat but roughly spherical, which can be inferred from the horizons of vast plains or oceans being always curved no matter which direction one travels. Or such as the speed of light is faster than sound, we we can perceive when lightning flashes before we hear the thunder, even when the storm is right on top of us.
I think the human tendency to fixed and narrow-mindedness is one reason why travelling and reading widely is so valuable.
Will continue later on the thread of history as ideological construct.
It seems to me that you might have studied postmodernist thinking. Is that correct?
MethDozer · M
@SW-User Don't listen to a word I say, I'm an idiot.
bijouxbroussard · F