It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific Knowledge contradicts nature.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
What you are talking about is something Heidegger deals with extensively.

Enjoy!

Heidegger Critique/Technology




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Come on...it's easy!!

GOD created us just like he created the laws of nature (since the laws of nature could not just happen by chance and remain constant by themselves). We are his creation, his ipad if you will. He made our hard drives (brains), our webcams (eyes), etc... And because he gave us the ability to learn and grow, we are now the creators of technology. Technology didn't just happen by chance...it had an intelligent designer...US!! Without GOD we do not exist. Without US technology doesn't exist.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:54 AM
link   

BDBinc

smithjustinb

BDBinc

smithjustinb

TheSubversiveOne
-Technology is in contradiction to nature.


Why do you say that? We naturally make technology and naturally pursue scientific knowledge, so how is it unnatural? It is our nature.

Is it "our nature" to make technology to destroy the planet we live on?
Maybe everything we do does not reflect "our nature",[ rape, harm, torture, killing each other ]but if we do not know and have forgotten what our essence is .


Maybe everything we do does reflect "our nature" [rape, harm, torture, killing each other]

Maybe the rape, harm, torture and killing we do as we have forgotten our nature[light & love] .



Ducks are worse rapists. They dont have technology.

Female Black Widow Spiders eat Male Black Widow Spiders. They dont have technology.

Cats torture their prey after catching them. They dont have technology.

So how do the habits of humans relate to technology, and relate to those two things being against nature?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   

smithjustinb

BDBinc

smithjustinb

BDBinc

smithjustinb

TheSubversiveOne
-Technology is in contradiction to nature.


Why do you say that? We naturally make technology and naturally pursue scientific knowledge, so how is it unnatural? It is our nature.

Is it "our nature" to make technology to destroy the planet we live on?
Maybe everything we do does not reflect "our nature",[ rape, harm, torture, killing each other ]but if we do not know and have forgotten what our essence is .


Maybe everything we do does reflect "our nature" [rape, harm, torture, killing each other]

Maybe the rape, harm, torture and killing we do as we have forgotten our nature[light & love] .


Ducks are worse rapists. They dont have technology.
Female Black Widow Spiders eat Male Black Widow Spiders. They dont have technology.
Cats torture their prey after catching them. They dont have technology.
So how do the habits of humans relate to technology, and relate to those two things being against nature?

I had already said maybe human beings raping, harming,torturing and killing each other is not reflecting a human beings nature.


Many habits relating to technology =watching TV, talking and txting on the Iphone or computer .
I am sorry I just don't understand the question you are asking.

Animals don't have technology.
Do you rape because you believe ducks rape "worse" than you ?
Do you torture because you saw a cat preying with its food?
Do you think your nature is just that of an animal?
What is your true nature?

Maybe this duck raping and cat torturing is not a reflection of your real nature.
You could be light and love = imagine the difference in your life.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
I would say that technology is a part of nature.

Just as the ant's mound and underground tunnels are a part of nature.

Just as the bee's hive and honey combs are a part of nature.

Just as the chimpanzee's tool is a part of nature. The spider's silk. (I'm aware this is stretching it as some of these examples are actually created by their biological processes, the point still stands.)

How can it not be a part of nature. If your answer is because humanity created it, I will refer you to my above examples and urge you to think deeper.

We are animals.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Flawed argument, you dont get to define your own words, re: Nature means anything that isnt technology. Nature is technology, all animals are very advanced, complex, and sophisticated pieces of technology, such that we cant even fully comprehend them, how they work.

You dont have the authority to draw a distinction between nature, and 'what you feel isnt nature'. Whatever is allowed to occur in reality, (reality is nature) whatever does occur in reality, is natural.

To answer your questions; no. If you go to any 3rd world country or area on earth with primitive villages or tribes, you will find that all of their creations are 'at least "more natural"', from housing, to boats, to weapons, to clothing. The universe does not have hands, it has a very 'numbers game' manner of formulating complexity, however once complexities existed (conscious/semi intelligent organisms) they were able to 'become the universes hands' 'and mind', and who were they existing for but themselves, and so their action was always predominantly towards a mode of making existence more tolerable. Warmer clothes, more abundance of food, better building materials, working on their bodies over the generations to become more efficient, evolving hunting techniques and weapons, evolving language for communicating and storage of knowledge.

Humans are complexity creators, organizers. What nature is to clunky to accomplish for us, after nature has accomplished us, it is now, and has been, in our hands to adapt our environment to our liking. This is not so straight forward, see history for examples of the variety in culture, tradition, customs, and modes of commune and community that have existed on earth.

It might be possible that all humans on earth could have, and can, exist without inventing more complex tools, and traditions, then very primitive techniques, but then the extent of human history on earth would be one of 'slightly advanced animal', where as if we look at history, it has been a steady, or exponential climb upwards to greater and greater stages of novelty, and at least for a relative minority, relative massive amount of people, pretty comfortable, stable, convenient, high quality, fun, worthwhile, standards of living.

We as a species are going through extremely, EXTREMELY, complex process of progression. The existence of one heart that works is mind blowing and special, let alone all of them, and yours which has not stopped beating since it started. To carry on from there to stadiums and skyscrappers and super computers, and the totality of art and literature and entertainment, and rocketry, and engineering, is a very special, honorable, and privileged thing to be apart of.

One can always attempt to become adopted into a tribe.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Technology and nature are NOT the same thing. Neither does the former evolve from the latter. Technology is made possible by this:




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Science is against the wider view of reality and actively fights against it

Sigmund Freud wrote:

There is little doubt that if attention is directed to occult phenomena the outcome will very soon be that the occurrence of a number of them will be confirmed: and it will probably be a long time before an acceptable theory covering these new facts can be arrived at. But the eagerly attentive onlookers will not wait so long. At the very first confirmation the occultists will proclaim the triumph of their views...They will be hailed as liberators from the burden of intellectual bonbdage, they will be joyufully acclaimed by all the credulity lying ready to hand since the infancy of the human race and the childhood of the individual. There may follow a fearful collapse of critical thought, of determinist standards and of mechanistic science. - from The Sense of being Stared at by Rupert Sheldrake


Robert Mcluhan wrote:

And parapsychologists, it's worth adding, insist that scientists in other diciplines very often reveal to them, in private one-to-one conversations, a belief in the reality of psychic phenomena that they dare not admit openly.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





Flawed argument, you dont get to define your own words, re: Nature means anything that isnt technology. Nature is technology, all animals are very advanced, complex, and sophisticated pieces of technology, such that we cant even fully comprehend them, how they work.

You dont have the authority to draw a distinction between nature, and 'what you feel isnt nature'. Whatever is allowed to occur in reality, (reality is nature) whatever does occur in reality, is natural.



nature |ˈnāCHər|
noun
1 the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations: the breathtaking beauty of nature.
• the physical force regarded as causing and regulating these phenomena: it is impossible to change the laws of nature. See also Mother Nature.
2 [ in sing. ] the basic or inherent features of something, esp. when seen as characteristic of it: helping them to realize the nature of their problems | there are a lot of other documents of that nature.
• the innate or essential qualities or character of a person or animal: it's not in her nature to listen to advice | I'm not violent by nature. See also human nature.
• inborn or hereditary characteristics as an influence on or determinant of personality. Often contrasted with nurture.
• [ with adj. ] archaic a person of a specified character: Emerson was so much more luminous a nature.


I didn't pull the definition out of a hat. So it seems your argument is flawed by the fact that it is wrong.


We as a species are going through extremely, EXTREMELY, complex process of progression. The existence of one heart that works is mind blowing and special, let alone all of them, and yours which has not stopped beating since it started. To carry on from there to stadiums and skyscrappers and super computers, and the totality of art and literature and entertainment, and rocketry, and engineering, is a very special, honorable, and privileged thing to be apart of.


It's special and a privilege because you are human. It wouldn't be a privilege if you were an orca whale or a polar bear. Technology pertains to humans only, and has only negative, species threatening implications for the rest of nature. This species is all science has ever progressed for.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Glorification
 





I would say that technology is a part of nature.

Just as the ant's mound and underground tunnels are a part of nature.

Just as the bee's hive and honey combs are a part of nature.

Just as the chimpanzee's tool is a part of nature. The spider's silk. (I'm aware this is stretching it as some of these examples are actually created by their biological processes, the point still stands.)

How can it not be a part of nature. If your answer is because humanity created it, I will refer you to my above examples and urge you to think deeper.

We are animals.


They are none alike. Think about it deeper.

We destroy nature, and thus go against it, to build and run technology. Ants use dirt. Birds use what's around them. Spider's use processes of their own bodies.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Ofcourse, there is much evidence to prove infact God, is within nature but also mathematics. Sacred geometric elements along with particle physics and secret metaphysical sciences dating back to the Ancient Greeks and Egyptians is evident. To dive deeper into this subject I suggest going to my website at www.katharagridvibrations.com



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 





If numbers don't exist, anywhere outside of our minds, then what about the ability to make predictions. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


We make predictions with our mind.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 





The technology of living things, and the technology of man simply have different discovers & consumers. A plant species that learns if it creates pollen, the species will number better, is obviously an innovation authored by nature. But both the technology of the plant and the technology of the petrol engine were authored at the start of this universe. That's because they are limited by the the logical abstract & thereby e.g. the same phyisical laws.
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


The plants are incapable of adhering to anything, let alone the logically abstract. Creating pollen is not technology, just like creating sperm or ovum isn't.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
TheSubversiveOne: Creating pollen is technology! You call it “nature” because that is its author & consumer. But it is still technology because…
1. It has to be discovered (in natures case by physically enacted trial & error)
2. It has to be recorded in order to be re-useable (in natures case on DNA-RNA) (in mans by memory- paper).
3. Both technology, and nature, are limited by 13.8 billion year old physical laws (which constitute all the logically abstract)

I accept a plant may be fully incapable of understanding the logically abstract, but so to is an iphone, or indeed the factory making iphones. This doesn’t remotely change that an iphone is technology, or that pollen is another name for that same thing.

The only fundamental difference between natures technology and man’s technology (besides author & consumer) is that mans technology is much broader in its scope (i.e. being able to potentially utilise any metals, and all other elements in the periodic table, in all manner of concentrations-mixtures & forms). We owe this to our hands & minds -not to any universal fundamental dividing man & nature.
But this doesn't guarantee man’s technology is a “contradiction” to natures technology –it merely guarantees its potentially far more diverse.

The reasons why man and nature clash is because…
1. Man is a creation of nation that clashes with nature, just as certain plagues (also creation of nature) went extinct by clashing with nature.
2. Man technology is much younger than natures, and therefore we have not figured out how to make recycling worthwhile on every level.
3. Likewise: Man has not yet learned how to make solar, that works in harmony with nature, or (nuclear that works independently) in a way that out does fossil fuels.

But none of these constitute guarantees mans technology clashes with natures. And it certainly doesn’t necessarily contradict it, since the sources of both technologies come from the same (i.e. the laws of physics). E.g…

I concede: Something like weedkiller is inherently a contradiction to nature, but the bee-hive, that actually helps bee numbers & proliferation, simply isn’t. Sometimes technology and nature work together, most of the time they do indeed clash, but rarely does this inherently have to be so. For example: You can kill weeds like nettles by getting a goat, but the act of having goats to control the weeds, planting beans to increase nitrogen levels, is technology –put it this way: It is certainly no accident.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 





TheSubversiveOne: Creating pollen is technology! You call it “nature” because that is its author & consumer. But it is still technology because…
1. It has to be discovered (in natures case by physically enacted trial & error)
2. It has to be recorded in order to be re-useable (in natures case on DNA-RNA) (in mans by memory- paper).
3. Both technology, and nature, are limited by 13.8 billion year old physical laws (which constitute all the logically abstract)

I accept a plant may be fully incapable of understanding the logically abstract, but so to is an iphone, or indeed the factory making iphones. This doesn’t remotely change that an iphone is technology, or that pollen is another name for that same thing.

The only fundamental difference between natures technology and man’s technology (besides author & consumer) is that mans technology is much broader in its scope (i.e. being able to potentially utilise any metals, and all other elements in the periodic table, in all manner of concentrations-mixtures & forms). We owe this to our hands & minds -not to any universal fundamental dividing man & nature.
But this doesn't guarantee man’s technology is a “contradiction” to natures technology –it merely guarantees its potentially far more diverse.

The reasons why man and nature clash is because…
1. Man is a creation of nation that clashes with nature, just as certain plagues (also creation of nature) went extinct by clashing with nature.
2. Man technology is much younger than natures, and therefore we have not figured out how to make recycling worthwhile on every level.
3. Likewise: Man has not yet learned how to make solar, that works in harmony with nature, or (nuclear that works independently) in a way that out does fossil fuels.

But none of these constitute guarantees mans technology clashes with natures. And it certainly doesn’t necessarily contradict it, since the sources of both technologies come from the same (i.e. the laws of physics). E.g…

I concede: Something like weedkiller is inherently a contradiction to nature, but the bee-hive, that actually helps bee numbers & proliferation, simply isn’t. Sometimes technology and nature work together, most of the time they do indeed clash, but rarely does this inherently have to be so. For example: You can kill weeds like nettles by getting a goat, but the act of having goats to control the weeds, planting beans to increase nitrogen levels, is technology –put it this way: It is certainly no accident.



According to how I defined "technology" in the OP (the definition is form the Oxford English Dictionary), plants are not technology. They do not come from the laws of physics, which are mentally contrived and only ever mathematically expressed. They come from nature. What does come from the laws of physics, mathematics, or what is called "scientific knowledge" in the definition of "technology", is technology itself, which from any angle, appears and acts nothing like nature. Technology appears and acts in accordance with our "scientific knowledge".

So I don't think nature has technology, nor engineers anything, but our technology is vaguely comparable insofar as we look at nature for ideas and inspiration.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Subversive one check out that heidegger bro.


Technology is natural in that its not supernatural, Unfortunately our technologies have evolved with no regard to the environment, ESPECIALLY after the industrial revolution. Its still natural, it just regularly poisons all life with no regard for anything other than short profit.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

TheSubversiveOne
Just food for thought

My argument is this:

-Scientific knowledge is the foundation of Technology.
-Technology is in contradiction to nature.
-Therefor, scientific knowledge is in contradiction to nature.


Technology – The application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, and all objects of human engineering.

Nature – Anything that isn't technology.


 

Man produces technology, how does one consider mankind as a species, separate from nature.
this concept is moot. "nature" isn't really a "thing" either. Just a concept man invented in order to describe groups of systems, laws, behaviors, lifeforms... technology, just the useful techniques of said systems, laws, behaviors, lifeforms ...really this is just unimportant semantics.


edit on 4/7/2014 by prevenge because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


The definition is flawed, wrong, and dumb. I didnt say humans can do harm to natural things, humans have the choice to use stuff they create for good or bad, a hammer can be used to build a house or bash an innocent skull. The whole of technology isnt inherently wrong because some clusters of humans over time have been ignorant to the damage they do. Also you didnt respond to any other parts of my otherwise perfect post? Oh and Liberal1984's response is perfect too, now the choice is up to you whether or not you will remain with your head in the sand. We have obviously considered your arguments, it is very easy to do so, do not think one, or we, can not entertain multiple, any, or all perspectives in an argument. How closely have you considered what Liberal1984's post says. The truth is right there.

edit on 7-4-2014 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

SaturnFX

aka, your ipad is as natural as fingers.


I thought that would be called artificial?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   

SaturnFX
Evolution is constantly altering species for efficiency and getting an edge up on nature.

technology does the same. I therefore offer up the hypothesis that technology is actually a natural progression of evolution.

aka, your ipad is as natural as fingers.


Technology seem to be cancer cells in nature...Cancer cell is no related with evil.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join