Most people use the word "natural" or "nature" freely and frequently, but I find a precise definition to be somewhat elusive. In fact I suspect if everyone tries to define this precisely now, people are going to start disagreeing with one another's definition. Contradictions abound when I tried to define it in several ways. So just for curiosity I'd like to know what you mean exactly when you say that something is "natural" or "not natural".

Example usages like: "as nature intended", or using "not natural" to describe a lifestyle, object, or ideology closely associated with sophisticated techonology.

So just for curiosity I'd like to know what you mean exactly when you say that something is "natural" or "not natural".
I use the term natural to describe an object that is not synthetic, or an behavior that comes instinctually and is common. Using the term unnatural generally denotes something negative in behavior, such as cannibalism, or a object that is man-made, such as a computer.

I went and looked it up at dictionary.com, it has 38 deffinetions o.O

But yeah the general use of natural would be to describe something "existing in, or formed by nature" i.e not man made. Evakian summed it up pretty much.

The traits expressed directly through the core code.

Natural is superior to synthetic, at least when it comes to breasts.

I guess natural doing isn't doing for honor.

For example, you did hiking, enjoy being in wood, and swimming.
Do you enjoy it for speaking to anyone?
If you won't tell anyone that your doing, you don't do anything?

Of course, we can't take the nature at every moment. At moments I do for myself, at moments I do for society, income, and honor.
But everything that for myself as watch TV, listen to music, playing PC game are nature, I guess.

So, doing for telling 'I did something nature' isn't nature.

So just for curiosity I'd like to know what you mean exactly when you say that something is "natural" or "not natural". Generally, I think of natural as meaning no added synthetic ingredients.


Example usages like: "as nature intended", or using "not natural" to describe a lifestyle, object, or ideology closely associated with sophisticated techonology As far as lifestyle goes there is nothing I would describe as "unnatural" since to that person it is natural. Maybe not what I would think of as preferable but natural to them.

I use the term natural to describe an object that is not synthetic, or an behavior that comes instinctually and is common. Using the term unnatural generally denotes something negative in behavior, such as cannibalism, or a object that is man-made, such as a computer.

Interesting. But what if the penchant to utilize tools is considered a human-specific instinct, and as we know, is surely common? Then does not a synthetic object, by logical induction, come about from natural progress of human inclinations, hence can be considered natural? Or do you say that while the discovery and use of fire is natural, that while fishing with woven nets is natural, at some point a vague line is crossed and the level of sophistication of a behavior or tool is too high to be considered natural?

Consider two poisons: one made from the lethal liquids extracted from frogs and used by ancient hunters and one made in the laboratory by a modern chemist. It seems like the later is simply the result of continous improvements from many versions of the former over a long period of time. Do you consider one more natural than another?

Also. Should we consider mutation natural?

Brings to mind the question from Constitutional Law; What did Jefferson mean when he said:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Then does not a synthetic object, by logical induction, come about from natural progress of human inclinations, hence can be considered natural?
As a simple rule of thumb, I don't consider man's tools or devices to be naturally occurring unless they are obviously not synthetic, such as a stick or rock used as a weapon. There has to be a line present somewhere to tell natural from synthetic.
Or do you say that while the discovery and use of fire is natural, that while fishing with woven nets is natural, at some point a vague line is crossed and the level of sophistication of a behavior or tool is too high to be considered natural?
Fishing with woven nets is understandable, but not necessarily natural.
Do you consider one more natural than another?
One is more closer to its occurance in nature (the materials), so yes, in a way.