WTF is "cold iron", and why's it so special?

[Maxperson]

"sharpens it on a rock to make it artificial". "Just a broken stick".

These are arbitrary, entirely subjective places to draw the line.

Not arbitrary at all. I can show you sticks that have just broken without any living force being applied to it. Can you show me a stick that has sharpened itself on a rock?

Breaking off a side branch to, say, allow it to fit down an ant hole more easily is still altering it for a purpose.

But not in an unnatural way. A broken stick is a broken stick. A sharpened stick is different. One occurs by itself in nature and one exists if some intelligent being sharpens it.

Max is saying it doesn't have to be a person. Honeycombs made by the bees, beaver dams, etc.

Right. We are not the only living things on the planets that make artificial tools. The definitions for artificial/unnatural come from a very self-centered species that used to think we were the only creatures that used tools and many of us still believe that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. We're not even the only intelligent life on this planet.

The human centric definitions have to change. That or some third category needs to be created and added for those species that aren't human, yet do things that would cause something to be unnatural or an artifact if humans did it. I think the latter is unnecessary since the current definitions fit fine if expanded beyond being human centric.

 

[Maxperson]

Isn't the contrast natural vs artificial? And artificial means, more-or-less, being an artefact or being artefactual in character. And an artefact is, at least roughly, something made by a person for a purpose.

The problem is those definitions were created when humans believed that no species on Earth or elsewhere in the universe existed that could create artifacts. We have since discovered other species here on Earth that create them, so the definitions need to be expanded.

 

[Mannahnin]

Not arbitrary at all. I can show you sticks that have just broken without any living force being applied to it. Can you show me a stick that has sharpened itself on a rock?

Of course. Branches and other objects wear themselves rubbing against rocks and other hard surfaces all the time. Stones become smoothed in similar fashion. Wind and tide frequently shape things.

But not in an unnatural way. A broken stick is a broken stick. A sharpened stick is different. One occurs by itself in nature and one exists if some intelligent being sharpens it.

"But not in an unnatural way" is a tautological statement. Both of these kinds of changes can happen to a stick or other object without the intervention of a living creature. It seems to me that your key distinguishing feature is whether the change was made for a purpose by a living being.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course. Branches and other objects wear themselves rubbing against rocks and other hard surfaces all the time. Stones become smoothed in similar fashion. Wind and tide frequently shape things.

They wear themselves round and angled into a point? No. Wear down a bit on one side? Sure. Not the same thing. Same with stones worn down from weathering and stones chipped or deliberately worn into very specific shapes used to kill.

There's a reason that we can determine which stones we just dug up are tools created by our ancestors from 50,000 years ago and which are common stones.

 

[Mannahnin]

They wear themselves round and angled into a point? No. Wear down a bit on one side? Sure. Not the same thing. Same with stones worn down from weathering and stones chipped or deliberately worn into very specific shapes used to kill.

So you're saying that if the ape only sharpened/narrowed down the point by rubbing the stick's end on one side, and didn't need to or bother to sharpen it down along the other side/s, it would make a material difference to your definition of natural vs unnatural? So if natural forces theoretically COULD have made the change, it still counts as natural, even if the alteration was actually made by the action of a living creature?

So for another example if a beaver pushes some logs to make a partial dam in a stream, which themselves could have simply floated into that position by the current, that dam is still "natural"?

There's a reason that we can determine which stones we just dug up are tools created by our ancestors from 50,000 years ago and which are common stones.

There are reasons we can usually judge those things, though not always reliably.

 

[Maxperson]

So you're saying that if the ape only sharpened/narrowed down the point by rubbing the stick's end on one side, and didn't need to or bother to sharpen it down along the other side/s, it would make a material difference to your definition of natural vs unnatural?

Why would it bother. You can just break a stick off a tree and get one side sharpened and the other not. It also won't be nearly as useful. There's a reason why sticks are sharpened all the way around.

There are reasons we can usually judge those things, though not always reliably.

Can mistakes be made? Yep. Does that mean that it's not reliable? I would argue no. If it wasn't reliable we wouldn't do it. Human error isn't a reason to suddenly decide to throw out the whole concept of natural vs. unnatural and declare everything in the universe to be natural, no matter how unnatural it really is.

 

[Mannahnin]

This is clearly going nowhere, amusing a tangent though it was for a while.

Thanks for elucidating your thoughts!

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

I'm just going to leave this here.

Meet Oklo, the Earth’s Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor

Physicist Francis Perrin sat at a nuclearfuel-processing plant down in the south of France, thinking to himself: “This cannot be possible.” It was 1972.

www.iaea.org

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm just going to leave this here.

Meet Oklo, the Earth’s Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor

Physicist Francis Perrin sat at a nuclearfuel-processing plant down in the south of France, thinking to himself: “This cannot be possible.” It was 1972.

www.iaea.org

The only known natural nuclear reactor? (points at the sun) Are they sure about that?

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

The only known natural nuclear reactor? (points at the sun) Are they sure about that?

"Earth's".