Oct
13
Often it is assumed that human are different from nature. And that causes the point of contention between natural and artificial.
This duality between Nature and Human is asserted by two means, firstly, it is said that Human Constructs are artificial, they are not natural. Otherwise, the other way is to state that some human constructs are artificial while some are natural.
Indian philosophies says that Nothing can go against the laws of nature (Taitreya Vedanta) furthermore, it says that even the supernatural, the almighty god, can never break any natural law because it is what he made, that is, no miracle is possible and whatever happens, happens in accordance with natural universal laws.
Another Indian philosophy says that nature and artificial are one in same, there is neither dichotomy nor any duality (Advait Vedanta).
I completely agree with the philosophy of Advait Vedanta.
By default, whatever which exist, is natural. Something which can be said as unnatural would be something which is impossible to occur and which cannot exist at all. It means that, to state something or someway as better than others because it is ‘ natural’ is redundant and wrong. Also, to speak of some existing phenomenon as artificial or unnatural is absurd. So, Artificial can never be unnatural, what is it then?
Irrespective of one is creationist or evolutionist, human cannot be said as unnatural. Artificial is that, which is a natural product of human efforts by means of human intelligence, and again human intelligence is also a part of nature and no human intelligence can ever break any natural law (human may not be able to comprehend all natural laws an phenomenon). So what is artificial Intelligence? It must be clear that Artificial Intelligence is nothing like unnatural and it is completely natural because to say something as beyond nature or unnatural is to assert that it is supernatural and that is impossible.
Nature is beyond biases, it is neutral. Everything is neutral despite the consequences of it, irrespective of how common or rare it is, when it occurs or doesn’t occurs, whether it is profitable or detrimental, good or bad for human or other species, and so on. That which is natural, which occurs or exists, cannot be assumed to be good or bad by virtue of it being natural. Nature doesn’t have any intrinsic value (Nirguna Brahma). To say that which is natural is inherently good or bad means that everything is either good or bad, and that is absurd.
Also, nature is not static, it is dynamic, it is in a state of constant flux (Parivartan Sansaar ka Niyam hai!). So, whatever is natural doesn’t necessarily mean that it is universal or inevitable or permanent. It means that whatever is current in present scenario can very well be outmoded rendered and archaic in the future. Thus, appealing to the past as ‘natural’ is simply an irrational argument. What once was natural can be outdated over time, and what once was just a dream in past can be natural in present. The present and future is no less “natural” and naturalness of things in the context of past, present and future is irrelevant.
The irrational concept of natural/artificial duality is manifested in the arguments of the primitivists, anti-civilizaionists, and radical environmentalists. The contemporary science and technology and expanded horizon of human labour is criticised as “unnatural” while the more archaic and self-sufficient ways of living are “romanticised” as ‘natural’. Human civilization is signified as inherently against the nature and human is considered as the “destroyer of nature”. Radical egalitarians also uses same dichotomy as they suggest egalitarianism as ‘natural’ while hierarchy is considered to be ‘unnatural’.
The conservatives also try to use this irrational concept of artificial/natural duality. Dogmatic class hierarchy, religious authority, racism, casteism, nationalism, linguistic preferences and biases have been characterized as ‘the natural order’ as if they are the unalterable laws of nature and intrinsic authorities and deviations from them is considered as ‘unnatural’, anyone going against them is considered as antagonistic with nature. Conservative philosophy strongly appeals to tradition as being ‘natural’, and divergence from tradition such as homosexuality, live-in relationships, sodomy, transvestites, secularism, multiculturalism, inter-caste, inter-religion, inter-continental marriages and sexual relations are assumed as “unnatural”. Even many of them consider sex-education in schools is immoral and unnatural.
Socialistic and Statist theory supporters also use this artificial/natural duality to assert that a centralized political system involves man existing in ‘the state of nature’, and the rise of centralized political organization is considered as some ‘inevitable natural law’. While freedom is considered as “unnatural” and anyone rejecting the idea of statist government is considered as opposed to “nature”, Miniarchist, anarchists are considered as unnatural or are compared with a primitives “natural state” before centralized political organization took place.
As a matter of fact, all these various types of social phenomenon and organization can certainly be analyzed as profitable or more beneficial than other, yet, none can be said as “unnatural”. In fact, whether or not they are “natural” is totally irrelevant to such an appraisal because they all are “natural” and none is anti-natural or supernatural.
The concept of duality between artificial and natural is a misnomer and is irrational which diverts the real points of contentions.
10 Responses to “Artificial Vs Natural”
Leave a Reply
Attila Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 11:09 amduh.. how did u connect artificial and unnatural?? afaik, artificial would be something that could not be created by nature without man around and unnatural would be something that is an oddity.. an unexpected turn of events.. (which might be caused by nature, but unexpected)..
will come back 4 more..
Unpretentious Diva Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 11:36 amLol! Why cannot you read it before commenting? Where did I said that artificial is Unnatural? I am asserting that artificial is not unnatural but NATURAL. So something unnatural can be caused by nature itself. Ok, so whatever exists or happens by virtue of nature is natural is it or not? And if it is, how it can be unnatural? Just because you couldn’t expect it? Now that’s not the case. A meteorite fall is natural, and hence the unexpected and sudden changes in temperature an atmosphere of the earth are also natural. There’s nothing unnatural about it. And such unexpected and sudden changes are known as NATURAL CALAMITIES, there’s nothing unnatural about the NATURAL CALAMITIES, do you understand it Attila? The Cold Age which the planet earth passed through, because of which the dinosaurs lost their existence wasn’t unnatural. Neither the extinction of dinosaurs was Unnatural. It was all NATURAL. And so was the adaptation of mammals and their success against the odd nature. (odd Nature is not unnatural, unnatural means beyond nature, which cannot happen cannot exist in an by nature.
samay Says:
October 13th, 2008 at 10:16 pmIts indeed a thought provoking post…Its not a comment but what came to my mind on the issue in hand …and text is underlined coz ur site has some bug [:p]
What is nature…if one may ask; the first thought that hits the mind is a some serene green beauty with little or no human presence. It’s actually sad that human consciousness have been doctored over the time to assume himself and his actions itself as unnatural. Well all that it really does show is certain domination of a brooding lamenting self pity psyche of humanity. One that continuously held up its ante against the coercion of human will to change the so called nature and the world around him as per his desires. This psyche in fact holds the human intellect itself as unnatural, the forbidden fruit that man was not meant to have.
Nature as I see is nothing beyond a set of law. These laws are nothing but the one that sets the platform for action human or divine all play by the same rules. Nothing really spills beyond the course of nature. Unnatural death is one such misnomer that we all hear in our day to day life. We assume that ageing and dying is the only natural course of life, it is perhaps because we are too frigid to accept the blatant realities of life. Our consciousness perhaps is too naive to accept that it is natural for it to cease all of the sudden without any warning or reason.
We apply almost a similar logic to all our thought process. A whole set of right and wrongs passed on from generation to generation with no rational inquiry as to why. One may ask, isn’t crime also then natural? A mentality to murder and plunder someone comes naturally to certain individuals. Well the answer is yes… It is so and that is perhaps the reason that after centuries of persecution at the hand of society we still encounter such people. It is indeed a natural offshoot of human cognitive variations…however undesired they may be. I don’t hold society wrong in persecuting them, there are not very many options available to really check this such behavioural patterns or stopping them from recurring In fact these days we see humanity more often wronged on the name of ‘right’.On the name of religion, caste and creed and so many such which were created on the first place to safeguard the so called right.
The idea is not to justify the present state of human affair, but to delineate the element of stigma that is attached to the natural course of humanity. And also to counter the so called judgement day and dooms day prophesies. Death is a natural end to man and it would be to his race and all his creations. If man were to be ever judged it would be no god that would do so but man himself
Unpretentious Diva Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 12:04 amisn’t crime also then natural? A mentality to murder and plunder someone comes naturally to certain individuals. Well the answer is yes… It is so and that is perhaps the reason that after centuries of persecution at the hand of society we still encounter such people. It is indeed a natural offshoot of human cognitive variations…however undesired they may be.
Crime and criminals, both are natural, but none is rational.
Moral and immoral both are natural, but immoral is irrational. Whatever is irrational in human perspective, is immoral and hence it should be illegal. That is the rational and pretty natural basis of a sound legal system.
Laws should not be designed on mystical ideas of “Unnatural”.
laws can be designed only on rational premises.
Tripti Dhar Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 3:47 pmThis paper, I think, related with the method or process of understanding of human action/behaviour in the world. It is an interesting in the sense that how I’m observing my (human) world, not the other species. To the observation of the author, all kinds of actions are ‘NATURAL’ becasue the world is natural and nothing is outside the world. So, it’s logical, logically we can’t ignore the matter. The author, at the same time, accepting the differences of moral and immoral/ rational and irrational. If nothing is ‘Unnatural’ then how can I guess that the whole world is natural (whatever I understand). I think the author has done a good work, but, If we don’t accept the existence of ‘supernatural being’, who has created the world then I think, it would be meaningless to accept the whole thing as natural…. though it might be better to observe the whole world as a fact. If we don’t accept the existence of ‘unnatural event or action’ then logically it is not possible to accept the existence of ‘natural event or action’.
I don’t know, whether the author is interested to accept the Vaidic concept of ‘Rta ‘ or ‘cosmic order’, that is universal truth. It stands as the Vedic antecedent for the notion of dharma. It is through Rta that the sun rises and sets, that rivers flow, trees grow, and animals are born. It signifies the cosmic law that allows the universe to run smoothly, the dynamic structure in which every object and all actions have their proper place.Rta is closely associated with the gods VARUNA and MITRA, who are the deities in charge of cosmic order. The Rgveda (c. 1200 BCE) commonly assigns to the gods such epithets as “he who possesses rta,” “he who grows according to rta,” or “he who is born of rta,” descriptions representing the Vedic notion that the gods derive their strength from their adherence to cosmic law. If they — or humans, for that matter — were to go against the structures of rta, they would then be said to be anrta, a common synonym for vrjina (“crooked, wrong”) and even asatya (“untrue”). Thus even the gods must obey the laws of rta. Here, we get the concept of asatya/anrta or untrue. It entails that Veda also accept the existence of two classes i.e. rta (natural) and anrta (unnatural-whatever we say).
Hence, if we are not interested to accept the distinction of ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’,I think, It would be better to accept the whole world or actions in/of the world as fact.
Unpretentious Diva Says:
October 14th, 2008 at 5:33 pmThe cosmic world (whatever you mean by that) is bound to follow the natural laws.
It will go upto vedic discussion and the post is not meant for that, yet, I would like to mention that Rigveda just like other three vedas is depicted by various schollars in various ways, which way you call proper is your assumption, but which suits a certain extent of reason is the idea of Taitrya Vedanta and Advaita vedanta.
Taitreya Vedanta assertains causality and enumerates three causes for the Universe.
The Primary Cause (Ishwar, Omkar, Shakti, Urja, Energy and many other names for the same cause)
The Secondary Cause (Nature or prakriti or matter, which was always there and none made it)
The Common Cause ( the life and structures of matter made upon the natural laws in accordance with primary cause).
Advaita Vedanta says that the primary Cause and secondary cause are ONE, and the common cause is just replication of that One. It signifies the paganistic nature of Vedism, that is Nature is the god, natural universal laws are the realms of god.
Real is that which exists, Unreal is that which doesn’t exist an cannot exist.
Natural is that which is real and hence which exist or can occur, Unnatural is that which is unreal and hence which cannot exist.
The idea of supernatural is totally discarded by Taitreya and Advaita vedanta both.
By the way, you mentioned various names of god, so I should mention that Vedic concepts like Samkhya, Mimaamsa, Nyaya, and so on are completely Atheistic and denies any existence of God, while vedic schools of Dvaita, Advaita and Taitreya Vedanta asserts the monotheistic system, (with a difference that Advaita Vedanta asserts that All is one and is Nature, Dvaita Vedanta asserting that Nature and Ishwar (urja, shakti, omkar, energy) are different, and are existing since ever for ever, while Taitreya vedanta asserting that Energy, Matter and life are all different).
None of the three major schools of Vedic philosophy supports the idea of Unnatural, some schools, accepts the idea of supernatural as being God, which cannot act against nature in any circumstance) while some schools asserts that there is nothing like supernatural and all that is, is nature).
From the roots of Samkhya, Mimaamsa, Nyaya and Charak, the branches of Vedism like jainism and budhism sprouts and fruitifies.
Fisherman Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 10:57 amIt is only human who can act unnaturally, for it is he who has coined the term.
I was listening to this NDTV debate on abolishing the section against sodomy, a christan scholer argued that, as sodomy is unnatural, it should be illegal.
All that occurs in nature is natural, things may be rational or irrational. Often, we are programmed to act in a rational way, which we term as natural.
An example would be, if human were four-footed, then the process of labor would have been nearly painless as the pelvis would not have modified. But, we chose to walk on two feet, and that is what is natural now.
Advaita Vedanta is the closest to modern Physics, at this point. And it abolishes the existence of both supernatural, and unnatural.
poo Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 1:17 pmNatural-Artificial, Legal-illegal, Good-bad, None the differ, two extremes given a range, actually is one. its just a single plain algorithm.
Melissa Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 4:58 pmLoved the template.
Loved the content.
Will come back more often.
I cant write like your self, and I dont have what what it takes to comment your post, but I really found it interesting.
Take care, MEL.
http://www.mel-brazil.blogspot.com/
rinzu rajan Says:
October 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pmfood for thought…the debate will continue…but the natural,unnatural and artificial…
coz all these are terms coined by us humans…