Muskan
10-14-2008, 03:51 PM
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 characterised 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, secularism, multiculturalism, inter-caste, inter-religion, inter-continental marriages and sexual relations are assumed as “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.
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 characterised 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, secularism, multiculturalism, inter-caste, inter-religion, inter-continental marriages and sexual relations are assumed as “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.