Natural vs. Artifical

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This thread and its quotes have been spun out from this thread on the nature of rights.

Yes, of course. When a bird builds a nest, the bird is natural, the twigs that comprise the nest are natural but the nest itself is artificial as it was created by the bird and not by natural processes.

It’s important that we are precise about what we mean when we say create. Creating something involves control over the design and building process and as such the final result. Given that the building stage at least of reproducing (cell division and multiplication) is outside our control, offspring remain natural and not artifical (or as you prefer unnatural) things. However, should we progress to the stage where the design and construction of human beings is within our control I would have to call any humans created in such a way unnatural.

2

S.M.

“but the nest itself is artificial as it was created by the bird and not by natural processes.”

Was the instinct to create the nest natural? Was the pattern by which it was created natural? To what degree really was the nest created, that is was the “control over the design and building process”, really the bird’s, and therefore unnatural?

Dunamis

3

…the bird is natural, therefore, anything it does will be for natural reasons. therefore everything it creates is “natural”. in a sense everything is natural, because everything is made of the same particles by the same particles.

4

The distinction people are trying to make, using stunted vocabulary, is between things which come about because of impersonal processes (as when falling debris plugs up a river and creates a pond or lake) and designed processes, as when a beaver or a construction company plugs up a river and creates a pond or lake for some purpose. There was no intent behind the lake “created” by the flood detritus; there was intent behind the lake created by the beaver or the foreman.

So a bird’s nest signifies the existence of something that specifically chose that site and those materials over other sites and materials it could have chosen - in this sense it is not “natural.” The difference between “natural” and “artificial” is not in the materials or the degree of “control over the design and building process” but in the fact that there was such a process at all - the natural dam is the result of random chance plus the laws of physics and meteorology, and the artificial dam and the nest are results of something making conscious choices, even if they’re at bottom driven only by instinct.

5

Without emotion, man would be nothing but a biological computer. Love, joy, sorrow, fear, apprehension, anger, satisfaction, and discontent provide the meaning of human existence. (Question yourself why you truly act the way you do. Don’t drag any others, or material things into the conversation. With yourself, or even with others.)
Arnold M. Ludwig—1980

Explains this threads topic perfectly to me. But stuff like the “birds nest” caring for life, where its created isn’t artificial as in fake/stupid.

6

G, that explains more about you than it does this thread.
Zen, you hit it right on the nose there…I think we’re done here

7

Zen,

“…and the artificial dam and the nest are results of something making conscious choices…”

You hit right on it. Anything that exhibits “free will” is deemed artificial. So first of all, all arguments against free will also apply to the designation “artificial”. If there is no free will, everything is natural.

Secondly, if there is freewill, is not the existence of freewill also natural. What would be unnatural about free will in itself? For free will to be “personal” as you put it, it would have to be chosen, and that would imply itself, giving over to infinite regress. If the existence of “free will” is impersonal, that is a quality that was not chosen, but rather the result of natural states, then its exercise would also be natural (and impersonal). The exercise of free will would be an expression of impersonal forces, even though it does not feel that way. By properly forcing the dividiing line back upon the “will” that does the act, you simply push the natural/artificial division back one step.

At bottom, the reason that the language about natural and artificial is so “stunted”, is that these terms imply, in fact rely upon a kind of Augustinian sense of The Fall. An impossible moment when man decided to be free. And the sinful consequence thereafter.

Dunamis

8

Dunamis:

If you look at the free will thread, it’s hardly conclusive. You have not convinced me that it is impossible that “free will” might exist in some fashion. There is a difference between what we find in the world and what we cause in the world. Without animal life, weather would still cause debris to clog up rivers. These are natural dams. It is not necessary that in all possible worlds animal life will create dams. These are therefore artifical. They came not exclusively from random chance but also from conscious choice. You have not successfully proved the identity of (conscious choice) and (random chance in animal brains).

I agree that the terms “natural” and “artificial” are used poorly and are in some sense arbitrary. Some people place normative weight on them, as though “natural” were for some reason “better” than something we create. But there is a difference between what we could possibly find in all worlds with weather and what we could only find in worlds where something is making choices, and this difference is at bottom what the dichotomy attempts to define. In this sense the use of the terms is legitimate.

9

Zen,

'In this sense the use of the terms is legitimate."

If the argument for free will is inconclusive, the use of the terms artificial and nature should also be. I’m not sure what you mean by “legitimate”. Even atheists, or I should say especially atheists, would be hard pressed to define what they mean by “artificial” because what lies at the base of the term is the idea of willful separation from order. Despite the discomfort it may create, “natural” essentially means in accord with God’s will and “artificial”, in discord with God will, as archaic as that may sound.

If I may suggest a non-deist form to be tested, which really formalizes the concept of God. Natural would be any relationship between the parts of a system that can be accounted for within that system. Artificial is a relationship between parts within a system that cannot be. How you frame the limits of a system is what governs what is “natural” and what is “artificial”.

Dunamis

10

“Natural” is what we find; we have no control over it in its initial state.

“Artificial” is what we make; it would not exist if we did not exert control over something.

These terms as I understand and use them say nothing about separation from order, divine or otherwise. It’s simply the difference between something a single naked being could see at birth and what he would have to grow up and consciously alter his surroundings in order ever to see. While in this sense a beaver dam might be described as “natural” by a being which is not a beaver, the beaver had to create it and it is thus artificial.

I’m not sure whether you are arguing against the use of the terms (in which case I would not argue strenuously against you - these waters are indeed muddy) or against there being any difference in this realm at all - in which case I disagree entirely. We have left the world different than we found it - and while I make no normative or ethical claims regarding this state of affairs, I don’t think we can say it is not the case, and there certainly is a difference of origin between a natural dam and an artificial one.

The difference does not go away when you count human beings as part of the system - the system looked one way before human beings were a part of it, and another way after we became part of it. We call “artificial” the differences our choices have made to the system. As I see it, the only way to delegitimize this distinction is to prove that all particles in the universe are really all part of a single Ubercomputer whose computational process includes us making our choices and altering our surroundings - then it’s just part of the program and we have no separate role.

11

Natural boobs are far superior to artificial ones. Especially when you fondle them.

(Oh… wait… Oh I see… Yes… serious philosophical discussion UNRELATED to boobs. Well I saw the subject line and I just thought… well. Mind in the gutter, and all that business. Yes, nevermind me.)

12

Zen,

“As I see it, the only way to delegitimize this distinction is to prove that all particles in the universe are really all part of a single Ubercomputer whose computational process includes us making our choices and altering our surroundings.”

This is called God. Also called Pantheism.

“Natural is what we find. Artificial is what we make.”

When we “make” babies are they artificial. The Cathars thought so.

When a lion “makes” an antelope die. Is this artificial?

When Oswald makes Kennedy die, is that artificial?

When Shakespeare makes “Othello” is that artificial?

(And when Coleridge finds, that is dreams “Kubla Kahn” is that natural?)

When the Sun makes the riverbed dry up, is that artificial?

(And more problematically, when we “find” something, are we not “making” it, that is drawing it into distinction, imposing a formal order upon it, or as you suggest we “exert control” over it?)

Buried within your concepts of “find” and “make” are the limits of systems. When something is “found”, the object or state is thought natural because the subject is experienced as part of the system.

When an object or state is “made”, the subject is suggested to be outside of the system.

I do not think that the difference between find and make is as simple as you intend.

When a lion kills an antelope. This is not a “natural” death in terms of the delimited system of the biological functioning of the antelope’s body. But it is a “natural” death if the system is to include the relations between animals within an environment, as opposed to a hunter shooting it.

“The difference does not go away when you count human beings as part of the system - the system looked one way before human beings were a part of it, and another way after we became part of it.”

Certainly the difference between artificial and natural disappears. Medieval theology was obsessed with this problem. If God intends all of our actions (choices), then our choices are part of the system and therefore natural and the accountability of Evil is problematic. Only by placing free will and choice outside of the system and creating “artificial” choice are we to account for evil. (Or by placing a counter-force of Evil, also outside of the system is this possible). Medieval philosophy oscillated between the impossible moral poles of pantheism and dualism.

It is interesting how the threads Free will, monism and Rights coalesce here. They are the same
topic.

Xander,

And yes, natural breasts are more pleasing to fondle because we perceive the silicon to be alien to the system of what a woman is conceived to be. To show that that this is not necessarily so, and may even change with culture, to kiss a woman who is wearing lipstick or high heels may even be an enhancement because these elements are within the conceptual system of a “woman” within our culture. There may be a time that the artificiality of “fake” breasts will become natural.

Dunamis

13

Philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as “artificial”, only natural. That is, we live in a natural world, we are part of the natural world, our thoughts, ideas, and experiences are part of the natural world. To have ideas and beliefs in building a dam, building a house, creating computers, in procreating, in morality, in god and religion, in socio-political construct, etc. is natural in philosophical sense. So, I agree with Dunamis, (and that is why I retracted my opinion back in the “On rights” thread).

14

Well, fair enough, at least as regards tangible objects and a number of actions. I did not at all intend that the word “artificial” be taken as a synonym for “unnatural.” I take both your points, even though lots of Dunamis’ examples were not quite geared to what I was saying - for example, the Sun is not making a conscious choice to dry up the riverbed, and I was using the word “make” exclusively in the sense of “create” - so Oswald or a lion “making” Kennedy or an antelope die was outside the scope of meaning which I was using. But your point makes sense. I accept that the distinction is not as legitimate as I had thought.

But then how do we classify “rights”? I don’t have political rights except as a consequence of some words on a piece of paper which some human beings went and invented, and nobody enforces those rights except for other human beings, who frequently do not enforce them. I don’t see how there are natural rights without a natural enforcer. Human actions are determined by the humans who act; I am entirely capable of violating someone else’s “natural rights” if I so choose - nobody will stop me except for a political entity, thus making those rights political rather than natural. Now, I see that a political entity could designate that its citizens’ political rights are the same as the set of natural rights; but how do we determine what that set is? Is it “naturally right” for me to murder whomever I please? If not, why not?

Is my position that the only limit on my actions is what I agree not to do, tenable? That is, can we say that political rights are arbitrary without logically contradicting ourselves by asserting the existence of natural rights?

Basically I have no justification other than pragmatism and aesthetics for my political position - maximum permission of individual freedoms both works better and leads to a happier and prettier society than authoritarianism. I don’t see how there exist rights which we do not give ourselves, and I don’t see how those political rights are anything other than enforceable suggestions for behavior - if I am willing to brave the consequences (and able to sneak around), there is literally nothing to stop me from violating others’ rights.

15

[contented edited by ILP]

16

Your rights do not exist on a piece of paper. Rather, they exist within your mind. This whole distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ should instead be the more commonly (in philosophy) made one of physical v. mental. The question is: Does ‘mental substance’ actually exist? Do our thoughts/minds operate outside of the physical world?

17

This isn’t what I’m asking. I agree that whatever we say our “rights” are, they are a mental construct. They just happen to be written down. I’m curious as to what their nature is not in the sense of physical/mental, but in the sense of natural/conventional, in the case that we make no natural/artificial distinction. Clearly my political rights do not stem from the unassisted workings of the laws of the universe - we made them up; but when we make no differentiation between things that do stem from the laws of the universe and people’s rights, what do we say of the origin of those rights?

18

Zen,

“…if I am willing to brave the consequences (and able to sneak around), there is literally nothing to stop me from violating others’ rights.”

What one understands is that the goal within a life is to act in a meaningful way, and the consequences very often of immoral behavior, like murdering someone, is to alienate yourself from meaning. One of course attempts to insulate oneself from these effects by constructing endless rationalizations and a whole scaffolding of meanings, but in the end we are not the authors of our own meaning, (unless you strictly follow Sartre’s radical sense of freedom, which I don’t believe he even did). The consequences of actions are always the integration of these acts into a larger field of meaning, from which and in orientation to which you draw your own meaning. When you violate the Natural Rights of that larger system of meaning, you suffer a kind of alienation, or non-meaningfulness, which is often reintegrated into meaning under the categories of “bad” or “sinful” or some such. Witness Raskolnokov in Crime and Punishment. He commits the exact senseless act you suggest you are free to commit, yet he suffers the “privation of Being” which forces upon him the consequences of his action. Whether these consequences are the result of an orientation to an over-arching moral and divine order, or simple the dominate ideology of your culture can be argued. Whether the truly heroic soul would be one that can stand outside of meaning and brave the frozenness of absolute meaninglessness that is the pure consequence of moral violation, is certainly up open to a kind of nihilistic interpretation and virtue. Or is the hero one that can with stand the alienation in order to find higher integration in a more fundimental meaning field, such as Antigone or a Saint or a suicide bomber, defying custom and forcing change upon the field of meaning itself, is another question. But always the consequences of actions involve the totality of meanings that are beyond the authorship of the Self.

Dunamis

19

Whence stems this meaning? How does it come about other than through people making it up? It sounds like natural rights are only those priveleges I allow other people to have - if I honestly see nothing wrong with harming them, then I behave virtuously when I do so, and the “punishment” for such a virtuous act is that I acheive a self-righteous martyrdom.

It doesn’t seem to me that I am orienting myself to a larger field of meaning; the larger field of meaning seems to suggest that budding totalitarianism is justified in the name of safety. When I resist this idea, the consequences of that cannot be said to be “punishment” except insofar as other human beings are punishing me for acts which can in no way be said to be wrong. You presuppose morals in your account of meaning; whence do they stem?

20

Zen,

“…if I honestly see nothing wrong with harming them, then I behave virtuously when I do so, and the “punishment” for such a virtuous act is that I acheive a self-righteous martyrdom.”

I agree with this, but if you have integrated yourself within that field of meaning there will be other things that you cannot do without suffering consequences, such as fail in your attempt to blow yourself up. Or eat pork, and a thousand other things. If you are looking for the ultimate foundation of the moral order, join the human race. They have been at it for a very long time.

Dunamis