The Science Of Decency

The Rundown: Nature spawns natural things. People, being products of nature, are natural. So, being a part of nature, our creations are natural. Unnatural, therefore, is what is not created by anything natural. Since nothing unnatural exists in nature, unnatural is unnatural.

Where in nature does artificiality exist?  Is there a point where nature becomes unnatural?  Where does the natural cease and the artificial begin?

To start, let us separate natural from unnatural.  Here are the first three definitions of the term “natural”, according to dictionary.com:

Natural:
-adjective

1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe:  natural beauty.

...and here are the first three definitions for the term “unnatural”:

Unnatural:
-adjective

1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.

So, according to these definitions, anything not made by, existing in, or expected in the universe, is unnatural.  But I wish to argue that the term unnatural is, itself, a fallacy, as it stands.  To do this, I will debunk each of the three definitions I have provided for the term “unnatural”, as they seem to encompass the general definition rather sufficiently.

• contrary to the laws or course of nature.

The problem with this definition is that the definition does not compensate for individual interpretations of nature.  Natural “law” can be understood at varying levels of raw data and configuration of knowledge.  We could compensate for these varying levels by adding the words “as it is understood” to the end of the definition.  This would allow it to be more universally applicable to perception.  This would also ensure that the definition of natural law is constricted by limits of understanding and/or expectation.  Constricting natural law by understanding and/or expectation places nature itself as a knowledge base, unique to the individual.

Though, even with the additional wording I have proposed above, unpredictability in nature is not considered.  Sometimes, there is a divergence which results from the data perceived conflicting with “nature as it is understood”.  However, this is not something that turns what we perceive into something unnatural.  The conflicting perception only challenges a given knowledge of nature.  To define the conflicting data as unnatural is ineffective because it implies that knowledge is greater than actual events.  Also, to follow this definition wholly, as it hypothetically stands, would be to unfairly frame new, conflicting perceptions as something they are not.  This way of thinking does not allow for the integration of new, natural objects to be perceived accurately.  So even applying “as it is understood” would inappropriately place our perceptions of nature on an pedestal.  To develop a proper definition, we have to understand, and account for, unpredictability.  We need to do so because nature takes its course, even without consulting our understanding.

But how do we know that what we're experiencing is actually natural?  How do we know that we're not going to unfairly pigeonhole ourselves into believing the unnatural is natural, just because we see a change?

Consider the following:  What makes anything in the nature, unnatural?  To define an unnatural thing as happening in nature would contradict itself.  Why?  Because if it is naturally happening, then how is it unnatural?  Anything we perceive as “unnatural”, therefore must have some sort of natural cause to it.  Unnatural, therefore, is an inappropriate term for anything at all.  This is of course, to the extent of our knowledge.  So let's take it a step further.

When the knowledge of the “naturalness” of any perception is attained, it is simply redefining our knowledge of a given natural situation.  It takes what we thought was unnatural and shows us how we were wrong, effectively debunking the idea that it was unnatural in the first place.  For example, a common perception in medieval times was that the world was naturally flat.  Scientific knowledge eventually changed that perception of nature, by exposing the “naturalness” of a round world.  Real happenings showed that nature was greater than our given perception.  So, in the proposed definition, our understanding of what is a “law” or a “course” of nature is inconsequential to nature itself.  This means that if we perceive something that presents itself as contrary our known “law”, it doesn't make it unnatural.

• at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.

In this universe in which we are continually exploring, there is not any way to say that there is a single particular way that things persons, animals, or plants will behave.  These are adaptive creatures, and with adaptive creatures come traits that are continually changing.  With no certainty of resulting traits, there is no way to peg down a solid “nature” of a person, plant, or animal, because it is in their nature to change, and therefore, express variance.  Also, since any given “character” ascribed to such persons, animals, or plants is subjectively defined, the imperfections that riddle our ability to perceive invariably subject this particular axiom to demise.  This comes as a result of our  inevitable ignorance, being that we have limited perceptions.  A logical course of response to this, might be to ascribe variance to be natural in persons, plants, or animals.  But doing so, would cause variance to be natural, and therefore, not unnatural.

• at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.

Expectations and definitions of “normality”, by themselves, are subject to our limited perceptions.  Even regular patterns are subject to the interruption that chaos provides.  If a star expected to collapse, but gets sucked into a black hole (which we did not see) before it has the chance, is this unnatural?  If we argue that “no, it is not unnatural because a natural force interrupted the process,” then where does the divergence from nature lie?  If we base unnatural on the definition of divergence from what is expected, then anything unexpected is unnatural.  That simply isn't true, because we can find natural things interrupting other expectations.  Black holes can swallow stars, even if we don't expect them to do so at any given prediction.  So it is to be expected in nature that the unexpected does, indeed, occur.  Therefore, the unexpected (a deviation from a projection or predicted normality) is natural.

Another common definition of “unnatural” would be to use it as a synonym for the term “artificial”.  Here is the first definition of “artificial” from dictionary.com, which actively counters the term “natural”:

Artificial:
-adjective

1. made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural): artificial flowers.

This definition implies that anything produced by human skill is unnatural.  Talking is a skill of vocal manipulation held by humans, yet birds have time and time again proven their amazing ability to talk (and some have even had coherent conversations with humans).  So if this is unnatural for humans, we must assume that it is unnatural for birds.  The definition would be incomplete under those terms.  However speech and communication seems to be regarded as natural, considering that even pheromones (a form of chemical communication, used by humans, bugs, and more) naturally occur.  But what if we limit this definition of “unnatural” to physical products only?  We could break it down to say that any manipulation of physical resources which transforms it from its original state into something else would be an unnatural process.  But birds and beavers manipulate wood and bark to build their homes.  These examples demonstrate a material transformation from an object in its original state to a state that implies a new function.  Humans themselves, then, wouldn't be limited to doing this unnatural thing of manipulating materials.

But what if we argued that any intentional manipulation of materials, or manipulation of forces (intangible skill sets), from one state to another is an unnatural function?  This would remove the implication that humans would be necessary for the propagation of something unnatural.

The problem with that argument is that the required element for this propagation to take place, known as “mind”, is a natural thing.  How?  The way to illustrate this is to use a bit of analogous logic.  Think of the body as an atom.  The atom moves throughout space and comes into influence with another atom.  The two collide at an amazing speed and there is fusion.  The product of the two atoms is a heavier, denser atom.  The process itself is natural, and the product is natural.  The heavier atom came from a natural source.  Think of the heavier atom as “mind” and the 2 atoms as the constituent parts of the natural body.  The mind is a product of body.  We know this because of a few clues we've picked up:

• There are things that have bodies with no minds (like bacteria).
• There are not things that have minds with no body.  (Even a computer requires physical chips, if you want to argue AI as a mind).
• All things that have a mind have a body.

When a bunch of unthinking objects (atoms → cells → brain) get together, or fuse themselves into a system, the result is a body that has the capability of distinction.  This capability is of mind.  This means the physical body is a prerequisite force in determining what has a mind.  The mind, therefore, is a natural result of a body's unique configuration (one that enables distinction using electromagnetic signals and bio-mechanical logic).

If we take that heavier, denser atom and squish it into another heavier, denser atom of the same “kind”, then we can get another natural result, from the natural process.

So, if mind (and subsequently, thought) is a natural result of a simple configuration, then any product of this mind has to be a natural occurrence of its interaction with the environments.  Technology of any sort, therefore, is all natural.

The distinction that is inaccurate in all of these definitions, then, is that mind, by acting naturally, is somehow escaping its implied characteristics.  This, however, is incorrect, as nothing can escape its characteristics.  We can not say “the red dog is blue”.  If the dog had the ability to change its color, then the implied ability is natural.  How?  The characteristics of its construction enabled it to receive such capability.  Therefore, by its natural design, the capability had been instilled.  In terms of adaptive objects, all capabilities have to be acquired before they can be enacted.  (If something is not capable of doing something, it simply can not do that thing).  If the original design implied that it capable of acquiring new capabilities (as is with an adaptive system), even to the point of changing completely from its original design, then enacting any of them, is not unnatural.  To be able to change partially or completely is natural in the sense that it is a characteristic trait of design.  Enacting such is a natural thing, coming from a natural source.

So what is unnatural?  Nothing in this universe.  But if there are other universes, then naturally, they exist in a reality where both are present, and all aspects expressed in all “universes” (to be then known as environments) are natural in the “multi-verse” universe.  There may be aspects that are not cross-environmental, but there can be aspects localized to those subsequent universal (or environmental) systems.  To illustrate, we look at an example in our terrestrial (earthly) environment.  Sectionalized environments (which can seem like universes all their own!) can have their own traits that may never seem to overlap.  The South American rain forests might contain bugs found to be “natural” to that environment, but across the world, you might find camels “natural” in another environment.  Though the traits of those environments are localized, but they share a common universe known as the earth.  The same would go for multiple “universes”, or more appropriately “dimensions”, in a multi-verse.

Conversely, if the environments within the multi-verse were unable interact or connect in any way, then information of their very existences would not travel between each other.  This would mean that either could not receive a definition of any sort from the other.  There would be no accuracy in defining something that isn't “real”, because it wouldn't be around for us to define.  It couldn't naturally exist, to us, because it isn't a part of our natural environment.  So, what isn't real to us, isn't natural.

Unnatural, then, can not be the product of something natural, because nature is everything that exists.  Unnatural is just unnatural.

Dare we go as far as to propose a new definition for the term “unnatural”?

Unnatural:
-adjective

1. a description of an object or concept which is inconsistent with regards to its actual state of being, false:  To claim Godzilla has actually destroyed Japan would be to claim the unnatural.  It is purely false, because Godzilla is only a fictional concept expressed in the arts, and has no ability to destroy Japan.

Perhaps it needs some work, but maybe it's a good start.

Naturally yours,

C. Thomas (Author, Proprietor)

(Title photo by Serg Alexa)

My natural respect goes to Abstruse Goose (Also, see comic #215).