Is civilization natural?

[sman]

Originally Posted by CraigD

The terms “natural” and “unnatural” aren’t meaningless, but their meanings differ greatly in different contexts.

I don't like to dwell too much on language. If the term we're using is ambiguous, we either throw it out and use a new one, or agree to use the old one in a technical sence...either way the controversy should be over inside of a paragraph. I still think this thread is open to an anthropological discussion about civilization from a biological perspective.

Originally Posted by CraigD

I think the point behind the wager, however, is right on, and a good example of thinking of embracing the concept of the embodied mind. Rather than seeking a detailed, minute understanding of the brain, cognitive linguistics and psychology appear to me to be focused on discovering simple, practical models in which a surprisingly small number of metaphors can be used to explain nearly all thought and behavior. Via such approaches, a practical scientific understanding of the mind may be possible without understanding its detailed neurodynamics – possibly a good thing, as the latter may prove very hard to gain.

This is very gracious, thank you. My little nerological digression was audacious and probably straightup wrong - but hey, I love being wrong! I learn so much that way. I still think language co-opts almost all parts of the brain, particularly the visual cortex but I'm not sure why - something I've read, perhaps out-dated. I think my free minutes this week will be consumed my this research.

[Boerseun]

I think human civilization is as natural or unnatural as a termite colony.

And that is not where the similarities stop.

[HydrogenBond]

Civilization is natural for humans, but is not natural for other critters. Unlike bees or ants, the members of human civilizations don't have to be genetically linked from a common queen. Nor, like herd animals, are we linked based on chemicals for scent. The way humans link up for civilization is using the mind and brain and communication.

If you look at USA, there is extreme genetic diversity which would cause animals to separate, just like competing colonies of ants. What keeps it together are common values transfered by education, via the human mind. One has to be careful about assuming what is natural for animals is also natural for humans.

Humans have free will, which is a wild card variable that animals don't have. An animal can't do the unnatural. Humans can institutionalize it, because free will gives humans that option. What that means is human civilization can not depend on the same natural connections as animals to do the integrating unconsciously. Civilization has to work within the context of free will.

Here is an analogy. Say we have a network of computers. It is fairly easy to get it all the computers to integrate using hardware and software. This is like the animals. If we need to use the entire network to render some HD media, such as herd mating, we can make use of all the resources for that single task.

Next, let us replace the animal analogy computers with human AI (artificial intelligence) computers for the network, each which has it own own autonomy. These AI computers are smart enough to disconnect from the network and/or spread into the network and reroute network resources. The original hardware and software is no longer effective, under these conditions. We will need to add additional hardware and software to help compensate.

The ant colony's hardware-software for their group may work for them, since they don't have the AI network situation associated with every ant able to willfully do their own thing when they wish to. If they suddenly had that AI situation, their genetic network system would fall apart. The will power wild card can move too fast for genetic solutions to the problem, so the task is given to the brain.

[sman]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Here is an analogy. Say we have a network of computers. It is fairly easy to get it all the computers to integrate using hardware and software. This is like the animals. If we need to use the entire network to render some HD media, such as herd mating, we can make use of all the resources for that single task.

Next, let us replace the animal analogy computers with human AI (artificial intelligence) computers for the network, each which has it own own autonomy. These AI computers are smart enough to disconnect from the network and/or spread into the network and reroute network resources. The original hardware and software is no longer effective, under these conditions. We will need to add additional hardware and software to help compensate.

Very nice.
Do you think nerual-network modelers could build models like this? Of civilization? It might give the study of civilization a fresh data set. Maybe a nice change from pottery shards.

[lemit]

So, are our artificial structures more or less successful replications of natural archetypes? Is it that success or failure that informs our aesthetic?

I've seen this aesthetic most often in architecture and urban planning. I've had to research awards being given to architects who were thought innovative because they chose to violate this aesthetic. That was difficult for me, because in that aesthetic violation, the architects also violated structural engineering concepts. Fortunately, many of the projects were never realized. Those that were caused problems.

So, do we need to make civilization natural for more than aesthetic reasons? (If we don't, I'll need to move this thread--not a bad idea anyway.)

If we don't follow the concepts of planners like, for example, Lewis Mumford, are we just building slimmer and slimmer limbs on which to nest?

Just wondering

--lemit

[Miranda]

CraigD, I couldn't have said it better myself!

Originally Posted by CraigD

Based on the reading I’ve been doing recently on the subject (Lakoff’s Metaphors We Live By and Philosophy in the Flesh), I don’t think any of the academics and technicals working in the field feel it’ll be possible to gain a good understanding of the brain without a lot of neuroimaging - MRI, PET, and more intrusive, “mindblowing” techniques. The idea that linguistic analysis alone is sufficient to explain the brain and behavior appears to have been thoroughly considered and rejected.

Lakoff is a good source. I have those books you mentioned, as well as his Women, Fire and Dangerous Things...good references.

Originally Posted by CraigD

I think the point behind the wager, however, is right on, and a good example of thinking of embracing the concept of the embodied mind.

Embodied cognition is on the rise, and I think it will be in the best interest of neuroscience to follow its progress.

[Miranda]

Originally Posted by lemit

So, do we need to make civilization natural for more than aesthetic reasons?

Wait...why does civilization need to be made natural? Did we agree that it was unnatural? Because I don't think it is...

[Zythryn]

IMO, civilization is completely natural.
Civilization is a display of social behavior. Many animals show different aspects of social behavior (as mentioned by a number of posters above).
Human society is on a grander 'constructed' scale because we have better mastered the use of tools to modify our environment. One might also add our ability to communicate on a higher level than most/all animals. Although many animals communicate more thoroughly on different levels (scent, and even motion are used by many to communicate where our senses are not as well developed to enable communication in this way).

[lemit]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

IMO, civilization is completely natural.
Civilization is a display of social behavior. Many animals show different aspects of social behavior (as mentioned by a number of posters above).
Human society is on a grander 'constructed' scale because we have better mastered the use of tools to modify our environment. One might also add our ability to communicate on a higher level than most/all animals. Although many animals communicate more thoroughly on different levels (scent, and even motion are used by many to communicate where our senses are not as well developed to enable communication in this way).

First, I always like it when posters use their own pictures in their avatars. It gives their posts more individuality.

As a social animal, you would understand that the way humans form groups and the amenities that they give those groups are all part of our natural socialization.

Thanks.

--lemit

p.s. I hope you like my picture. The backlighting makes it kind of hard to see me in it.

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

IMO, civilization is completely natural.
Civilization is a display of social behavior. Many animals show different aspects of social behavior (as mentioned by a number of posters above).

Originally Posted by Boerseun

I think human civilization is as natural or unnatural as a termite colony.

And that is not where the similarities stop.

Interesting definition and observation. If we define civilzation as gathering and ordering of parts to achieve stability of whole, then civilization is definately natural. It can be traced to simple cells, and it can be traced to gasses (Na+ Cl- (gases) -> NaCl (crystalyne solid)). This suggests it is natural.