[PREV - SERPENTINE_FEARS]    [TOP]

DOWN_TO_THE_BOTTOM

                                      March     13, 2003
                         Additions:   September 16, 2004

E.O. Wilson in his book "Consilience"
seems to be talking about taking the       CONSILIENCE_PRIZE
explanation for human behavior all the
way down to atoms.  His consilience
means a unified body of knowledge, an
understanding that crosses all
domains:


  thought -> brains -> neurons -> molecules


But I don't really understand
*why* Wilson feels the need
to break things down to the
physics.

Mostly he talks             Double-checking
about understanding         the text of
things in terms of          "Consilience"
evolutionary                (page 55),
biology, and that,          I find it less
it seems to me works        clear that
at a higher level of        Wilson is
abstraction than the        really arguing
chemistry of genes.         for this.  He
                            calls it the
You get evolution           "strong form"       This "strong
when you've got             of the position     form" phraseology
imperfect                   and admits that     is an excellent
replicators and a           different rules     gimmick for
selection                   emerge at the       weaseling out of
mechanism: it               different           making a clear
doesn't matter so           levels.             stand on an issue.
much what the
imperfect                                             EXCEPTION
replicators are...
                      E.g. Mendel was able
                      to get the rules of
I think it's at       genetics without any
least possible        knowledge of genes.
that you could
fufill some of              And arguably evolution occurs
Wilson's agenda             in other realms also, e.g. the
(a biological               notion of "memetic evolution"
understanding of            in the realm of thought.
human behavior
that's necessary
for progress in
the humanities)
without needing to
take the biology
all the way down
to atomic
interactions...

Maybe an understanding of evolution
can provide an end-run around the
complexity barrier: you don't need
to know how it all works, you just
need to determine what kind of
behavior is "advantageous".

      But in practice, you end up
      with a lot of "just-so"
      without much evidence that
      you've called it right.

      Do you expect there          SERPENTINE_FEARS
      to be an archetype
      of "the Moon"?

      Well, it's been up there for long
      enough: it's a common sight for
      almost all of humanity and always
      has been.  Some sensitivity to the
      lunar cycle might pay off in a
      sense of time, a sense of the
      seasons, which might have something
      to do with migration, plant
      gathering, game hunting,
      agriculture...  So we can argue, at
      least in a vague way, that it seems
      that it might be useful for there
      to be a lunar archetype...             (i.e. a hardwired sensitivity
                                             to the image of the moon, a
         But that's not enough               tendency to assign
         to prove the case.                  significance to such imagery).

         The ubiquity of the moon
         in our ancestors visual
         field is matched by the
         ubiquity of the moon in
         our own visual field.

         If there's a global pattern
         of "lunacy", it might be
         from environmental causes.


                    So, what other
                    evidence is
                    possible?

                    (You could take rain forest
                    dwellers, put them in the
                    savanna, measure their
                    lunar sensitivity...)



--------
[NEXT - DANCING_AT_THE_SCIENCE_SOCIAL]