[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      CONSILIENCE_PRIZE              
about about taking the 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 biology        (page 55),        
which it seems to me        I find it less 
works at a higher           clear that     
level of abstraction        Wilson is         
than the chemistry          really arguing   
of genes.                   for this.  He   
                            calls it the           
                            "strong form"       This "strong     
You get evolution           of the position     form" phraseology    
when you've got             and admits that     is an excellent    
imperfect                   different rules     gimmick for      
replicators and a           emerge at the       weaseling out of    
selection                   different           making a clear 
mechanism: it               levels.             stand on an issue.
doesn't matter so                               
much what the                                         EXCEPTION             
imperfect                                                     
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                                               
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]