- On the difference between man and all other animals
- Biologists about entropy
- Addiction: The View from Rat Park
- The Uses of a Screwdriver Cannot be Listed Algorithmically
- Biologism and Christianity
- Ernst Peter Fischer about Darwin
26.11.2016 On the difference between man and all other animals
J. B. S Haldane, Julian Huxley, Animal biology, 1927
“The one great difference between man and all other animals is that for them evolution must always be a blind force, of which they are quite unconscious; whereas man has, in some measure at least, the possibility of consciously controlling evolution according to his wishes.”
I have found the quote in Lee Alan Dugatkin, The Altruism Equation, Chapter Four, J.B.S: The Last Man Who Might Know All There Was to Be Known.
04.05.2013 Biologists about entropy
Dorion Sagan, Lynn Margulis, “Wind at Life’s Back” – Toward a Naturalistic, Whiteheadian TeleologyL Symbiogenesis and the Second Law. In ‘Beyond Mechanism: Putting Life Back Into Biology‘
p. 205 “In the first case, the inherently telic tendency of energy to spread informs life, whose living systems measurably produce more entropy, that is, reduce more gradients and delocalize more concentrated sources of energy than would be the case without them, informs life at all levels.”
p. 206 “The bottom line here, based on data, is that life can be regarded as a manifestation of the energy spread, telically tending toward equilibrium, predicted by the Second Law.”
p. 210-211 “Science itself follows a historically dependent thermodynamic, rather than mathematically idealized and reversible, dynamic pathway of development.”
p. 216-217 “Because life is an open thermodynamic system, as well as an open informational one, genomic transfer is rampant.”
p. 218 “From a thermodynamic perspective, the most inclusive level of purposeful activity is that of the cycling system as a whole, which acts intelligently or with unconscious purpose to degrade ambient gradients.”
p. 225 “Evolution’s main trend – … – measurably increase entropy production (gradient reduction) at local and global scales.”
28.04.2013 Addiction: The View from Rat Park
Bruce K. Alexander, Addiction: The View from Rat Park
“In the 1960s, some experimental psychologists began to think that the Skinner Box was a good place to study drug addiction. They perfected techniques that allowed the rats to inject small doses of a drug into themselves by pressing the lever. This required tethering the rat to the ceiling of the box with tubing and surgically implanting a needle, or catheter, into their jugular veins. The drug passed through the tube and the needle into the rats’ bloodstreams almost instantaneously when they pushed the lever. It reached their brains moments later.
Under appropriate conditions, rats would press the lever often enough to consume large amounts of heroin, morphine, amphetamine, cocaine, and other drugs in this situation.”
“A small group of colleagues at Simon Fraser University, including Robert Coambs, Patricia Hadaway, Barry Beyerstein, and myself undertook to test the conclusion about irresistibly addicting drugs that had been reached from the earlier rat studies. We compared the drug intake of rats housed in a reasonably normal environment 24 hours a day with rats kept in isolation in the solitary confinement cages that were standard in those days. This required building a great big plywood box on the floor of our laboratory, filling it with things that rats like, such as platforms for climbing, tin cans for hiding in, wood chips for strewing around, and running wheels for exercise. Naturally we included lots of rats of both sexes, and naturally the place soon was teeming with babies. The rats loved it and we loved it too, so we called it “Rat Park”.”
“We ran several experiments comparing the drug consumption of rats in Rat Park with rats in solitary confinement in regular laboratory cages. In virtually every experiment, the rats in solitary confinement consumed more drug solution, by every measure we could devise. And not just a little more. A lot more.”
21.04.2013 The Uses of a Screwdriver Cannot be Listed Algorithmically
A quote from Stuart A. Kauffman, ‘Foreword: Evolution beyond Newton, Darwin, and Entailing Law‘. In ‘Beyond Mechanism: Putting Life Back Into Biology‘
p. 9 “Here is the first ‘strange’ step. Can you name all the uses of a screwdriver, alone, or with other objects or process? Well, screw in a a screw, open a paint can, wedge open a door, wedge closed a door, scrape putty off a window, stab an assailant, be an objet d’art, tied to a stick a fish spear, the spear rented to ‘natives’ for a 5 percent fish catch return becomes a new business, and so on. I think that we all are convinced that the following two statements are true: (1) the number of uses of a screw driver is indefinite; and (2) unlike the integers which can be ordered, there is no natural ordering of the uses of a screw driver. The uses are unordered. But these two claims entail that there is no ‘Turing Effective Procedure’ to list all the uses of a screwdriver alone or with other objects or processes. In short, there is no algorithm to list all the uses of a screwdriver.”
17.02.2013 Biologism and Christianity
It seems that biologism and the Christian religion are at odds, see for example ‘The God Delusion‘. Well, the contradiction seems to be apparent. For example, statements “God has created” and “Evolution has created” are very similar. Jeffrey Gray has once mentioned:
“For the good fit between conscious experience and outside reality, the idealist philosopher Berkley called in God. In this more materialist age, it is Evolution that we must thank.”
Yet, Evolution clearly cannot be God the Father, so we need to find something else. In the inanimate world, God the Father is no doubt the Entropy. Could we marry Evolution and Entropy? The Maximum Entropy Production Principle brings the definite yes to the question.
Hence, the answer is pretty obvious: Entropy is God the Father and Evolution is God the Son. From here it immediately follows that the Selfish Gene is God the Holly Spirit. Now the world picture is complete and theologians from both sides could live in peace.
20.06.2010 Ernst Peter Fischer about Darwin
Ernst Peter Fischer ist ein deutscher Wissenschaftshistoriker und Wissenschaftspublizist.
Der Affe als Mensch, der Mensch als Affe, Darwin und seine Evolutionstheorie
An interesting point about how Darwin has developed his theory:
‘Erst langsam ist Darwin auf die Idee gekommen, dass es so etwas wie einen Wandel oder eine Anpassung von Arten geben konnte. Allerdings – und das ist der für mich wichtige Punkt: Aus der Naturbeobachtung allein folgt bei Darwin gar nichts. … Der Gedanke der Evolution nicht aus der Natur kommt, sondern aus der menschlichen Gesellschaft. Ohne den Blick auf die menschliche Gesellschaft wäre Darwin gar nicht auf die Idee gekommen.’
My translation:
‘Darwin only slowly came to the idea that there could be some sort of change or adaptation of species. However – and this is for me the important point: From the observation of Nature solely by Darwin happens nothing. … The idea of evolution comes not from Nature but from human society. Without looking at human society Darwin would not have come to his idea.’
In the text there are some more interesting thoughts along this line.