Book Description for The Third Nature of Homo Sapiens
- A Philosophical Framework within the Paradigm of the Natural Sciences
Chinese Second Edition ISBN: 978-1-7923-3433-7
Email: xihaoandhaidan@gmail.com
Yuan Xihao & Yuan Haidan
We believe that each of the following important items is likely to be recognized for the first time in the entire history of philosophy. We hope that you will be able to criticize us.
Our book The Third Nature of Homo Sapiens - A Philosophical Framework within the Paradigm of the Natural Sciences is based on Stephen Hawking's assertion that philosophy is dead, i.e., that philosophical cosmology has been completely taken over by natural scientists, and on Edward Wilson's prediction that a whole new philosophical system can be generated on the basis of biology, brain science, anthropology, and so on; so what we call philosophy is simply philosophy about man; a philosophical framework about man constructed entirely within the paradigm of the natural sciences:
1. The three cornerstones on which we build our philosophical system all come from the discoveries and observations of the natural sciences:
The first cornerstone, the gulf between Homo sapiens and animals - the transgression, which began when Homo sapiens partially broke through the moderation of the ecosystem 60,000 to 70,000 years ago, and ended when it partially broke through the control of the genetic mechanism 12,000 years ago; this is a fact of the history of the evolution of Homo sapiens. This is one of the ultimate questions about philosophy, i.e., where did we come from?
The second cornerstone, in addition to the survival and reproduction natures, Homo sapiens has evolved a third nature, i.e., a brain nature that exhibits an insatiable quest, curiosity and curiosity for knowledge, a thirst for all wisdom; is more controlled by secondary rewards; interprets and makes assumptions based on perceptions alone; and ...... sets a socio-cultural homeostasis that is higher than the ideal range required for survival. homeostasis and so on in at least 10 aspects of nature, these findings come from the scientific conclusions of renowned brain scientists, Gerald M. Edelman, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Antonio Damasio, Daniel Bor, Patricia Churchland, Vilayanur Ramachandran, David M. Eagleman, Stanislas Dehaene, and many more. The existence of a human nature is the default premise of all psychology, and that nature is the third nature of Homo sapiens. It involves another ultimate philosophical question, namely, who are we? That is, what does Kant call man?
The third cornerstone, the culture cloud, arose in the context of a recognized gene-culture co-evolutionary mechanism, which we believe has been primarily driven by the Homo sapiens third nature for about 80,000 years, rather than the culture-driven mechanism of the previous two million years or so. The culture cloud is the third cornerstone of our findings. It is a self-evident fact that human cultures have gradually formed cultural clouds since the beginning of transgression;
2. The philosophical framework of the third nature of Homo sapiens is a philosophical conceptual framework established under the paradigm of natural science: starting from the three major natures of Homo sapiens and the three cornerstones, it is judged that Homo sapiens evolves synergistically with culture and thus transgresses the boundaries under the driving force of the third nature; the three major natures of Homo sapiens, namely, the nature of survival, the nature of reproduction, and the third nature, are manifested as the biological nature of Homo sapiens; Homo sapiens transgressing the boundaries manifests itself in the superimposition of the biological and the cultural natures, and each Homo sapiens individual Each individual Homo sapiens manifests a specific superposition state under the action of its superposition, and the superposition state is a dynamic state; the interaction of superposition of human beings and culture produces the phenomenon of culture cloud; the formation mechanism of culture cloud is a blind mechanism; the interaction of superposition of human beings and culture cloud becomes the driving force of history and forms history; the main driving force behind the two cornerstones of the transgression of human beings and the culture cloud is the third nature of Homo sapiens;
3. After Homo sapiens crossed the border, in the interaction between the third nature and the cultural cloud, he gradually developed the potential ability to act arbitrarily under the laws of physics, and the evil that these abilities continue to produce is increasingly evident in the negative consequences for the biosphere and our own species. Homo sapiens already knows this, and must make its own choice between survival and destruction, and if it chooses to survive, it must establish the corresponding rules, which are the basis of all human ethics;
4. Although humans have partially broken the rules of the ecosystem and the genetic mechanism after transgressing the boundary, they still cannot survive in isolation from the ecosystem and the genetic mechanism. Therefore, human beings must rationally formulate and follow a set of scientific "ethical rules" in order to adapt to the human society after crossing the boundary. Kant called this "categorical imperative". This is the derivation or extrapolation of rules from rules. Thus, the great philosophical problem of whether "ought" can be deduced from fact, i.e., whether "ought" can be deduced from "actuality", which is well known and difficult to solve, is thus dissolved in ethical questions. This major philosophical problem, which is well known and difficult to solve, is thus dissolved in the matter of ethics;
5. The proposition of free will may have neither scientific nor philosophical significance: since our "partial breakthrough of ecosystems and genetic mechanisms" is due to Homo sapiens superpositional and cultural interactions in the process of transgressing the boundaries of our will is the will of the superpositional state, and we have gradually developed the potential to behave arbitrarily under the laws of physics, this ability does not come from "free will", and therefore does not need to be interpreted as free will, nor does it need to assume a free will as a basis for ethics and morality. This ability does not derive from "free will", and therefore neither needs to be interpreted as such, nor does it need to be assumed as a basis for ethics;
6. The issue of good and evil can be scientifically defined: according to the conceptual framework of the third nature philosophy, it can be clearly concluded that the lower limit of goodness can be defined, and the ultimate goodness can be pursued as the best of mankind; the definition of the lower limit of goodness should be directed at the six levels of the biosphere, the species of homo sapiens, the nature of homo sapiens' survival and reproduction, the third nature of homo sapiens, the super-power, and the circle of intelligence, respectively;
7. From the scientific definition of the problem of good and evil, the definition of the meta-ethical level can be successfully resolved; and this can be used as the basis for a smooth entry into all fields of ethics; this is another major philosophical question about Kant, i.e., what should I do?
8. The law of human survival after crossing the border: the goal is to enable the formation of a sustainable organic whole from the individual Homo sapiens, the Homo sapiens community, the Homo sapiens species, the various superpowers, the circle of intelligences, all the way up to the biosphere, and at least to avoid the premature extinction of our Homo sapiens species in the normal cycle of the species; this is the ultimate philosophical question, namely, where are we going to go? What is at stake is what Kant called what can I hope for?
9. Common philosophical propositions such as fairness and justice, freedom and equality, truth, aesthetics, the fallacy of social Darwinism, etc. can be scientifically discussed and pursued within the framework of the philosophy of the third nature of Homo sapiens; for example: social Darwinism mechanically transposes Darwinian doctrines suitable for pre-transgression human societies to post-transgression human societies, which is obviously a fallacy of the rules of application and is therefore wrong. Another example: the origin of aesthetics is our three natures, the driving force being the third nature; this is the root of aesthetics.
10, we human beings are most eager and difficult to solve is the transcendence, or the ultimate care problem, according to the third nature of the philosophical framework, if we all hope that the biosphere, the circle of intelligence, ourselves, our community, our species and all kinds of super power can form a relatively stable and harmonious organic whole, then the pursuit of harmony from the individual to the biosphere of the harmony of all things the goal is not to lose the most realistic and greatest transcendence; this transcendence can be pursued by everyone can make contributions; this transcendence has both achievable side and always in the process of perfection, is the whole of humanity never-ending noble pursuit The most realistic and the greatest transcendence; this transcendence can be pursued by everyone, and everyone can make contributions; this transcendence is both realizable and always in the process of perfection, and it is the never-ending noble pursuit and ultimate care of all mankind.
According to Darwin's doctrine, we evolved from animals and are the human family Homo sapiens. No matter how different our society and culture may be from other animals, then, we and our society and culture are still products of nature rather than of the supernatural. Since we are products of nature, we must be able to find philosophical propositions to study within the paradigm of the natural sciences. Statements such as "science does not think" are false. Just as scientific research has proven that the human brain evolved to adapt for survival and reproduction, philosophical paths of personal discernment can easily go in the wrong direction. On the contrary, science leads us along the right path. Just as psychology has become a science today, philosophy will inevitably become a science. Philosophical cosmology, which has been completely taken over by natural scientists, is also in line with the main endeavor of the pre-Socratic philosophers. The anthropology of philosophy is also in line with the philosophical interests of Socrates, while the philosophical roots of Plato and Aristotle began in the formal and natural sciences. After more than two thousand years of interpreting Plato's philosophy, Western philosophy has witnessed the emergence of scientistic philosophies, which have been in existence for nearly two hundred years since Comte, with a variety of camps and doctrines, but have not yet been fully integrated into the paradigm of the natural sciences.
The study of philosophical problems within the paradigm of the natural sciences can be made to conform to the axiomatic assumptions on which science is based: that there exists an objective fact, shared by all rational observers; that this objective fact is determined by the laws of nature (lex talionis); and that these laws of nature (lex talionis) can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. Then, scientists and philosophers in the field of philosophy will easily agree on the central events of truth, so that philosophy will be able to match the advances made in mathematics and experimental science, and philosophy will enter into the "physical world as ordered and intelligible". It is therefore to be expected that a new era of philosophy will dawn.
If this is the case, then the pre-paradigmatic era of philosophy, which has been dominated by personal discernment for more than 2,000 years, will come to an end, and the situation where there are as many opinions or philosophies as there are philosophers will come to an end. Philosophy would then for the first time fully enter the paradigm of the natural sciences as a science. Scientists and philosophers from all over the world would then be able to conduct philosophical research together under this paradigm and easily agree on the major problems of philosophy. Then the Newtonian or Darwinian era of philosophy will begin. With today's progress in the natural sciences and the global scale of learning, we estimate that it is entirely possible that the "edifice of classical philosophy" will be built within the next two decades, just as Lord Kelvin declared in 1900 that the "edifice of classical physics" had been built. Then it will be easier for mankind to agree on the major global issues. As for the "quantum age" of philosophy, it will unfold thereafter.
With fundamental questions of philosophy at stake, questions that need to be addressed urgently in today's world, it is our fervent hope, and we would very much appreciate it, that you would be able to criticize us.
*** END ***
Kommentare