Summary of " The Third Nature of Homo sapiens
--Philosophical Framework under the Paradigm of Natural Science "
Yuan Xihao & Yuan Haidan
This Essay have already reiterated in US copyright office, Case No.: 1-9029921111
This paper comes from our books: The Third Nature of Homo sapiens
--Philosophical Framework under the Paradigm of Natural Science
(Second Edition, Chinese Version)
Compiled and Written by Xihao Yuan and Haidan Yuan
isbn: 978-1-7923-3433-7
abstract
To find the basis for the study and judgment of philosophical problems of human beings from the results of natural sciences, and to establish the conceptual framework of philosophy under the paradigm of natural sciences. 1. To establish the gap between Homo sapiens and animals - transgressing the boundary, which starts with partially breaking through the control of the ecosystem, and finishes with partially breaking through the control of the genetic mechanism. 2. On the basis of the achievements of natural sciences such as brain science today, the unique nature of Homo sapiens - greed and falsehood - is found, which is the cause of the transgression of the boundary, and is also in line with the conclusions of philosophies, religions and literatures observed for thousands of years, which is referred to as the third nature of Homo sapiens in this book; 3. -This book is called the third nature of Homo sapiens. 3. Taking Homo sapiens transgression, Homo sapiens third nature and cultural cloud as the three major cornerstones, a scientific philosophical framework - "Philosophical Conceptual Framework of Homo sapiens Third Nature" - is established under the paradigm of natural science; under this framework, it is possible to initiate a philosophical discussion on all philosophical issues in principle. Under this framework, in principle, all philosophical issues can be explored philosophically under the paradigm of natural science, so as to make a philosophical contribution to the idea that "the physical world is organized and understandable" under the third cultural redefinition of "who we are and what we are" initiated by Edge and Wilson's advocacy of the Great Knowledge Integration. Philosophical attempts to make propositions about us as human beings. A number of fundamental philosophical issues are discussed, including epistemology, free will, social Darwinism, definitions of good and evil, meta-ethics, freedom and equality, fairness and justice, truth, and aesthetics. This article is a summary of the book Homo sapiens Third Nature - A Philosophical Framework within the Paradigm of Natural Science.
1. Instruction
Hawking points out that philosophy is dead, and scientists have long been the torchbearers of knowledge in the quest for everything in the universe.
However, the propositions of the two main areas of philosophy, namely, cosmology and anthropology, remain. Even if cosmology were to be left entirely to the natural scientists, it is to be feared that the major philosophical problems in the field of anthropology would need to be resolved definitively by the fusion of the sciences and the humanities, as advocated by Edward Wilson, in order to create an entirely new philosophy.
Philosophical problems in particular not only exist, but also need to be solved urgently. In today's world, where freedom, democracy, centralization, authoritarianism, sovereignty, science and technology, climate, ethics, and so many other issues put the entire world and humanity at great risk, there is an urgent need to solve the crisis of humanity by scientifically and convincingly solving philosophical problems through the integration of human knowledge in various disciplines.
According to Darwin's doctrine, we evolved from animals and are hominids Homo sapiens. Then, no matter how different our society and culture are from other animals, we and our society and culture are still products of nature. Since we are products of nature, we must be able to find philosophical propositions to study within the paradigm of the natural sciences.
As John Brockmann said, the scientists and thinkers of the empirical world, through their work and writings, have constructed a third culture. The age of the third culture has arrived, and Brockmann, says Stewart Brand, is the "intellectual catalyst" of our time. The conditions are beginning to be right for redefining "who and what we are".
This book aims to establish a philosophical conceptual framework within the paradigm of the natural sciences, with a view to reaching a convergence between the natural sciences and philosophy, and attempts to make a philosophical attempt at the proposition that "the physical world is ordered and understandable" for us human beings.
As the biologist Edward Wilson said: Higher levels of contemplation and belief seem to be more in the realm of philosophy than science. But history has shown that logic, triggered only by internal reflection and lacking original motivation, can move only a short distance forward, often in the wrong direction. Since Descartes and Kant, most of the history of modern philosophy has consisted of unsuccessful models of the brain. This shortcoming is not to be blamed on philosophers, who have done their best to push their methods to their limits; this frustration is in fact an inevitable consequence of the brain's biological evolutionary process. What we have learned through experience about ordinary evolutionary processes and particular mental activities points to the fact that the goal of the brain, as a combined machine, is survival, not self-knowledge. These two goals are so fundamentally different that, without the aid of scientific truth, our minds would see only fragmented pieces of the world.【9】
Because modern philosophy was limited by the scientific developments of the time, the study of philosophy went in the wrong direction. Whereas today, with groundbreaking discoveries in biology, genetics, brain science, neuroscience, anthropology and archaeology, we have considerable knowledge to try to solve philosophical problems scientifically.
This is the main reason why we need to study philosophical issues within the paradigm of the natural sciences.
2. Three bases for the study of philosophical problems of mankind within the paradigm of the natural sciences and the development of a philosophical framework
2.1 The unbridgeable gap between homo sapiens and animals: crossing the border
We call the insurmountable gap between Homo sapiens and animals a transgression, which was marked by two major events: first, we partially broke through the constraints of the ecosystem and began to transgress, and the explosion of Homo sapiens' behavior 50,000 to 60,000 years ago led to a rapid migration out of the ecosystems where we had been evolving for millions of years, from Africa to virtually all the major unfamiliar ecosystems around the globe, where we were at the top of the food chain; Secondly, we partially broke through the control of biogenetic mechanisms, with the agricultural revolution and the abandonment of hunting and gathering and settlement over 10,000 years ago marking the completion of the transgression. As the transgression unfolded, we remained, but gradually ceased to be fully subject to the two natural factors and laws of ecosystems and biogenetic mechanisms to which animals have always been fully subject as we were fully subject 100,000 years ago or more. Transgression is a proven fact. Transgression is the first foundation for the study and philosophy of mankind found in this book.
On the evidence of transgression, we will cite relevant scholarship.
In Evolutionary Thinking: How Darwin shaped our world view, the Dutch philosopher of science, Chris Buskers, says: "Sexual intercourse and the search for food are the two foremost biological activities of living beings. However, at some point in the evolution of man, there was a shift away from his biological roots. The evolution of culture broke free of its hold and began a life of its own.【12】 " --This process of turning across the divide, from its occurrence to its conclusion, is called transgression in this book.
First, is the human-animal divide real. The answer is yes, according to the conclusions of modern evolutionary biology, the divide does exist.
In his book Darwin's Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind, British evolutionary biologist Kevin Lalande compares humans to gorillas, the primate recognized as the closest thing to a human, and concludes that humans' uniqueness is quite striking, that the gulf between humans and gorillas is real in all areas, and that human cognition vastly outstrips that of the most intelligent non-human primates.
"The discoveries of Darwin and subsequent researchers have dramatically narrowed the differences in cognitive abilities between humans and animals. We now know that humans share many of the same cognitive skills as their most closely related primate relatives. As deeper studies of animal cognition have revealed the unexpected richness and complexity of the animal kingdom. Those firmly held views about human uniqueness-that of all living things, only humans use tools, teach, imitate, use signals to communicate, possess memories of the past, and anticipate the future-sway in the face of scientific inquiry. Nevertheless, the uniqueness of the human mind relative to other animals remains striking, and at the same time the field of comparative cognitive research has matured to such an extent that we can now be confident that the divide is unlikely to ever be completely bridged. 100 years of intensive research have removed reasonable doubt and confirmed the intuition of most people that the divide is real. In many important respects, especially in the social sphere, human cognition greatly exceeds that of even the most intelligent non-human primates.【34】 "
Now that the existence of the human-animal divide has been recognized, the question we have to pursue is when did it happen and what event marked it? There has been a gradual consensus on this issue in recent years, from a contentious past. Several scientists' studies are cited below.
The American historian John R. McNeill, in his book Something New Under the Sun, notes that the domestication of animals by humans and the beginning of the transformation of biota was a divergence for humans: they developed tools, and it is possible that modes of communication appeared at this stage (the time when humans began to have language is still unclear), and they also began to form more powerful social organizations. From this divergence, humans became a rogue primate, dangerous to other organisms, with a disproportionately high influence on coevolution. Humans' ability to alter biota was taken to the next level 10,000 years ago when they began domesticating plants and animals. This allowed us to expand our population at a faster rate, with a finer division of labor and faster technological advances, which in turn accelerated domestication, creating a feedback loop that set the course and character of future human history.【19】
Historian David ChristianDavid Christian makes a similar statement in This Fleeting World: A Short History of Humanity, but suggests a landmark event, which is that "55,000 to 40,000 years ago, humans appeared on the Australian continent during the Ice Age. Because reaching the Australian continent required highly sophisticated navigational skills, and to settle there, humans had to adapt to a completely different biological environment. To date, no other mammal has been found to accomplish such a feat on its own." And it suggests that every migration represents a technological breakthrough.
The technological innovativeness of our gatherer-hunter ancestors enabled them to explore and settle in unfamiliar lands, a very different environment from where they were born and evolved. In fact, this creativity is one of the things that sets us humans apart from other species, including our closest relatives, the hominids. As far as we know, hominids have not been able to fully and appropriately adapt their behavior so that they can migrate to new habitats. This is precisely why we usually recognize that humans have a history, while these species do not. By contrast, the history of the human gatherer-hunter era is made up of many small, unrecorded stories of migration to unfamiliar environments. Tiny technological innovations, the accumulation of new knowledge and skills, and subtle changes in lifestyles combined to make such migrations possible.
A similar migration between Asia and Africa exists for many other species. But when it came to the appearance of humans on the Australian continent during the Ice Age, 55,000 to 40,000 years ago, this event was immediately recognized as a clear sign of technological innovation. Because reaching the Australian continent required highly sophisticated navigational techniques, and in order to settle on the continent, humans had to adapt to a completely different biological environment. To date, we have found no other mammal capable of accomplishing such a feat on its own.
Each such migration required new technology, new botanical and zoological knowledge, and a new way of life. In this way, each migration represented a technological breakthrough, and each technological breakthrough depended on countless technological adjustments made by human tribes as they attempted to exploit the specific resources of their small regions. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the average size of human tribes became larger during this period. The technological changes of the Gathering and Hunting Era led to more dispersed, rather than more centralized, human habitation. Humans dispersed over a wider world, but they still lived in small, mobile tribes.【21】
And such a view has been demonstrated not only in history, but also in other disciplines such as genetics and biology, where a consensus has developed. Geneticist David Reich (Eugenie Reich), in Who We Are and How We Got Here, also suggests that migration is the creativity that accompanies expansion and something far more profound than stone technology. And one of the most amazing migratory events - Homo sapiens actually crossed the Huxley Line in its primitive years.
"The Huxley Line is a natural dividing line that separates New Guinea, Australia, and the Philippines from western Indonesia and the Asian continent, highlighting the differences in the animals that live on either side of the line. For example, it roughly demarcates placental mammals to the west and marsupials to the east. A deep trench formed a natural geographic barrier, and even when sea levels dropped 100 meters during the Ice Age, animals and plants on both sides of the line were unable to communicate with each other. It is amazing that our modern ancestors managed to break through this barrier 50,000 years ago. These pioneers did manage to cross it, with all the difficulties that entails.
Regardless of why Late Paleolithic stone tool technology did not spread to southern East Asia, it is clear from the subsequent course of history and the success of these populations in replacing previous sedentary populations, such as the Denisovans, that stone tool technology itself was not necessary for the successful expansion of modern man into Eurasia after 50,000 years ago. It was something much more far-reaching than stone tool technology, namely creativity and adaptability, that enabled modern man to expand rapidly and ultimately triumph everywhere, including East Asia. Stone tool technology, on the other hand, is just one manifestation of the unique capabilities of modern man.【20】
As we know, species are adaptive products of specific ecological environments, and the many unfamiliar ecosystems reached by the global migration of Homo sapiens risked a great deal of existential crises in each place, and it was not easy for them to adapt and survive. It is conceivable that many communities may not have survived the life-threatening process of global migration.
Linguist and cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker Steven Pinker says natural selection tends to help organisms adapt to localized ecosystems, usually confined to the local environment.【30】
Yuval Noah Harari, in Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind - From Animals to God, says that Homo sapiens gathered not only food and raw materials, but also " knowledge." In order to survive, Homo sapiens needed to know their way around. To maximize the efficiency of their daily food gathering, they needed to know the growth patterns of each plant and the habits of each animal. They needed to know which foods were nutritious, which were poisonous, and which could be used to cure diseases. They needed to know how the change of seasons signaled an approaching thunderstorm or drought. They would examine every river, every walnut tree, every cave where a bear slept, and every deposit of flint in the neighborhood. Everyone had to know how to make a stone knife, how to mend a ripped cloak, how to make a trap for a rabbit, and how to face an avalanche, a snakebite, or a hungry lion. Any one of these skills would take years of instruction and practice.【23】
David Reich: In Australia, archaeological discoveries of human settlements confirm the arrival of modern man at least 47,000 years ago, which is the earliest available evidence for the arrival of modern man in Europe. So it is very clear that modern humans arrived in East Asia, Australia and Europe almost simultaneously.
We now know that populations of descendants of Neanderthals mixed with modern humans lived not only in Europe, but across Eurasia. Many of these populations did not survive, but some not only did, but developed large numbers of contemporary humans.【20】
If the Great Migration marks the beginning and process of human transgression, the end of transgression marks the completion of the shift from hunter-gatherer to pastoralism and agriculture. From plants and animals dependent on nature's natural genes, to human selection and genetic modification.
David Christian says: Agriculture magnifies the impact of human beings on the natural environment, their own culture and their way of life. Agricultural producers regulate plant and animal species so intensively and profoundly that their choices begin to alter the genetic makeup of crops, a process we call "domestication". By cutting down forests, diverting rivers, clearing slopes and cultivating land, agricultural producers have dramatically altered the face of the planet, making it more and more controlled by human activity. Ultimately, by changing their way of life, agricultural producers create new types of social communities. In terms of size and complexity, they were vastly different from the tribes of the gatherer-hunter era. Humans have domesticated not only other species, but also themselves.【21】
Therefore, we refer to the unbridgeable gap between Homo sapiens and animals as the transgression, which took place about 70,000 to 12,000 years ago, marked by the beginning and proceeding of a major explosion of human behavior, a global migration away from the ecosystems in which they evolved, and completed by the emergence of agriculture - human modification of genes selecting plants and animals.
2.2 Homo sapiens' third nature - greed for falsehood and reality
What are the mechanisms that send us across the chasm? A synthesis of at least 10 aspects of the biology of the Homo sapiens brain discovered by today's brain science (including an insatiable quest, always curious, always inquisitive, thirsting for all wisdom, and a drive to innovate; greater control of secondary rewards, even to the extent that highly abstract concepts, such as ideology, are seen as rewards; the ability to interpret and make assumptions based on perception alone, to establish order, to create rules, to improvise, and to interpret "meanings" of behavior; an increased capacity for imitation, learning, and transmission; the emergence of human aesthetics and art; the ability to reason about invisible forces "meaning" of behavior; brain's ability to imitate, learn, and teach increases; human aesthetics and art begin to emerge; can reason about unseen forces, create concepts about the unknowable, can separate truth from fiction to adapt to different environments; fantasize about the future and use montages to show new scenes; multiple brain systems can communicate with each other; have changeable values; and can be used for a variety of purposes. (communication; changeable values; conscious reflection and even the ability to question and adjust automated homeostasis, setting socio-cultural homeostasis above the ideal range required for survival, etc.), combined with psychology, archaeology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, and thousands of years of philosophical, religious, and literary observations of human beings, point to a unanimous conclusion: that Homo sapiens has evolved a third nature, in addition to the nature of all animals, which is to survive and to reproduce. and has evolved a third nature, which is the nature of greed and falsehood. The third nature of Homo sapiens is our Archimedean point, which sends us to the other side of the chasm, while all other animals are annihilated on the other side of the chasm. The Homo sapiens third nature is our hypothesis - the covetousness falsity hypothesis or the Homo sapiens third nature hypothesis. The third nature hypothesis is the second foundation upon which this book finds its basis.
First of all, this book refers to human survival and reproduction as the first and second natures of human beings, which are common to human beings and other animals. But do humans have a different nature from animals? What drives human beings to complete the transgression, casting the gap between human beings and animals, and continuously evolved into today's world? The answer is what this book proposes: the third nature of Homo sapiens - the greed for falsehood.
Survival and reproduction as the common first and second nature of humans and living things is recognized by the scientific community. Personality psychologist Randy J. Larsen and evolutionary psychologist D -M Buss (Randy J. Larsen & David M. Buss) state in Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, 2nd Edition: "All of our ancestors have accomplished two major tasks in their long and extended developmental history: survival and reproduction. If one of your ancestors had not succeeded in reproducing, you would not be here today to continue their existence. In this sense, every human being alive is an evolutionary success story. As descendants of these successful ancestors, we carry the genes for the adaptive mechanisms that allowed them to reproduce successfully. Thus, human nature (the collection of mechanisms that make us what we are) is a product of the evolutionary process."【42】
Apart from survival and reproduction, is there anything else that constitutes the nature of human beings? In EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY: THE NEW SCIENCE OF THE MIND, 2nd Edition, D.M. Bass says, "Everything has a nature, and all natures are different. Over the long history of evolution, each species has faced unique selection pressures, so the adaptive problems they have had to solve have been very different. Human beings also have natures, traits that make us unique in nature. All psychological theories imply the existence of nature. The complex adaptive mechanisms that make up human nature. The nature of all animals (including humans) is made up of a large set of adaptors."【106】
It can be seen that Homo sapiens, in addition to surviving and reproducing, has a nature that is different from that of other animals and constitutes the unique nature of human beings. Exploring this nature is exactly what we are trying to do, and what many philosophers have explored over the centuries. However, due to the limitations of science in the past, many great philosophers have failed to place this reflection under the paradigm of science, and have instead moved towards a self-justifying logical closure, leaving this question without a clear philosophical answer to this day.
As Wilson puts it, "The fact that these reflections on human nature seem abstract and difficult to understand does not mean that they are wrong. On the contrary, what so many intelligent and profound philosophers have so far failed to recognize seems impossibly obvious and easy. Any serious reflection on the human condition must take it as its primary premise. Without this premise, the humanities and the social sciences would be confined to the description of phenomena, just as astronomy lacks physics, biology lacks chemistry, and mathematics lacks algebra. With this premise, human nature can become the object of a thoroughgoing empirical science, biology can be put at the service of a free and enlightened education, and our conception of ourselves can really reach its full development."【105】
So, in order to find this answer, we must study it under the paradigm of science.
So why is it that only Homo sapiens accomplished the incredible crossing of boundaries in just a few tens of thousands of years? Given today's scientific advances, we look to a multitude of disciplines for answers, formulate hypotheses based on science, and then look for scientific arguments and thought-provoking counter-evidence.
We hypothesize that there may be an unknown human nature that has replaced the cultural drive and has become the primary driver in the "gene-culture co-evolution" that has led us to cross the line. As Daniel Bohr puts it, "We have become masters of innovation by the power of our consciousness, and are thus somehow in control of the basic dynamics of evolution". While many biologists however do not believe that there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals. Biologists feel that life is an absolute continuous unity in which there are only transitional forms. Complex features always develop through intermediate stages, because evolution does not do magic. 【12】But in recent years more and more research has been done to support a different view - that this essential difference exists and can be scientifically proven.
The answer to the question of what is the main driving force behind our transgressive "gene-culture co-evolution" can only be genes, specifically genes that mutate and cause changes in the mechanisms of the human brain that they are structured around, which are called Darwinian machines, and therefore "gene-culture co-evolution" can also be called "Darwinian machines - cultural co-evolution". This brain mechanism is called the Darwinian machine, so "gene-culture co-evolution" can also be called "Darwinian machine-culture co-evolution". "This is our hypothesis based on science, and we will look for evidence of it in the following areas.
(Describe the 10 biological properties of the brain as follows:)
First, we look to brain science for justification, as neuroscientist Daniel Bor, in The Ravenous Brain: How the New Science of Consciousness Explains Our Insatiable Search for Meaning The Ravenous Brain explains, "Humans occupy a special place in nature because of the power of intellect and consciousness. Even if other animals do have consciousness, human consciousness is unique. The animal most closely related to humans is the chimpanzee, compared to which humans have only 1/5 the physical strength, and even our senses are far less acute than those of the chimpanzee. However, we have become masters of innovation through the power of our consciousness, and thus are somehow in control of the basic dynamics of evolution. Each species tries to control its own environment, but humans with their extraordinary talents have transformed the planet for their own benefit. I believe that innovation is one of the most intelligent information-processing talents and the main purpose of consciousness.
Most animals that stay in a safe place with plenty of food will generally make a wise decision - rest.
The opposite is true of human beings: when physiological needs are met, a defining characteristic of the human race is the insatiable quest for facts. We are driven by a restless curiosity that thirsts for true wisdom. This wisdom is not the limited knowledge contained in the sage advice of our elders, but wisdom in the broader sense of any bold, innovative idea that allows us to rapidly improve our understanding and control. This drive to innovate is the primary characteristic of the conscious mind. Conversely, the main task of the unconscious and of habit is to utilize the bounty produced by conscious innovation. "【40】
It follows that the human brain, and other animals, even chimpanzees, a close relative of Homo sapiens, are fundamentally different. Such a difference makes humans, contrary to other animals, never know satisfaction, and such evidence is a consensus in modern biology, brain science, and genetics.
David M. EaglemanDavid M. Eagleman in The Brain: The Story of Your Brain makes a similar point: "When you look at the entire animal kingdom, every living thing has a built-in mechanism for seeking rewards. What is a reward? Essentially, it's something that brings the body closer to its ideal state. Water is a reward when the body is dehydrated; food is a reward when energy reserves are nearly exhausted. Water and food are called primary rewards and directly address physiological needs. However, human behavior is more controlled by secondary rewards, which are things that predict primary rewards. For example, seeing a metal box by itself doesn't do much for the brain, but if you've learned to tell that it's a water box, then seeing it when you're thirsty becomes a reward. In the case of humans, we even see extremely abstract concepts as rewards, such as political ideologies or the feeling of being valued by the local community. The difference with animals is that we tend to put these rewards before physical needs. As Reed Montague said, "Sharks don't go on hunger strikes," and while the rest of the animal kingdom seeks to satisfy only its basic needs, only humans often suppress their basic needs in favor of abstract ideals."【17】
So the fact that the human brain is fundamentally different from that of animals has become increasingly clear in recent years of brain science research. Since we know that there is a difference in nature, and that this difference in nature must be heritable, it is logical to assume that such a difference comes from, or at least involves, genes. So what is it? What genes or traits are responsible for the difference? Are there any synergistic evolutionary factors other than genes?
We begin by arguing that the unique nature that allows humans to accomplish transgressions is heritable gene-bearing.
Neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran suggests, based on his research, that mirror neurons were one of the conditions necessary for Homo sapiens to cross the line: I think the so-called Big Bang happened because some deterministic environmental factor triggered the already large brain to "pre-adapt" to cultural innovations unique to humans. I think the so-called Big Bang happened because some decisive environmental factor triggered a "pre-adaptation" of the already large brain to cultural innovations unique to humans, and one of the key pre-adaptations was mirror neurons. The increased capacity for imitation and learning (as well as transmission) explains the sudden cultural explosion that we call the Big Bang.【30】
In addition to mirror neurons, modern brain science research supports the idea that the human brain is mechanistically different and that this difference is heritable, so we hypothesize that such differences are carried by genes.
Michael Gazzaniga, the father of neuroscience in the United StatesMichael S. Gazzaniga has published in Human: The Science Behind What Makes Your Brain UniqueThe Glory of Humanity that "Unlike other animals, we humans Unlike other animals, we humans understand physics beyond physical intuition. We understand the existence of invisible forces. Current evidence suggests that we are the only animals that can reason about invisible forces. We are also the only animals that build concepts about the unknowable and try to explain why phenomena occur. We also use our ability to reason about and explain the unknowable in the biological and psychological realms.
The core ability that allows us to use this fictional information is that decoupling mechanism in our brain that Leslie proposed to be able to distinguish between fiction and reality. This mechanism seems to be unique only to humans. It allows us to separate truth from fiction, which makes us very flexible and adaptable to different environments. The system that our brain uses to build beliefs, and how our brain builds the belief that the soul and the body are separate, are both paramount to understanding what makes humans unique."【37】
Humans have a mechanism for distinguishing between fiction and reality, and such a mechanism is uniquely human.
David Reich mentions an anthropologist named Richard Klein in his book The Origins of Humanity Who We Are and How We Got Here. This anthropologist believed that humans are different because of genetic variation.
"He is convinced that genetic variation explains why modern man behaves so radically differently from his forebears. He suggests that whether it was the Late Stone Age revolution in Africa or the Late Paleolithic revolution in western Eurasia, the sudden explosion in the way modern man behaves was triggered by an increase in the frequency of a particular genetic mutation 50,000 years ago onwards, and that it was the ability of this gene to influence the biological activity of the brain that gave mankind the ability to make new types of tools and perform complex behaviors.
As soon as Klein made this statement, his hypothesis was strongly criticized, especially by opposition from archaeologists Sally McBrearty and Alison Brooks. They point out that virtually every behavioral trait that Klein considers distinctly modern is well documented in the archaeological record of tens of thousands of years ago in Africa and the Near East, and all occurred prior to the transitional phases of the Late Paleolithic in Eurasia and the Late Stone Age in Africa. But even if none of the behavioral traits were new, Klein's hypothesis still has something to offer. There is no doubt that the behavioral traits of modern humans were indeed greatly enhanced after 50,000 years ago. The question is, are there any biological changes at work here?
In 2002, Pabo and his colleagues discovered two mutations in the FOXP2 gene, and it is possible that it was the FOXP2 gene that drove the explosion of creative behaviors in humans after 50,000 years ago. However, these two mutations in FOXP2 should have nothing to do with human evolution after 50,000 years ago, because the same mutations were found in Neanderthals. Pabo and his team pursued the matter and finally found a third mutation, which is carried by almost all modern humans today, and which controls when and in what cells FOXP2 is converted into a protein. This mutation could not be found in Neanderthals. So, after modern humans separated from Neanderthals hundreds of thousands of years ago, it may have been this mutation that played a major role in the evolution of modern humans afterward.
Whether or not FOXP2 itself is important to modern humans, Pabo believes that one of the reasons why the ancient-type human genome was sequenced was to find the genetic basis of modern human behavior. Between 2010 and 2013, he led a series of studies that resulted in the release of the full genome sequence of ancient humans, including Neanderthals. In his paper, Pabo specifically emphasized a provisional list of about 100,000 locations in the genome. At these locations, almost all contemporary humans carry genetic variants that Neanderthals did not. There must be some biologically important change hidden in this list, but we are still in the early stages of deciphering "what it is". This reflects an even more fundamental problem: we are still at kindergarten level when it comes to understanding what the genome is saying! Although we have learned how to decode words, i.e., we know how the letters of DNA are converted into proteins, we know nothing about how to parse sentences.
Regrettably, we can count on our fingers examples such as the FOXP2 mutation: under the pressure of natural selection, the frequency of certain genetic mutations in our ancestors increased, and we only happen to know a little about the function of individual mutated genes. It is no longer tenable to assume that the explosion in modern human behavior observed at various archaeological sites in Africa and Eurasia was the product of one or two genetic mutations.【20】
In his just-completed book, archaeologist Steve Mithen suggests that before the Big Bang, there were three distinct modules in the human brain, specializing in "social intelligence," work-use or "mechanical intelligence," and "museology" (a tendency to categorize). "and the "museum" (a tendency to categorize). These three modules were not connected to each other, but about 50,000 years ago, a genetic change occurred in the brain that suddenly enabled them to communicate with each other, thus making human consciousness very flexible and versatile.【30】
Reading the ancient genome, although "we only happen to know a little bit about the function of individual mutated genes", "even if none of the behavioral traits are new, there is no doubt that the behavioral traits of modern humans have been greatly enhanced since 50,000 years ago". ". Then, in a provisional list containing about 100,000 locations in the genome, almost all contemporary humans carry genetic variants, while Neanderthals do not. This fact suggests that although it is not clear exactly where the genetic mutations that caused our behavioral explosion are located, it is at least possible that such a range of genetic variants exists. "These three modules were not connected to each other, but about 50,000 years ago, some sort of genetic change occurred in the brain that suddenly made them able to communicate with each other, thereby making human consciousness very flexible and versatile." Looking at the many systems of the brain that many scientists believe developed between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago, it is likely that this genetic change led to the systems, circuits, or modules of the brain being able to communicate with each other one after another, leading to our cognitive revolution.
Also holding similar views is Nobel Prize-winning biologist Gerald M. Edelman. His book Second Nature: Brain Science and Human Knowledge Second Nature details the unique human heritable brain system.
"We have all inherited a set of neural structures, value systems, which are important to the functioning of the brain's selection systems. I noted earlier that these systems function to provide species-specific constraints on the diverse selection events that occur. The sucking reflex, the surprise response, and the behavior of hormonal pathways and the autonomic neural systems (ANS) reflect our metabolism, physiological states, and emotions critical to our adaptive capacity. However, they are not to be confused with categories that arise through empirical selection within their constraints. Indeed, for humans with advanced consciousness, category learning does change the setting of the value system. Humans, unlike most animals, have changeable values. The consequences thereof are hard to predict, and there are no such saints among animals who would rather die than betray when tortured.
The theory of neuronal group selection (TNGS) or neural Darwinism is also needed to provide an answer to the problem of adaptive response: to be adaptive, in addition to folding back, there must be a force that regulates the outcome of developmental and empirical selection. For each species, this force is inherited in the form of a value system, which is located in the brain as a product of natural selection. The value system releases certain neurotransmitters or neuromodulators under certain circumstances. One example is the so-called locus coeruleus, a small group of neurons located on either side of the brainstem. These neurons send axons into the brain and spinal cord (the distribution is a bit like the hairnet on the brain). On receiving a sudden signal, such as a loud noise, these neurons release the neurotransmitter norepinephrine into the periphery, like a garden hose that sprays water. This lowers the synaptic response threshold of many neurons, leading to more excitation, as well as changing the synaptic strength between these neurons.
Similarly, there is the value system that releases the neurotransmitter dopamine. This system is located in the basal nuclei and brainstem. The release of dopamine acts as a motivational system and speeds up the learning process. Other systems release different neurotransmitters: the system that releases complex amines takes control of emotions, the system that releases acetylcholine changes the division between wakefulness and sleep. The activity of the value system takes control of behavior while selectively altering synapses in specific networks of neuronal populations. Selection within these networks determines the type of behavior of individual animals; the value system provides preferences and rewards. The interactions between the core systems, the unconscious memory system, and the signals from the value system operate together to produce a rich variety of human behaviors. The following facts illustrate another, more essential point; the selective brain must operate within the constraints of the value system. The value system is the evolutionary genetic structure in the brain that determines reward and punishment. As we have said before, the main body of the value system is the diffusion propagation neural network that regulates synaptic responses by releasing specific neuromodulators or transmitters. An example of this is the basal nuclei and brainstem that release dopamine. The release of dopamine during training is critical to the anticipation of positive behavior."【83】
By Gerald M. Edelman's research we can find that we have inherited a set of neural structures that are very important to both the brain's choice and value systems, and at the same time, this set of brain choices, develops and operates in synergy with the environment around us, and the value systems of the people we are in. So, the brain and the neural structures offer possibilities, but culture is co-functioning with them, even co-evolving. This is also well documented in modern science.
Biologist Kevin N. Laland, in Darwin's Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind Unfinished Evolution, states, "Darwin's contention that competition for food or mates advanced the evolution of intelligence is is widespread and deep, and has been supported accordingly. However, only recently has it been realized that culture played a central role in the origin of the mind."【34】
Here, the factors that drove the evolution of intelligence, in addition to the evolution of intelligence brought about by competition for food and mates in the nature of reproduction and multiplication, biologists have proposed a factor that influenced the origin and evolution of the human mind - culture.
Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio Antonio Damasio says in Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain When the Self Comes Knocking: Constructing the Conscious Brain that during the evolution of mammals, and primates in particular, the mind has become increasingly complex, and the capacity for memory and reasoning has abilities increased dramatically, and the scope of self-processing expanded. The core self is preserved but gradually surrounded by the autotransmissive self, the two being distinct in their neural properties and psychological nature. We are able to utilize the functioning of parts of the mind to monitor the functioning of other parts. Equipped with an extraordinarily complex ego and supported by stronger memory, reasoning, and language abilities, the human conscious mind created the tool of culture, which in turn discovered internal homeostasis in a whole new sense at the social and cultural level. Both the basic internal homeostasis, guided by the unconscious, and the socio-cultural internal homeostasis, generated and guided by the reflective conscious mind, function as custodians of biological values. For billions of years, evolution has distinguished basic endostasis from sociocultural endostasis, and although they belong to different ecological niches, they promote the same goal, which is the survival of the organism. Sociocultural homeostasis has a greater goal, which also includes the tireless pursuit of happiness. There is no doubt that the way the human brain manages life requires the continued interaction of both types of homeostasis. But whereas basic homeostasis is an established genetic trait, given by each individual's chromosomes, socio-cultural homeostasis is in some ways unfinished, not yet solid, and is responsible for all the fuss, folly, and anticipation of human beings.
There are two broad categories of homeostasis, basic homeostasis and sociocultural homeostasis, which does not mean that the latter is a purely "cultural" construct, while the former is "biological". Biology and culture are entirely interactive. Socio-cultural homeostasis is the result of a large number of minds, which are first constructed in a certain way by specific genetic instructions. The imbalance I am referring to is defined by social as well as cultural factors, and thus the detection of the imbalance occurs at the highest level of conscious mind, at the highest level of the brain, not at the subcortical level. I call this whole process sociocultural homeostasis. Neurologically, sociocultural homeostasis originates at the cortical level, although the emotional responses triggered by imbalance are also closely related to the underlying homeostasis, again providing evidence for a hybrid type of life regulation in the human brain, which is high, then low, then high again, in the form of oscillations, often on the verge of chaos.
Conscious reflection and the ability to plan behavior add new possibilities for life management in automated homeostasis, a remarkable new physiological function. Conscious reflection is even capable of questioning and adjusting the automated internal homeostasis and setting at a higher level an ideal range above what is required for survival, a range that is more conducive to the realization of happiness. Imagining the coveted and desirable happiness has become a positive motivation for human behavior. On the functional hierarchy of life management, socio-cultural homeostasis has been ranked, while physiological homeostasis remains preserved."【58】
At this point, integrating brain science, neuroscience, biology and other cutting-edge modern science, we can all come to the same conclusion - in addition to the survival and reproduction nature that all animals have, Homo sapiens evolved a third heritable nature - greed and realism - in the genes - culture co-evolution. In addition to the survival and reproduction nature of all animals, Homo sapiens has evolved a third inheritable nature - greed for reality - through gene-culture co-evolution.
The third nature of human beings leads to and drives the transgression of human beings, and the value systems and cultures in the process of transgression drive the constant evolution of the third nature.
As archaeologist and anthropologist Robert L. Kelley observes, "Sitting comfortably in your place in history, watching the world of primitive man slide by, you can't help but notice that between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago, something did happen. Somewhere along the way, primitive people became cultured and evolved into adults. Some anthropologists trace cultural competence back to the beginnings of ancient Homo sapiens, or even the human genus, but I would argue that culture sprang up in the very recent past. This capacity is not a small isolated thing, but the result of the combination of several mental capacities. I imagine that the 1 million to 200,000 years ago era of human evolutionary history was like the formation of a symphony orchestra, with different instruments coming on stage one after another, not yet tuned. However, archaeological evidence suggests that at some point 200,000 years ago, the orchestra was seated, the instruments tuned, and ready to play Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.【33】
In his just-completed book, archaeologist Steve Mithen suggests that before the Big Bang, there were three distinct modules in the human brain, specializing in "social intelligence," work-use or "mechanical intelligence," and "museology" (a tendency to categorize). "and the "museum" (a tendency to categorize). These three modules were not connected to each other, but about 50,000 years ago, a genetic change occurred in the brain that suddenly allowed them to communicate with each other, resulting in a very flexible and versatile human consciousness."【30】
In summary, it can be seen that the evolution of the brain's operating mechanisms, whether it is from the insatiable pursuit and unlimited craving even after our physiological fulfillment, the brain's reward system, the explanatory system, the mirror neurons, the construction and switching between the virtual and the real, the budding of the arts due to sexual selection, the genetic variations that lead to the beginning of the brain's multiple systems to communicate with each other, the value system, the socio-cultural homeostasis, and so on, seems to ultimately point to a conclusion that the human brain seems to have evolved a unique nature. The human brain seems to have evolved a unique property .
The nature of this extraordinary brain shows multiple facets; insatiable quest, always curious, always inquisitive, hungry for all wisdom, driven to innovate; more controlled by secondary rewards, even considering highly abstract concepts such as ideology as rewards; interpreting and making assumptions based on perception alone, establishing order, creating rules, improvising, interpreting "meanings" of behavior; increased capacity for imitation, learning, and imparting; creates aesthetic and artistic sprouts; craves virtual reality, can reason about unseen forces, builds concepts about the unseen, and interprets the "meaning" of actions. "meaning" of behavior; brain's ability to imitate, learn, and teach increases; creates aesthetic and artistic emergence; covets virtual reality, can reason about unseen forces, builds concepts about the unknowable, can adapt to different environments by separating the real from the virtual; fantasizes about the future and uses montage to show new scenes; multiple brain systems The ability of multiple brain systems to communicate with each other; changeable values; conscious reflection and even the ability to question and adjust automated homeostasis, setting socio-cultural homeostasis above the ideal range needed for survival, and so on and so forth.
Nicholas A. Christakis, a sociologist and professor at Yale University, says: I think the scientific concept that will advance everyone's cognition is the holistic view: that the whole possesses qualities that the parts do not, and that the qualities of the whole cannot be attributed to the parts. Holism is often popularly summarized as the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. But what interests me is not so much the mechanical elaboration of this principle, such as building castles out of gravel, making airplanes out of metal, and working with multiple people, but rather the examples from nature, which are widely available and incredibly impressive. Perhaps most impressive of all: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, iron, and a number of other elements, mixed in just the right way to give birth to life, some of whose characteristics are neither apparent nor predictable in an environment with these elements. There is an amazing synergy between all of this.【110】
By the same token, the secret of our brain may not lie in any one particular brain circuit or brain system, but it is relatively safe to say that it is the multiple facets of our brain, as demonstrated by the aforementioned multiple brain circuits and systems, that make up an overall brain biology that is unique to us. That is, despite the multiple facets of this brain property, we can reasonably consider it to be an integrated brain capacity or brain property that distinguishes us from all other animals. This uniquely powerful Homo sapiens brain biology is one of the fundamental biological characteristics of our species, i.e., greediness.
Covetousness is a special biological nature that we have evolved.
Chris Buskus says: "More than two million years ago, from the moment our distant ancestors, the hominins, began to make stone axes and other tools while experimenting with communal hunting techniques, the process of natural selection targeted new qualities such as inventive talent, sociability, social intelligence and the ability to learn. Culture opened up a new type of microhabitat to which the above qualities proved to be best adapted. How else could the capacity of the cranial bone cavity have increased by leaps and bounds from 750 cubic centimeters in the humanoids of that moment, the able-bodied man, to an average of 1500 cubic centimeters in the modern man? This scenario is what Wilson calls an autocatalytic process: the parallel evolution of culture and genes was self-propelled, and eventually, about 40,000 years ago, this evolutionary train hit the road with increasing frequency. When it crossed a threshold, it entered a period of cultural "explosion". The more important culture became, the deeper the influence of biological evolution receded into the background. Even Wilson argues that human culture has partially escaped its biological influence. "【12】
In general terms, the genes that ultimately "cross a threshold" in the autocatalytic process described above seem to be the same genes that allowed us to evolve our greed for realism.
PAUL R. EHRLICH, Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect The evidence suggests that we are not controlled by innate programs and that genetic "brain-making" programs interact with the internal and external environment to form the brain as the individual develops. The evidence suggests that we are not controlled by an inborn program, and that the genetic "brain-making" program interacts with the internal and external environments of the individual as it develops to form the brain. But the brain is not used to determine a single behavior, such as mating, but rather a wide range of behaviors in response to the needs of the environment.【31】
So it seems that the genes that evolved greediness evolved our greediness by altering the intrinsic mechanism of the brain. This is the intrinsic mechanism that neurobiologists call the Darwinian machine.
Nature does not do futile things, which simply means that natural desires-needs or wants-cannot exist if there is no possibility of fulfillment. 【25】The Great Western Idea.
Naturally, we do not do anything superfluous; if there were no needs or desires, there would be no insatiable pursuits beyond survival and reproduction. This insatiable variety of pursuits can only be explained by the desires of biological nature, which means that we have evolved a third nature, i.e., greed for reality.
At the modern end of the whole grand tradition, in Darwin, J. S. Muller, William James and Freud, the word "desire" refers primarily to a cause of animal and human behavior. It is one of the basic terms of psychological analysis, covering a whole range of phenomena which are also spoken of by other terms, such as demand, need, longing, desire, will, all of which are discussed in connection with the theories of instinct and feeling, of Lepidus and love, of motive and purpose.
Dewey asserts, "All of us have desires, at least those who are not yet sick to the point of total indifference. These desires are the fundamental motivation for action ...... The intensity of the desire regulates the intensity of the effort exerted." The range and variety of desires is very wide; and the authors of the great works are divided on the question of which is the more dominant of the desires for sexual pleasure, wealth, power, or knowledge.
If we go back to the beginnings of the tradition and look at the writings of Plato, Galen, Aristotle, and Plotinus, we find that psychological examination is only a part of the exploration of desire. The ancients were certainly concerned with the role of desire in causing animal and human behavior, and with the causes of such desire, but they were also interested in the cravings that both plants and animals seem to have. Plato, for example, applied to plants "the sensations of pleasure, pain, and the desires that accompany them". The plant activities of nutrient supply, growth, and reproduction seem to arise from the basic appetites, or "biological needs" in modern terminology, that are inherent in all living things. 【25】The Big Idea of the West
Chris Buskus says: Evolutionary biologists agree that only natural selection can explain the existence of adaptation. What is controversial is the extent to which evolutionary adaptation is possible. In fact, some features of organisms are just neutral by-products of evolution. But the point is, and always has been, that a functional trait can only be a product of the three fundamentals of evolution.【12】
The process of evolution by natural selection is not predictable, it is not "intentional", says D-M Bass. Giraffes did not "evolve" long necks because they found juicier leaves on higher branches. Rather, the reality is that some giraffes have longer necks for genetic reasons, so they have a greater advantage in accessing higher leaves. As a result, giraffes with longer necks are more likely to survive, and thus more likely to pass on their longer necks to the next generation (recent research suggests that giraffe necks may serve other functions, such as fighting with the same sex). Natural selection only works on those genetic variables that happen to be present. Evolution is not an intentional process, and it is impossible to look into the future and predict what will be needed later.【106】
Covetousness is a special biological nature that we have evolved and is certainly a product of the three basic principles of evolution. Why are we different and have evolved a third nature beyond survival and reproduction?
Some aspects of Homo sapiens' greediness may also have been merely biological adaptations at first, especially at the beginning of the behavioral explosion of global migrations, which revolved around survival and reproduction, with greediness gradually evolving from the ability to find more food and new types of food, to better food sources, to recognize new dangers and poisons, to improve tools, to demonstrate greater ability to win the hearts of the opposite sex, and thus to taste the sweetness of better survival and reproduction. The differences in the third nature of individual Homo sapiens lead to "differential reproductive success due to genetic differences"; culture then accelerates from this, and in the mechanism of gene-culture co-evolution, greediness develops further, and culture develops further. As described in 3.5.8, different combinations of mutations of various brain traits capable of facilitating the emergence of modern human behavior together increase in frequency, inducing the birth of new behaviors that further contribute to changes in human lifestyles and innovative activities, thus creating a self-reinforcing cycle that evolves during our transgressions to enable us to complete them. The Homo sapiens third nature gradually became the main driving force of gene-culture co-evolution, and during the 30,000 to 40,000 year-long transgression process, the third nature gradually evolved and perfected beyond the needs of survival and reproduction, and is still evolving today.
D - M Bass says: Despite Darwin's belief that natural selection and sexual selection were two separate processes, we now know that in fact both derive from the same underlying process - differential reproductive success due to genetic differences. Still, some biologists find it useful to make a distinction between the two kinds of selection because that distinction clearly expresses the importance of two different kinds of adaptors. One evolved as a result of benefits to survival (e.g., taste preferences for sugar and fat help to consume certain specific foods; fear responses to snakes keep us safe from venomous snake bites), and the other was allowed to evolve as a result of benefits to reproduction (e.g., having a greater ability to fight).【106】
We know that we, like all mammals, have the two natures of survival and reproduction. After evolving the nature of greed, we call the three natures of survival, reproduction and greed the biological nature of Homo sapiens to distinguish it from the early Homo sapiens who only Animal nature with the nature of survival and reproduction; also different from the animal nature of all other animals. Homo sapiens' biological nature is special because of the nature of greed and emptiness. We believe that it is this "crossing of the threshold" that puts us on the path of intelligent beings.
Greedy vanity is our Archimedean point.
All living things live around survival and reproduction, and all living individuals have at most two basic natures i.e. survival and reproduction, and we were originally no exception.
But the fact that we have crossed the border indicates that we have an important biological trait of greediness in addition to survival and reproduction, and it is reasonable to assume that it is this greediness that distinguishes us from all animals, and that this is our Archimedean point, which is the third nature that we have evolved in addition to survival and reproduction.
Philosopher-educator Mortimer J. Adler in Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy suggests some of the same constitutive facets of covetous falseness that distinguish humans from animals: the special ability, the ability to think philosophically, to be able to ask and answer questions, that distinguishes human beings clearly from other animals. Other animals do not play philosophical games.
The three dimensions represent the three important directions of human activity, which are creation, action and cognition. In these three dimensions, human beings are thinkers. But the thinking that human beings have in order to make things is not the same as the thinking that they have in order to act appropriately and behave appropriately. Both of these thoughts are distinct from the thoughts that humans have in order to cognize, and this cognition is cognition for the sake of cognition.【45】
This means that our need for knowledge is one of our natural needs.
Evolutionary theory suggests that there must be intermediate stages in the gradual development of any complex feature. Greediness should be no exception. As can be seen from the following, not only does greediness have a full foundation in brain science, but greediness also has an evolutionary transition stage.
As described in 3.3.8, archaeologists have pointed out that almost every behavioral trait that Klein considers distinctly modern is well documented in the archaeological record of Africa and the Near East from tens of thousands of years ago, and that all occurred prior to the transitional stages of the Late Paleolithic in Eurasia and the Late Stone Age in Africa. But even if none of the behavioral traits were new, Klein's hypothesis still has something to offer. There is no doubt that the behavioral traits of modern humans were greatly enhanced after 50,000 years ago.
As noted in 2.1.2: In his just-completed book, archaeologist Steve Mithen suggests that before the Big Bang, there were three distinct modules in the human brain, specializing in "social intelligence," work-use, or "mechanical intelligence," and "museology" (a categorical tendency). "and the "museum" (a tendency to categorize). These three modules were not connected to each other, but about 50,000 years ago, a genetic change occurred in the brain that suddenly allowed them to communicate with each other, thus making the human consciousness very flexible and versatile. So we can assume that "even if none of the behavioral traits are new," and even if the various brain circuits and brain mechanisms described in Books 3.3-3.4 of this book had already evolved prior to the explosion of human behavior, as long as we have "some genetic change in the brain that suddenly made them able to communicate with each other about 50,000 years ago," the brain is not connected, but there was some genetic change in the brain that suddenly made them able to communicate with each other, thus making human consciousness very flexible and versatile. About 50,000 years ago, there was some kind of genetic change in the brains that suddenly made them able to communicate with each other", i.e., the emergence of what Steve Mitson calls the connective mechanisms that bring together "social intelligence", "mechanical intelligence", "museum science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "science", "museum science" and the various brain circuits and brain mechanisms described in 3.3-3.4 of this book, or that there is a common bond that unites them, and it is possible and plausible that we exhibit the third nature of Homo sapiens.
As Reich points out, from all the evidence we have, about 100,000 years ago, Neanderthals were actually as complex in their behavior as our direct ancestors, who were already anatomically modern. There are a number of other pieces of evidence that could prove that Neanderthals possessed complex cognitive abilities, such as their conscious care of the sick and the elderly. Nine skeletons excavated from Iraq's Shanidar Cave show signs of deliberate burial, and one belonged to an old man who was partially blind and had a shriveled arm, suggesting that he would have been well cared for by friends and family during his lifetime, otherwise he would not have survived. The Neanderthals also possessed some capacity for symbolic expression. For example, in the Krapina Cave in Croatia, jewelry made from eagle claws has been found that dates back 130,000 years. Also, stone circles found deep in Bruniquel Cave in France date back 180,000 years.【20】
Kevin N. Laland Kevin N. Laland says: Whether by magnifying the intellectual capacities of other animals or by exaggerating the animal instincts of humans, we can find too many superficial similarities between human behavior and the behavior of other animals. Humans may be most closely related to chimpanzees, but ultimately we are not chimpanzees, and chimpanzees are not humans. Any attempt to "prove" human evolution by showing continuity in mental abilities with other creatures is no longer relevant: it has become anachronistic. It is now clear to us that the only thing Darwin could have guessed was that several now-extinct species of human beings had appeared 5-7 million years ago since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees. Archaeological remains undoubtedly indicate that these humanoids possessed an intellectual capacity somewhere between that of humans and chimpanzees. The gap between apes and humans is real, but it is not a problem for Darwinism because our extinct ancestors bridged this cognitive gap.【34】
Does this mean that Neanderthals would have transgressed like us if they had evolved a brain transgression mechanism similar to ours? History can't be hypothesized, but it wouldn't be surprising if Neanderthals didn't go extinct and instead crossed over like us, which would be consistent with evolution's thesis that evolution doesn't do magic anyway.
We very much hope that we can find a ready-made word in Chinese to summarize the unique integrated biological characteristic of Homo sapiens, which is manifested in many aspects of the brain, but we have not found it. Let us call this comprehensive characteristic the "greediness" of the Homo sapiens brain.
We know that our pre-crossing ancestors, like any other individual animal, had two basic biological characteristics, namely, survival and reproduction. It can be argued, then, that "greed for reality" is the third basic trait, or third nature, that Homo sapiens has evolved in addition to survival and reproduction.
Although Homo sapiens' "greed for reality" or "third nature" is our hypothesis, this hypothesis is first and foremost based on at least 10 aspects of brain biology discovered by today's brain science. We will collectively argue this point from the ten properties of the brain. The ten properties of the brain are:
1) The power of insatiable consciousness: the power of insatiable consciousness, the opposite of animals, makes humans masters.
2) Reward systems: human reward systems that can accommodate abstract concepts.
3) The distinctive human interpreters: "building hypotheses", "interpreting meaning", "making up reasons", "creating rules ", and "unifying information" should clearly be important components of the distinctive human brain.
4) Mirror neurons: the complexity of mirror neurons has allowed for an increase in the ability to imitate and learn (as well as teach), which has fueled a great deal of cultural development and is one of the necessary conditions for humans to transgress boundaries.
5) Sexual selection pressures contribute to human aesthetics and artistic germination.
6) Ability to fictionalize and switch between reality and fiction: the ability to fictionalize and switch between reality and fiction is also one of the factors that sends us to the other side of the divide.
7) Confusing memory and fantasizing about the future: Confusing memory and imagination, fantasizing about the future, and presenting new scenarios with montages are key to human foresight and creativity.
(8) Mutated genes lead to multiple brain systems being able to communicate with each other: many brain systems have been developed one after another between 200,000 and 50,000 years ago, so it is likely that this genetic change has led to many systems, circuits, or modules in the brain being able to communicate with each other one after another, thus leading to our cognitive revolution.
9) Changeable Brain Value System: "Having changeable values" is a brain mechanism that is unique to us.
10) INSOLID SOCIO-CULTURAL INTERNAL STEADY STATE: Insoluble socio-cultural internal homeostasis, which sets a range of ideals higher than what is necessary for survival, is both the driving force behind the much-desired happiness and the cause of all the fuss, folly, and anticipation that characterizes the human condition. This brand new physiology is clearly beyond the nature of all animals, i.e., the nature of survival and reproduction.
As brain science develops, more brain biology will be discovered, and the content of Homo sapiens' greed for reality or third nature will be further increased and refined.
Evolutionary formation of the third nature
From 200,000 years ago to the present, on the cognitive revolution and the third nature:
1、 Archaeology proves that we began to understand technology 200,000 years ago, had paints and beads 100,000 to 80,000 years ago, were born "super-symbolists" and "artists", and had almost every distinctive modern human behavioral trait that Klein thought of long before we crossed the border. The human cognitive revolution was not determined by one or a few "genetic switches";
2、 The third nature is a synthesis of at least 10 aspects of brain biology identified by brain science today;
3、 Reich argues from the perspective of genetics and genetics that the great leap forward in human behavior and the "genetic recipe" for the abilities that emerged in the Late Paleolithic in Eurasia or the Late Stone Age in Africa is not so mysterious. The mutations that facilitate the emergence of modern human behavior have already existed, and different combinations of these mutations can increase in frequency together by natural selection in order to adapt to the development of conceptual language or other changes in environmental conditions. This not only induces the birth of new behaviors, but can also further promote changes in human lifestyles and innovative activities, thus creating a self-reinforcing cycle;
4、 Reich also argues that it is essentially impossible for the first appearance of a genetic mutation to trigger a huge change;
5、 After the crisis high point of our species, it was easier for the genetic drift mechanism to spread mutated genes that favored the evolution of the Homo sapiens greedy-virtuousness brain mechanism faster in the Homo sapiens species.
Taking the above 5 points together we hypothesize that the evolutionary formation of the third nature is possible:
1、 Mutations in most of the brain mechanisms that form the third nature may have appeared as early as between 200,000 and 80,000 years ago;
2、 Certain mutations were expressed one after another; different combinations of some of these mutations may have begun to increase in frequency together before crossing the border thus inducing the birth of certain new behaviors;
3、 Eventually, about 60,000 years ago, a prototype of the third nature was formed, a prototype that may have included insatiability, secondary rewards, and virtual reality, combinations that tend to create desires that go beyond the two basic goals of survival and reproduction. This prototype replaced the cultural drive as the primary driver of gene-culture co-evolution, inducing Homo sapiens to make great leaps in behavior and begin to transgress boundaries, partially breaching the constraints of the ecosystem;
4、 Over the next roughly 40,000 years, more mutation combinations were added to increase the frequency of third nature-driven gene-culture co-evolutionary mechanisms, third nature became closer to today's manifestations, and societies and cultures became more complex, culminating in the Agrarian Revolution and settlement more than 10,000 years ago, completing the crossing of boundaries;
5、 Since the completion of the transgression to the present day, the Third Nature continues to evolve under its driving gene-culture co-evolutionary mechanism, forming a synthesis of at least 10 aspects of brain biology identified by brain science as manifesting themselves today.
(Omitted from this book are the psychological, archaeological, paleogenetic, religious, philosophical, and literary support for the third nature.)
2.3 Culture Cloud and Genes - Cultural Co-evolution
It is a self-evident fact that human cultures have progressively formed cultural clouds since the beginning of transgression. The culture cloud arose in the context of a recognized gene-culture co-evolutionary mechanism, and we believe that the primary driver of this mechanism for some 80,000 years has been the Homo sapiens third nature, rather than the cultural drive of the previous two million years or so. The culture cloud is the third foundation found in this book.
We propose to refer to all human material and immaterial culture collectively as culture.
What is a culture cloud? We call all the cultures that have ever existed in all of humanity a culture cloud. Culture clouds include the concentrated or dispersed cultures of Homo sapiens in any period of time and in any state of aggregation, whether they are preserved or not. Culture clouds are in some ways analogous to the appearance or disappearance, the gathering and dispersal, and even the elusiveness of clouds. Civilizations are localized cultural clouds.
A cultural cloud is just a metaphor, and metaphors can never be exact; they can also be compared to a cultural pool, a cultural reservoir, or a cultural soup, if one so desires.
Nobel Laureate Friedrich August Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, argues that our civilization, both its origins and its maintenance, depends on something that, in its precise formulation, is an expanding order in human cooperation. In order to understand our civilization, we must understand that this expanding order is not the result of human design or intention, but is a spontaneous product: it emerges from the unintentional adherence to certain traditional, primarily moral, practices, many of which are disliked by people who do not usually understand their meaning and cannot justify them, but through an evolutionary selection in groups that happen to follow them. in groups that happened to follow them through a process of evolutionary selection - the relative increase in population and wealth - they spread rather quickly. These groups adopted these practices unconsciously, hesitantly, even painfully, so that they collectively expanded their access to all valuable information and were able to "labor and multiply and flourish and be fruitful upon the earth". In the spontaneous order, in order for people to get what they want, it is not necessary for anyone to know everything about all the goals to be pursued and all the means to be used. This order forms itself. The rules that give rise to order in adjustment emerge not because people have a better understanding of their role, but because those groups that thrive happen to improve on the rules in a way that enhances their resilience.【102】
The biological evolutionary mechanism consists of a combination of three elements: variation, selection and replication. Hayek considered the evolutionary mechanism of cultural clouds as a spontaneous mechanism. Then it can be said that cultural evolution is also a blind spontaneous and adaptive mechanism.
It is self-evident that Homo sapiens produced a culture that is completely different in nature from any other animal culture; it is also self-evident that Homo sapiens and culture interacted for tens of thousands of years to produce the Culture Cloud; and it is still self-evident that Homo sapiens and the Culture Cloud interacted to form the Circle of Intelligence. The Culture Cloud is the third cornerstone of our conceptual framework of human superimposability - the Culture Cloud.
(The following illustrates the gene-culture co-evolutionary mechanism For about 80,000 years the main driver of this mechanism has been the Homo sapiens third nature:) Chris Buskus says: We have concluded that man is a primate that has crossed over into the species framework. The hominid Homo sapiens is distinguished from its closest relatives not just because it has certain physiological characteristics, but also because it has a complex culture.【12】
The essence of the idea of "gene-culture co-evolution", according to Edward Wilson, is that, firstly, as genes evolve, humans correspondingly add to the evolution of culture, and secondly, the two forms of evolution are interconnected. Culture emerges from the collective human mind, and each of these minds, in turn, emerges from the human brain, which is structured by genes. Genes and culture are therefore inseparable, but the connection between them is somewhat elastic.【9】
"Gene-culture co-evolution", since it is co-evolution should be mutually causal. However, in the case of our major evolution of Homo sapiens crossing over and becoming intelligent beings, one can further ask what is the main driver of this synergistic evolutionary mechanism? Is it genes or culture? According to the definition of culture in Chapter 4, in short culture is the totality of human mental activity and its products.
Since culture, "the whole spiritual activity of mankind and its products", is a product of the brain, it is better to explain that the main driving force in the process of gene-culture co-evolution to produce transgressive behaviors is genes. The main driving force in the process of "gene-culture co-evolution" to produce transgressive behaviors is better explained as genes. Further, it should be the brain mechanism expressed by the genes. Culture should not be the main driver, because culture is a creation and plays a stimulus-reward role in coevolution.
Archaeologists (anthropologists?) Robert L. Kelly in The Fifth Beginning: What Six Million Years of Human History Can Tell Us about Our Future says: From 3.3 million years ago to 1.5 million years ago, there was little advancement in stone tool technology - - For 2 million years, stone tools remained virtually unchanged. -For 2 million years, stone tools remained virtually unchanged. Eventually, they were replaced by what archaeologists call Acheulian technology. Named after the site of Saint Acheulian, where it was first discovered in 1859, Acheulian technology consists of several types of tools, including "hand axes". The hand axe has a variety of forms, but is dominated by large oval or teardrop shaped stone tools with two edges machined on both sides. It is assumed that the hand axe was a versatile tool - like a Swiss Army Knife, it was a tool that could be used for a variety of purposes. Eventually, ashery technology was widely seen in Africa, Europe, and South Asia. Asherite technology also remained largely unchanged for the next million years.【33】
Nature does not do anything superfluous, the culture-driven gene-culture co-evolution mechanism only needs to satisfy the survival and reproduction of the species, and the evolution is bound to stagnate, as shown in all the birds, mammals and especially primates with cultural phenomena, which have not changed much for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Otherwise, in a gene-culture co-evolutionary mechanism driven by Paleolithic culture, many human species such as Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis or Homo denisovanensis would have had the opportunity to cross over to intelligent beings in hundreds of thousands, one or two million years, but they did not.
Yuval Hurari's analysis of the great explosion of human behavior, the Cognitive Revolution, in A Brief History of Humankind - From Animals to God, gives us a general idea of how Homo sapiens biologically produced a cultural cloud of this mechanism (acronym):
About 70,000 years ago Homo sapiens left Africa, and between 70,000 and 30,000 years ago, Homo sapiens invented boats, oil lamps, bows and arrows, needles, and the emergence of religion, commerce and social stratification. These unprecedented and important achievements were due to the revolutionary cognitive abilities of Homo sapiens. New ways of thinking and communicating emerged, which is what is known as the cognitive revolution.
The most common theories arising from the cognitive revolution, the most common is the idea that human language is the most flexible, capable of combining to produce an infinite number of sentences containing a variety of meanings. The second is that humans are not confined to the objective world and have developed language as a gossiping tool, and that the social cooperation that this produces is the key to our survival and reproduction.
Either way, they were able to convey information about things that didn't even exist, putting fiction and legend into perspective. The cognitive revolution gave rise to legends, myths, gods, and religions. "Discussing fictions" is the most unique function of Homo sapiens language.
Since the cognitive revolution, Homo sapiens has lived in a dual reality. On the one hand, we have objective realities like rivers, trees, and lions; on the other hand, we have imagined realities like gods, nations, and corporations. As time passes, the imagined realities have grown stronger and stronger; to this day, the rivers, trees and lions sometimes depend on the imagined realities of gods, nations and corporations to give them a break if they want to survive.【23】
From the above text by Yuval Hurali, we can see roughly how we crossed the line from the cognitive revolution, i.e., the Great Explosion of Human Behavior, and how we produced the Culture Cloud, and how we interacted with the Culture Cloud and magically appeared with everything that has been happening in human societies from the ancient times to the present day.
The authors point to "a revolution in cognitive abilities and the emergence of new ways of thinking and communicating. The generally accepted theory is that a fortuitous genetic mutation altered the way Homo sapiens' brains are wired internally, allowing them to think in unprecedented ways and to communicate in entirely new languages". We know that Reich's thesis in 3.15 about multiple mutations increasing in frequency together has further explanatory power for the occurrence of the cognitive revolution in light of at least 10 aspects of brain biology identified by today's brain science as described in 3.3 to 3.4.
"Human language is the most flexible, and only Homo sapiens is able to talk about things that don't really exist and believe in things that are unlikely. The point of the whole 'fiction' thing is not just that humans can have imaginations, but that they can imagine 'together' and weave all sorts of shared fictional stories, so just how did Homo sapiens cross that threshold and end up creating tens of thousands of inhabited cities, empires with hundreds of millions of people?" . Yuval Hurali's answer "The secret here may well lie in the fictional stories. Since the Cognitive Revolution, Homo sapiens has been living in a double reality" is very important.
Analyzing this further, we know that language is only our expression, behind language is our thinking. Therefore, a better explanation for why the cognitive revolution happened is the Homo sapiens third nature, which is the role of the third nature of fiction and fiction-reality switching, fiction-expectation of reward, exaggeration, insatiability, pushing to the extreme, autocatalytic, changeable value system, mirror neurons, interpretive system, and socio-cultural internal homeostasis. By using the third nature as the real driver of the cognitive revolution, we can better explain, in a more informed and better way, how human beings evolve in concert with culture, thus step by step transgressing boundaries and generating cultural clouds. Gene-culture co-evolution under the third nature-driven hypothesis evolves at a rate tens or even hundreds of times much higher than the rate of gene-culture co-evolution under the culture-driven hypothesis. This can better explain why the rate of human genetic evolution has accelerated by hundreds of times and the rate of cultural change has increased by tens of times in the past 40,000 years; why gene-culture coevolution under the culture-driven hypothesis has taken at least more than two million years, and even then, all the genera of humans, except for Homo sapiens, became extinct on the chasm this shore.
2.4 The conceptual framework of philosophy in the natural science paradigm is initially established from the above three foundations
Starting from the three major natures of Homo sapiens and the three cornerstones, it is judged that Homo sapiens evolves synergistically with culture under the driving force of the third nature and thus transgresses the boundary; the three major natures of Homo sapiens, i.e., the survival nature, the reproduction nature, and the third nature, are manifested in the biological nature of Homo sapiens; Homo sapiens who transgresses the boundary manifests in the superposition of the biological and the cultural nature, and every individual Homo sapiens manifests itself as a specific superposition state under the effect of the superposition nature, and the superposition state is a dynamic state; Superpositional human and cultural interactions produce the phenomenon of culture clouds; the mechanism of culture cloud formation is a blind mechanism; superpositional human and culture cloud interactions become the driving force of history and shape it; the main driving force behind the two cornerstones of human transgression and culture clouds is the Homo sapiens third nature. This is the philosophical conceptual framework we have established under the paradigm of the natural sciences, which can be called the conceptual framework of the human superimposability-cultural cloud, or simply the philosophical framework of the Homo sapiens third nature.
3. Further Researches.
Starting from the conceptual framework of human superimposability-cultural clouds, there is in principle the promise of launching philosophical inquiries and explorations of all philosophical propositions under the scientific paradigm, both for uncommon philosophical questions such as super powers, the circle of intelligence, theorizing that human potential can be infinite within the laws of physics, and so on, as well as traditional philosophical questions.
The imagined realities of God, the state and business have actually become the various superpowers of human society. Organizations such as States, international organizations, governments, armies, political parties, schools, hospitals, enterprises, trade organizations, professional associations, trade unions, charities, religious organizations, and so on, are common in modern society. Legally, organizations can be recognized as legal persons and thus have an independent socio-economic status somewhat similar to that of natural persons. Any power that exceeds the capacity of human beings to transgress the boundaries of former ethnic groups is called a superpower, and in addition to the aforementioned organizations, superpowers also include a systematic variety of laws, religions, texts, sciences, disciplines, ideologies, doctrines, and so on, which are composed of words and symbols. Superpowers of all shapes, sizes, and intricacies have become the mainstay of society, together forming the masters of our lives and the main players in all the contradictions in human society and even in the biosphere. Are the agendas, goals and consequences of the behavior of these various superpowers in the interests of our individuals, communities, species and the biosphere as a whole? Do these superpowers have the ability to perceive, correct, and stop the damage in the ultimate interest of our survival? Where will the combined forces of these superpowers push us? The question of superpowers has long been one of the major questions of human philosophy.
As Homo sapiens transgressed the boundaries and interacted with the third nature and the cultural cloud, they developed the potential to behave 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 the choice to survive or perish, which Homo sapiens must make for itself, is the basis of all human ethics. Homo sapiens, then, is not necessarily a rational animal, but it must be a rational animal, and it must rationally formulate and follow a set of scientific "ethical laws" or "absolute commands", including self-discipline and self-discipline.
The evolutionary generation of the third nature, our potential ability to act arbitrarily under the laws of physics, the creation of cultural clouds, the creation of civilizations, the creation of superpowers, and the formation of the circle of intelligences have long since eliminated the scientific "ethical laws" or "categorical imperatives" that must be enacted and obeyed by mankind. "It is no longer possible to address only the individual Homo sapiens and the community. Rather, the lower limit of goodness must be defined at six levels: the biosphere, the species of Homo sapiens, the first and second nature of Homo sapiens or the Homo sapiens community, the third nature of Homo sapiens, the Homo sapiens super-power, and the circle of intelligence, and so forth, to serve as a criterion for ethics and the basic basis for the correctness or incorrectness of our values and behaviors. On the basis of this definition of good and evil, the six levels from the biosphere to Homo sapiens are discussed in the context of meta-ethics. It is important to point out that the ultimate goal of these six levels of ethical law is that the six levels can eventually form a relatively stable organic whole, in the hope that this will open the way to the establishment of the law of survival of human beings after crossing the border, which is in line with our fundamental interests.
We have tried to put certain philosophical questions into the conceptual framework of Homo sapiens' third nature philosophy for inquiry and discussion. Due to space constraints, in this thesis we only give part of our book's argumentation process for the questions of free will and good and evil, and we only give the book's conclusions for most other philosophical questions that we ask and explore.
3.1, Epistemology: Within the framework of the philosophical concept of the third nature of Homo sapiens, wishing to clarify the problem of the two worlds that plague philosophy, we come to the conclusion that there is only one physical world. For the dispute between theory-only and empiricism, it is concluded that scientific methodology is the basis of epistemology. Hume's fork is analyzed and it is concluded that Hume's question has an answer under certain conditions;
3.2. the problem of free will: we argue from the philosophical framework of the third nature:
1. Ethics and morality do not need to assume free will as a basis: Philosophers have been arguing about whether we have free will or not, and the main focus is that if we do not have free will, we do not have to be responsible for the consequences of our behavior, and all ethics and morality will be groundless. According to this book's conceptual framework of the Homo superimposed nature-culture cloud, since we have transgressed, i.e., partially broken the "ecosystem and genetic control", i.e., the two major limitations, and since Homo sapiens transgressed the boundary, in the interactions between the third nature and the culture cloud, we gradually developed the potential ability to behave arbitrarily under the laws of physics, which is the basis of this book. As Homo sapiens transgressed the boundary and gradually gained the potential to act arbitrarily under the laws of physics through the interaction of the third nature and the cultural cloud, the negative consequences of these abilities on the biosphere and on their own species became increasingly apparent. Homo sapiens already knows this, and the choice it must make to survive or perish is the basis of all human ethics (see 8.5.2 of this book for details). In short, human transgressions force us to make and follow certain rules without assuming free will as the basis for ethics;
2. The free will proposition may have neither scientific nor philosophical basis:
(1) Since our "partial breakout from ecosystems and genetic mechanisms" is due to Homo sapiens superposition and cultural interactions, our wills have become wills in the superpositional state, and we have gradually developed the potential to behave arbitrarily under the laws of physics, which does not derive from "free will"; that is, the proposition of free will may have neither scientific nor philosophical significance; that is, the proposition of free will may have neither scientific nor philosophical significance. free will" and therefore need neither be interpreted as free will nor assume a free will as a basis for ethics; i.e. the proposition of free will may have neither scientific nor philosophical validity;
(2) As mentioned earlier, the everyday meaning of free will has not yet been precisely defined, which makes it difficult to exhaust the discussion. Perhaps free will is a complex subject, and perhaps today's science is too young to address it thoroughly;
(3) We do have will, but we have never generated much free will in the process of crossing boundaries, much less relied on it to do so. It is our genetically conditioned open brain mechanisms, the homo sapiens third nature evolved by the brain's Darwinian machine that has allowed us to interact with our culture to gradually and partially break out of the bonds that ecosystems and genetic mechanisms have held us in for billions of years, and thus theoretically have the potential to behave arbitrarily under the laws of physics;
(4) Although we have partially broken through the two major limitations and have the potential to act arbitrarily under the laws of physics, it does not mean that we can be free from the limitations of ecosystems and genetic mechanisms. Then our will cannot exist independently of ecosystems, genetic mechanisms, and the laws of physics, and from this it can be concluded that we do not have "anti-causal" free will.
So, we may well set aside the proposition of free will. It could even be argued that the free will proposition may have neither scientific nor philosophical basis;
3.3 The fallacy of social Darwinism: Darwin's doctrine is confronted with the biological world, which, of course, includes the ecosystems and genetic mechanisms that controlled us before we crossed the border. Crossing the border so that we partially break through such moderation and control, in the cultural cloud developed by a variety of civilizations, homo sapiens originally given by the evolution of the law of survival has long been insufficient to cope with the need to solve the problem is precisely to find and formulate the law of survival after crossing the border, and Spencer, or anyone else attempts to face the biological world of the Darwinian doctrine of the transgression of the human community is the application of the law of the fundamental error;
3.4 The problem of good and evil: according to the philosophical conceptual framework of the third nature, it can be clearly concluded that the lower limit of goodness can be defined, and the ultimate goodness can be pursued as a beautiful pursuit of human beings; the lower limit of defining goodness should be directed at six levels respectively: the biosphere, the species of homo sapiens, homo sapiens' nature of survival and reproduction, the third nature of homo sapiens, the super power, and the circle of intelligence; how to scientifically and philosophically think about these questions and define good and evil, we start from the conceptual framework of human superimposability-culture cloud in this book and simplify the definition of good and evil with Occam's razor:
Good and evil are ethical judgments, values, the basis for judging the rightness and wrongness of homo sapiens' superimposed actions, what we should pursue in life, and what we should or should not do, and the basis for our behavioral norms.
As Mortimer Adler said: moral values - about good and evil, right and wrong, about what we should aspire to in life, and what we should or should not do.【97】
Kant says: I call such an idea of reason the ideal of the supreme good; in which the morally most perfect will, united with the highest eternal bliss, is the cause of all happiness in the world, provided that this happiness is in exact proportion to morality (as a dispensing happiness).【46】
First of all, we know that Homo sapiens superposition is a superposition of Homo sapiens biology and culture. The key points of the third nature of the Homo sapiens biological nature are: "never satisfied", "pushed to the limit", "eternal curiosity" about things, the desire to "never end", to have changeable values, to have "infinite desires and infinite emotions", to have "infinite desires and infinite emotions". "never-ending", changeable values, "infinite desires and infinite emotions", dissemination of culture and initiation of autocatalysis, ability to construct and utilize virtual and real information, interpretations, assumptions, order, creation of rules based only on perceptions, improvisation, etc.
Therefore, it is difficult to define the upper limit of goodness just in terms of "never satisfied", "pushed to the limit", "never ending", "with changeable value", "never ending", "never ending", "with changeable value", "never ending", "never ending", "never ending", "with changeable value". Therefore, it is difficult to define the upper limit of goodness just in terms of "never satisfied," "pushed to the limit," "never ending," and "having changeable value," and it is not clear what the ultimate goodness means, so we have to say that the ultimate goodness is the highest pursuit of human beings, and that the ultimate goodness probably gives full play to our third nature. However, we can define the most basic good, i.e., define the lower limit of goodness. Defining the lower limit of the good is essential in order to find and formulate the law of survival after crossing the border, and in order to formulate ethical judgments; the lower limit of the good can also be defined;
(b) Secondly, according to the philosophical framework of the third nature, since we have transgressed the boundaries to present the superposition of Homo sapiens' biological nature and culture, we are already in a complex superposition of superpower, intelligentsia, and biosphere, and therefore our questions of good and evil have long since ceased to be propositions at the level of the individual Homo sapiens alone. We must define good and evil at the level of the Homo sapiens animal nature, the Homo sapiens third nature, the Homo sapiens species, the Homo sapiens group, and the Homo sapiens superpower, intelligentsia, and biosphere;
Thirdly, the superposition of Homo sapiens is generated by the interaction of Homo sapiens biology and culture, and the superposition state manifested by different space and time, different civilizations, different groups and different individuals varies greatly, so that the definition of goodness for a specific space and time, a specific civilization, a specific group and its individuals is not universal. Therefore, we define good and evil for all human beings in the entire space-time of the biosphere;
Fourth, the subjective feelings of individual persons are not the scope of this book. The definition of good and evil addresses the behaviors and consequences of human superposition. Human superimposed nature is formed by the interaction of Homo sapiens' biological nature and culture. Biological nature includes the nature of survival and reproduction as well as the third nature, and our pre-transgressive nature of survival and reproduction includes our evolutionary moral and emotional needs, which are common to all Homo sapiens and are objective in existence. It does not involve the subjective feelings of individual individuals.
Based on the above four points, it seems that we can define good and evil at different levels of the biosphere, the species of Homo sapiens, the individual and community animality of Homo sapiens, the third nature of Homo sapiens, the Homo sapiens superpower, and the circle of intelligence. We define good and evil as right and wrong judgments against human behavior and its consequences.
From this, we define the good and evil of all the actions of Homo sapiens and their consequences as:
1. Biosphere
Making the biosphere more suitable for human survival is good, and vice versa;
2. Homo sapiens species
Not destroying the reproduction or prolonging the survival of the Homo sapiens species is good, and the opposite is evil;
3. Homo sapiens individual and Homo sapiens community animality
It is good if it does not jeopardize or improve the survival and reproduction nature, evolutionary moral and emotional needs of Homo sapiens individuals and communities, and evil if it does not. The absence of harm between Homo sapiens individuals and communities is good, and the opposite is evil;
4. The Third Nature of Homo sapiens
In conformity with the above mentioned goodness the third nature of Homo sapiens is moderately realized as good, and vice versa as evil;
5. Homo sapiens superpower
It is good that Homo sapiens superpowers can develop in conformity with the above good, and evil that the opposite is true. The absence of harm between Homo sapiens superpowers is good, and the opposite is evil;
6. Intelligent Circle
On the basis of the above good, the development of the intelligent circle is good if it does not destroy or even improve the biosphere, or at least the intelligent circle cannot destroy the self-regulating ability of the biosphere, and vice versa;
7. Great Cultural Sorting and Correction
All thoughts, laws and behaviors that do not conform to the definitions of good and evil at each of the above levels since mankind's transgression have been corrected through a major cultural sorting out process, so that we can form a corrective mechanism that conforms to the definitions of good and evil at each of the above levels.
With the above definition of good and evil, we are not only able to use it as a premise, but more importantly, we are able to use it as a principle to discuss ethics.
3.5 Ethical basis: According to the philosophical framework of the third nature of Homo sapiens, the negative consequences for the biosphere and for its own species are increasingly apparent in the evil that is constantly generated by the transgression of Homo sapiens. Homo sapiens already knows this very well. Whether to survive or to destroy, Homo sapiens must make its own choice, and this is the basis of all human ethics. We do not need free will as a basis for ethics;
3.6 Meta-ethics: Ethical principles can be formulated in the context of meta-ethics on the basis of a lower-bound definition of the good in its six different dimensions;
3.7 The Law of Survival after Human Transgression: The goal is to enable the formation of a sustainable organic whole from the individual Homo sapiens, the community, the species, the superpower, the circle of intelligence, all the way up to the biosphere, and at least to avoid the premature extinction of our species of Homo sapiens in the normal cycle of the species;
3.8 Freedom and equality: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights", is a consensus reached by mankind in the middle of the twentieth century, and in the framework of the philosophy of the third nature, it is possible to find philosophical justification for this consensus within the scientific paradigm;
3.9 Fairness and justice: both by definition and by philosophers, fairness and justice are in fact part of one of the major philosophical questions, "What should we do?". We therefore believe that they can be included together with ethics and good and evil propositions, at least in the context of meta-ethics;
3.10, Truth: Studying philosophical problems within the paradigm of the natural sciences, philosophy must be able to match the advances made in mathematics and experimental sciences, and then philosophers will surely find it easy to agree on the central events of truth in the field of philosophy. It can be predicted that a new era of philosophy will surely dawn;
3.11. Aesthetics: Our survival and reproductive nature, our evolutionary moral and emotional needs are the basic source of our need for aesthetics, and the third nature is both the driving force and the other source of need for aesthetics. The third nature allows us to develop and create forms of expression that are constantly being pushed to the limit and are never-ending;
3.12. Meaning of life: The meaning of life is closely related to our three main natures. The one we crave the most and have the most difficulty in resolving is transcendence. According to the philosophical framework of the third nature, if we all want to form a relatively stable and harmonious organic whole between the biosphere, the intelligencesphere, ourselves, our communities, our species and all kinds of superpowers, then the pursuit of the goal of harmony from the individual to the biosphere is the most realistic and the greatest transcendence; this transcendence can be pursued by everyone, and everyone can make contributions to it; This transcendence is both realizable and always in the process of perfection, and it is the never-ending noble pursuit of all mankind;
3.13. Human civilization is the product of blind mechanism and chance, and is a trial-and-error mechanism in the long river of history: the 26 civilizations that have appeared in the human race so far, except for one, have either perished or gone into decline, and the fundamental reason for this is that civilization is the product of the interaction between Homo sapiens and the cultural cloud, and because the cultural cloud has no design and no purpose, and the cultural cloud is the product of a blind mechanism, the civilization contained in the cultural cloud is also blind and is accidental. The civilization contained in the culture cloud is also blind and accidental, and it can hardly withstand the trial-and-error selection of history, not to mention the long-term selection of tens of thousands of years similar to the trial-and-error mechanism of the natural world. Since civilization is the product of blindness, no matter what kind of civilization claims to have a clear goal, it is impossible to prove that its goal is correct, let alone whether it can achieve its goal. This is the same reason that biological evolution requires millions of years of trial and error.
4. Conclusion
Wilson says, "Collaboration between scientists and humanists can result in a whole new philosophy that will lead mankind to continuous discovery. Such a philosophy blends the best and most practical elements of the two academic schools of thought. The efforts of these individuals will conceive the Third Enlightenment." With the achievements of the natural sciences, especially the advances made in the last two or three decades in the disciplines of paleontology, anthropology, psychology, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology, the time has come for human knowledge to make an entirely new philosophy within the paradigm of the natural sciences.
We have searched for and established three foundations for the study and judgment of human philosophical problems in the achievements of natural sciences, established the conceptual framework of the third nature of philosophy under the paradigm of natural sciences, and attempted to make philosophical inquiries and explorations of a series of basic philosophical problems under the paradigm of natural sciences. We cannot guarantee the correctness of our three foundations, nor can we guarantee the scientificity of our philosophical framework, nor can we guarantee the truthfulness of our conclusions on a series of fundamental philosophical questions under this framework.
However, we hope that this small step we have taken on the road to the scientization of philosophy will trigger a situation in which 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 is an objective fact, which can be shared by all rational observers; that this objective fact is determined by the laws of nature (the Laws); and that these laws of nature (the Laws) can be discovered through systematic observation and experimentation. Then, philosophers will easily agree on the central events of truth in the field of philosophy, and philosophy will certainly be able to match the advances made in mathematics and experimental sciences, and philosophy will then enter into a world where "the physical world is ordered and intelligible. It is therefore to be expected that a new era of philosophy will dawn.
Under the paradigm of the natural sciences, philosophy is able to integrate knowledge with the natural sciences, and with a wide range of humanities and social disciplines. Thus, it is expected that there will be a great integration of human knowledge and a great correction of culture, and that, as John Brockman has said, those scientists and thinkers in the empirical world have constructed a third culture through their work and writings. The time of the third culture has come, and the conditions for redefining "who and what we are" are beginning to be met. Thus begins the Third Enlightenment called for by Wilson to produce the right vision and wise choices with the knowledge and wisdom of all mankind to solve the philosophical, human and biospheric crises we face.
5. Reference
Citing Literature:
【1】 John Brockman, Those Questions Scientists Worry About All Night, Zhejiang People's Publishing House 2017 Hu Zhengfei, Wang Yang, Yang Mingfang, translated
【2】 Robert Solomon, The Big Question: A Concise Introduction to Philosophy, Guangxi Normal University Press, translated by Zhang Boutian
【3】 Jared Diamond, "The Third Chimpanzee - The Incarnation and Future of Humanity" Shanghai Translation Publishing House 2012 Translated by Wang Dao also
【4】 Ouyang Qian, "Badiou's "Philosophical Manifesto" - Ending the "End of Philosophy"", Philosophical Dynamics, No. 2, 2014.
【5】 Tian Chongqin, Zhang Chuankai, Yang Shanxie Handbook of Concise Western Philosophy Nanjing University Press 1989
【6】 Stephen Hawking, Lenard Monodino, The Grand Design Hunan Science and Technology Press 2011 Translated by Wu Zhongchao
【7】 Stephen Hawking A Brief History of Time Hunan Science and Technology Press 2007 Translated by Xu Mingxian and Wu Zhongchao
【8】 Mario Bonger, "Philosophy and Anti-Philosophy", Foreign Theoretical Dynamics, No. 11, 2013, translated by Wan Yuzhe
【9】 Edward Wilson, "The Great Integration of Knowledge: Science and Humanities in the 21st Century" CITIC Publishing Group 2016 Translated by Liang Jinjun
【10】 Edward Wilson The Origin of Creation Zhejiang People's Publishing House 2018 Wei Wei Translation
【11】 Robert Solomon, Katherine Higgins A Brief History of World Philosophy Jiangxi People's Publishing House 2017 Translated by Mei Lan
【12】 Chris Buskus, "Evolutionary Thinking: Darwin's Influence on Our Worldview" Sichuan People's Publishing House 2009 Translated by Xu Jigui
【13】 James Watson, Andrew Berry D N A: Secrets of Life Shanghai Century Press Translated by Ya-Yun Chen
【14】 John Brockman, Life: the Dawn of Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Anthropology and Environmental Science Zhejiang People's Publishing House 2017 Translated by Huang Xiao-Riding
【15】 Newton: A New Biography by R. Elliff, translated by Wan Zhaoyuan, Yilin Publishing House, 2013.
【16】 Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Brain Hunan Science and Technology Publishing House Translated by Xu Mingxian and Wu Zhongchao
【17】 David Eagleman The Story of the Brain Zhejiang Education Publishing House 2019 Translated by Lujia
【18】 Jiang Chunyun, Editor-in-Chief, Saving the Earth's Biosphere: On the Transformation of Human Civilization, Xinhua Publishing House, 2012
【19】 John R. McNeill, Fresh from the Sun CITIC Publishing Group 2017 Translated by Fenfang Li
【20】 David Reich, The Story of Human Origins Zhejiang People's Publishing House 2019 Ye Kaixiong, Hu Zhengfei Translation
【21】 Christian A Minimalist History of Mankind: From the Big Bang to the 21st Century CITIC Press 2016 Translated by Wang Rui
【22】 Weisman, The World Without Us, Chongqing Publishing House, 2015, translated by Liu Sihan
【23】 Yuval Hraley A Brief History of Man - From Animals to God CITIC Press 2014 Translated by Junhong Lin
【24】 Antonio Damasio Descartes' Mistake: Emotions, Reasoning, and the Brain Beijing Joint Publishing Company 2018 Yin Yunlu Translation
【25】 The Big Idea of the West, Hwa Hsia Publishing House, 2008, translated by Chen Jiaying et al.
【26】 Arnold Toynbee, D. C. Somerville, The Study of History Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2010 Guo Xiaoling et al.
【27】 Stewart Brand, "The Laws of the Earth" CITIC Press, 2010, translated by Tian Lin
【28】 John H. Bridley, 3.5 Billion Years of Life Objects Harbin Publishing House 2017 Translated by Tian Lin
【29】 Darwin, The Descent of Man, The Commercial Press, 1997, translated by Pan Guangdan and Hu Shouwen.
【30】 John Brockman The Mind: The New Science of the Brain, Memory, Personality, and Happiness Zhejiang People's Publishing House 2019 Huang Jueping Deng Yuan Translated by Ouyang Mingliang
【31】 Paul R. Elrick, Human Nature: Genes, Culture, and the Human Prospect, Jincheng Publishing House, translated by Xiangci Li and Joyce Hong.
【32】 Michael Tomasello The Natural History of the Human Mind: The Path of Mental Evolution from Ape to Social Man Beijing Normal University Press 2017 Translated by Yanjie Su
【33】 Robert L. Kelly The Fifth Beginning - How Six Million Years of Human History Foretells Our Future CITIC Press 2018 Translated by Xu Jian
【34】 Kevin Lalande Unfinished Evolution: why gorillas don't dominate the world CITIC Publishing Group 2018 Shi Gengshan Zhang Shanglian Translation
【35】 Cui Gengyin Zhang Cuiying Cui Linghao The Human Brain: The Last Fortress of Natural Science Hebei Science and Technology Press 2002
【36】 Ernst Cahill's Theory of Man Shanghai Translation Publishing House 2014 Translated by Gan Yang
【37】 Michael Gazzaniga The Glory of Humanity: What Makes Us Unique Beijing Joint Publishing Company 2016 Translated by Yalun Peng
【38】 Saussure, A Course in General Linguistics, The Commercial Press, 2009, translated by Gao Mingkai.
【39】 В. А. Istrin The History of Words China International Broadcasting Press 2018 Translated by Zuo Shaoxing
【40】 Daniel Boal, "The Greedy Brain", Mechanical Industry Press, 2013, translated by X. W. Lin
【41】 Michael Gazzaniga, Who's in Charge? Zhejiang People's Publishing House 2013 Translated by Lujia
【42】 Randy Larson, David Bass Personality Psychology: Genes and Personality People's Posts and Telecommunications Publishing House 2012 Guo Yongyu He Jinbo Translation
【43】 Plato, The Dialogues of Plato, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 2013 Translated by Dai Ziqin
【44】 Russell, A History of Western Philosophy, The Commercial Press, 1963, translated by He Zhaowu, Joseph Lee.
【45】 Mortimer Adler Aristotle for Everyone CITIC Publishing Group 2019 Translated by Liu Yang
【46】 Kant's Critique of Pure Reason: An Annotated Edition (People's University of China Press, 2011) Translated and annotated by Li Qiuzuo
【47】 Spinoza's Ethics, The Commercial Press, 2010, translated by He Lin
【48】 Brooke Noel Moore, Kenneth Bruder The Power of Thought A History of Philosophy in China and the West Backwave Publishing Company 2017 Translated by Li Hong Yun Ni Jia
【49】 Dewey's Reconstruction of Experience: the Pedagogy and Psychology of Dewey East China Normal University Press 2017 Yefu Li, ed.
【50】 Dewey, Democracy as Freedom : Dewey's Political Philosophy and the Philosophy of Law / East China Normal University Press 2017 Edited by Zhang Guoqing
【51】 Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality, People's University of China Press, 2007 Translated by Xu Jinsheng, et al.
【52】 Stuart Sim The Seven Deadly Sins of Greed China Friendship Publishing Company 2018 Translated by Wen Zhuge
【53】 Robert L. Heilbroner Harvard Minimalist Economics Hainan Publishing House 2018 Translated by Xinwei Tang
【54】 M. Ridley, Innate and Postnatal: Genes, Experiences, and What Makes Us Human, Mechanical Industry Press 2015 by Anna Huang
【55】 Daniel Goleman, "Emotional Intelligence - Why Emotional Intelligence is More Important than Intelligence" CITIC Press, 2010, translated by Yang Chunxiao
【56】 Zhang Wuchang, "How to Learn Economics the Right Way" LoveThought.com Link to this book: http://www.aisixiang.com/data/110669.html
【57】 John Brockman, "How Human Thinking Co-Evolved with the Internet" Zhejiang People's Publishing House 2017 Translated by Fu Xiaoguang
【58】 Antonio Damasio When the Self Comes Knocking: Building the Conscious Brain Beijing Joint Publishing Company 2018 Translated by Li Tingyan
【59】 John Brockman, Culture, Zhejiang People's Publishing House 2019 Hou Xinzhi Xu Yunping Sheng Yangyan Translation
【60】 Michael Tomasello, The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, China Social Science Press, 2011, translated by Dunmin Zhang.
【61】 Kenrick, Griskevicius The Rational Animal CITIC Publishing House 2014 Wei Qun Translation
【62】 Jonathan Haidt, The Elephant and the Elephant Rider: Assumptions of Happiness, Zhejiang People's Publishing House, 2012 Translated by Li Jingyao
【63】 Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene: 40th Anniversary Updated Edition CITIC Press 2018 Translated by Lu Yunzhong
【64】 Samuel Huntington, "The Clash of Civilizations and the Reconstruction of World Order", Xinhua Publishing House, 1998, translated by Zhou Qi, etc.
【65】 Martin Heidegger, Introduction to the History of the Concept of Time, The Commercial Press, 2009, translated by Ou Dongming
【66】 Francis Fukuyama, Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order Guangxi Normal University Press 2015 Tang Lei Translation
【67】 Miao Litian, The Complete Works of Aristotle (Collected Works) Renmin University of China Press 2016
【68】 Martin Puckner The Power of Words: How Literature Shapes Humanity, Civilization, and World History CITIC Press 2019 Translated by Chen Fangdai
【69】 Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe Hunan Science and Technology Press 2013 Translated by Wang Wenhao
【70】 Kant's Critique of Practical Reason (Annotated Edition), Renmin University of China Press, 2010, translated and annotated by Li Qiuyu
【71】 Russell, A Brief History of Western Philosophy Shaanxi Normal University Press 2010 Compiled by Wen Li
【72】 Russell, The Wisdom of the West: from Socrates to Wittgenstein Shanghai People's Publishing House 2016 Translated by Qu Tiepeng and others
【73】 Blackburn's Ethics in Our Time, translated by Liang Manli, Translation and Publishing House, 2013
【74】 Richard Joyce The Evolution of Morality Translation Publishing House 2017 Translated by Liu Pengbo Huang Suzhen
【75】 Churchland, Touching the Nerve: I Am My Brain, Mechanical Industry Press, 2015, translated by Hengxi Li
【76】 Gazzaniga's Dual Brain Tale: The Autobiography of Gazzaniga, the Father of Cognitive Neuroscience, Zhejiang People's Publishing House, 2016 Luo Lu Translation
【77】 British New Scientist Magazine Editorial Science Quick Read: New Worlds in the Brain People's Posts and Telecommunications Publishing House 2019 Cai Chunlin Tang Galloping Translation
【78】 Jianli Wang, Fadao Tai, Qingmei Zhao "Dopamine-Dependent Mechanisms of the Social Interaction Reward Effect" Life Sciences Vol. 23, No. 5 May 2011
【79】 Zhang, H. , Wang, X. , Li, F. "The role of reward and motivation in pain and its relief" Journal of Neuroanatomy 2016 , 32(1): 108 -112
【80】 Xu Benke He Yun Sun Anbang Chen Yuncai "Role of dopamine in the nucleus ambiguus in reward and reinforcement learning" Journal of Anatomy 2818, Vol. 41, No. 4
【81】 Zhang Hui et al. "Research Progress of Reward Circuit in the Treatment of Emotional Diseases" Chinese Convalescent Medicine 2013, Volume 22, Issue 9
【82】 Ray Kurzweil, "The Singularity is Near", Mechanical Industry Press, 2011, translated by Li Qingcheng, Dong Zhenhua, and Tian Yuan.
【83】 Gerald M. Edelman Second Nature Hunan Science and Technology Press 2017 Translated by Tang Lu
【84】 Gregory Cochrane Henry Harpending The 10,000-Year Burst: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution CITIC Publishing Group 2017 Translated by Li Jing Peng
【85】 Yuval Hraley A Brief History of the Future - From Homo Sapiens to Homo Deus CITIC Press 2017 Translated by Junhong Lin
【86】 Sam Harris, "Free Will: Using Science to Determine Good and Evil", Zhejiang People's Publishing House, 2013, translated by Ouyang Mingliang.
【87】 Wikipedia entry
【88】 Baidu Encyclopedia Entry
【89】 WikiTextbook
【90】 Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, Hunan Science and Technology Press, 1991, translated by Xu Pei.
【91】 Quote from Baidu Knowledge
【92】 The Heart of the Matter Central Committee of the United States National Academy of Sciences 2013
【93】 Edward Wilson Genesis: From Cell to Civilization, the Deep Origins of Society CITIC Press 2019 Fu He Translation
【94】 Edward Wilson, The Meaning of Human Existence Zhejiang People's Publishing House in 2018 Qian Jing Wei Wei Translated
【95】 Nicholas Bunin Yu Jiyuan, English-Chinese Dictionary of Western Philosophy, People's Publishing House, 2001.
【96】 Hayek, in Models of Individualism and Models of Collectivism, edited by O'Neill, 1973, bk. 44
【97】 Mortimer Adler The Lost Side of Philosophy - The Top Ten Philosophical Mistakes You Mustn't Know CITIC Publishing House 2019 Translated by Liu Dongdong
【98】 Stanislas Dion The Brain and Consciousness: Cracking the Mystery of the Human Mind Zhejiang Education Publishing House 2018 Translated by Zhang Yi
【99】 Frans de Waal, The Age of Empathy Hunan Science and Technology Publishing House 2014 Translated by Yang Liu
【100】 Nicholas Wade, "Born Troubled" Electronic Industry Press 2015 Translated by Hua Chen
【101】 Mortimer Adler, The Underpinnings of Philosophy: Six Philosophical Themes in the Eternal Pursuit of Humanity CITIC Publishing House, 2019 Translated by Luan Jianhong
【102】 Hayek, The Fatal Conceit China Social Science Press 2000 Feng Keli, Hu Jinhua Translation
【103】 Karl Popper, Emancipation through Knowledge: Lectures and Essays on the History of Philosophy and Art, China Academy of Art Press, 2014 Translated by Fan Jingzhong
【104】 John Brockman, Thinking: The New Science of Decision Making, Problem Solving, and Prediction Zhejiang People's Publishing House in 2018 Translated by Li Huizhong Zhu Jinjie
【105】 Edward Wilson, "On the Nature of Man" Xinhua Publishing House 2015 Translated by Julia Hu
【106】 D.M. Bass, " Evolutionary Psychology : The New Science of the Psyche", East China Normal University Press, 2007, translated by Xiong Zhehong et al.
【107】 Ralph Linton The Culture Tree: A Brief History of World Cultures Beijing Normal University Press 2017 Translated by He Daokuan
【108】 L.J. Parker, "The San People of Africa", Water Conservancy and Hydro Power Press, 2004, translated by Zheng Xinyang.
【109】 John E. Mayfield, Engines of Complexity Hunan Science and Technology Press 2018 Translated by Tang Lu
【110】 John Brockman, Those New Concepts of Science That Make You Smarter, Zhejiang People's Publishing House 2017 Translated by Li Huizhong
Comments