Meaning in Nature: Organic Manufacture?

The paper examines Marcello Barbieri’s (2007) Introduction to Biosemiotics. Highlighting debate within the biosemiotic community, it focuses on what the volume offers to those who explain human intellect in relation to what Turing called our ‘physical powers.’ In scrutinising the basis of world-modelling, parallels and contrasts are drawn with other work on embodied-embedded cognition. Models dominate biology. Is this a qualitative fact or does it point to biomechanisms? In evaluating the 18 contributions, it is suggested that the answers will shape the field. First, they will decide if biochemistry and explanatory reduction can be synergised by biosemantics. Second, they will show if our intellectual powers arise from biology. Does thinking use—not a language faculty—but what Marko? and colleagues call semiosis by the living? Resolution of such issues, it is suggested, can change how we view cognition. Above all, if the biomechanists win the day, cultural models can be regarded as extending natural meaning. On such a view, biomechanisms prompt us to act and perceive as we model our own natural models. This fits Craik’s vision: intellect gives us the alphanumerical ‘symbols’ that allow thoughts to have objective validity. For the biomechanist, this is explained—not by brains alone—but, rather, by acting under the constraints of historically extended sensoria.     

The Nature and Value of Bioethics Expertise

In this article, I address the extent to which experts in bioethics can contribute to healthcare delivery by way of aid in clinical decision‐making and policy‐formation. I argue that experts in bioethics are moral experts, in that their substantive moral views are more likely to be correct than those of non‐bioethicists, all else being equal, but that such expertise is of use in a relatively limited class of cases. In so doing, I respond to two recent arguments against the view that bioethicists are moral experts, one by Christopher Cowley and another by David Archard. I further argue that bioethics experts have significant additional contributions to make to healthcare delivery, and highlight a hitherto neglected aspect of that contribution: amelioration of moral misconception among clinicians. I describe in detail several aspects of moral misconception, and show how the bioethicist is in a prime position to resolve that sort of error.     

Darwin and divergence: The Wallace connection

Concluding statement Wallace's contributions to biological thought tend to be overlooked or overly praised, neither of which produces a satisfactory assessment. Examples of the latter tendency are the recent expositions by Brackman and Brooks; although both books contain much worthwhile material, both are flawed. At critical points their theories fail to measure up, Brackman's because of his misinterpretations of events in the month of June 1858, and Brooks's Darwin's September 5 letter to Gray could, and probably did, represent an ordering of his ideas in response to a felt challenge.A fruitful way to characterize the relationship between Darwin and Wallace may be found in terms of game theory. Most scholars look upon the relationship as a zero-sum game, with a winner and a loser, the matter of priority being considered as a single event. Another approach would be to look upon it as a non-zero-sum game with each man influencing the other. In this case, the productivity of one is stimulated by the contributions of the other, resulting in a net gain in knowledge overall, and both men become winners, or codiscoverers. This approach is possible if Wallace's contributions to the theory of evolution by means of natural selection are recognized.     

Darwin and political economy: The connection reconsidered

Conclusion It seems to me that no substantial support can be provided for the thesis that the Darwinian theory of evolution drew significantly upon ideas in contemporary Political Economy. What Darwin may have derived from Malthus was not an integral part of the theory of population that the classical economists, including Malthus, put forward. He did not know the literature of Political Economy; and if he had been acquainted with it, he would not have been able to derive anything from it that was important for the theory of natural selection. The judgment that with Darwin's theory there was a real transfer of knowledge from political economy to biology (Pancaldi 1985:262) cannot be sustained.     

Darwin and Inheritance: The Influence of Prosper Lucas

An important historical relation that has hardly been addressed is the influence of Prosper Lucas’s Treatise on Natural Inheritance on the development of Charles Darwin’s concepts related to inheritance. In this article we trace this historical connection. Darwin read Lucas’s Treatise in 1856. His reading coincided with many changes concerning his prior ideas on the transmission and expression of characters. We consider that this reading led him to propose a group of principles regarding prepotency, hereditary diseases, morbid tendencies and atavism; following Lucas, he called these principles: laws of inheritance.     

The Darwin of pangenesis

The Darwin of pangenesis is very much another Darwin. Pangenesis is Darwin's comprehensive theory of generation, his theory about all sexual and asexual modes of reproduction and growth. He never explicitly integrated pangenesis with his theory of natural selection. He first formulated pangenesis in the 1840s and integrated it with the physiology, including the cytology, of that era. It was, therefore, not consilient with the newer cytology of the 1860s when he published it in 1868. By reflecting on the role of pangenesis in Darwin's life and work, we can learn to take a wider view of his most general theorising about animal and plant life.     

Darwin and Dostoyevsky: twins

The Russian poet Fyodor Dostoyevsky published an insightful treatise on human nature in his novel ‘The Brothers Karamazov'' in 1880. His account of humanity may offer as much insight into human nature for scientists as Darwin''s The Descent of Man.Late in the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) published accounts of their investigation of humankind. Darwin did so in 1871 in his book The Descent of Man, Dostoyevsky in 1880 in the parable of The Grand Inquisitor in his book The Brothers Karamazov. Last year we celebrated Darwin''s anniversary; for biologists, 2010—the 130th anniversary of Dostoyevsky''s book—might have been the year of Dostoyevsky.Dostoyevsky was familiar with Darwin''s doctrine and he was willing to admit “man''s descent from the ape”. An orthodox Christian, he put this sentiment in religious terms: “It does not really matter what man''s origins are, the Bible does not explain how God moulded him out of clay or carved him out of stone. Yet, he saw a difference between humans and animals: humans have a soul.The philosopher Nikolay Berdyayev noticed: “[Dostoyevsky] concealed nothing, and that''s why he could make astonishing discoveries. In the fate of his heroes he relates his own destiny, in their doubts he reveals his vacillations, in their ambiguity his self-splitting, in their criminal experience the secret crimes of his spirit.”The Grand Inquisitor can be read as Dostoyevsky''s treatise on human nature. In the tale, Jesus Christ revisits Earth during the period of the Inquisition and is arrested by the Church and sentenced to death. The Grand Inquisitor comes to visit Jesus in his prison cell to argue with him about their conceptions of human nature. He explains that humankind needs to be ruled to be happy and that the true freedom Jesus offered doomed humanity to suffering and unhappiness. Dostoyevsky''s superposition of these two points of view on humankind reminds us of the principle of complementarity, by which the physicist Niels Bohr attempted to account for the particle-wave duality of quantum physics.Dostoyevsky conceives of humans as complex, contradictory and inconsistent creatures. Humans perceive personal liberty as a burden and are willing to barter for it, as the Grand Inquisitor explained to Christ, for “miracle, mystery, and authority”. In addition, “the mystery of human being does not only rest in the desire to live, but in the problem: for what should one live at all?” We might say that these faculties make Homo sapiens a religious species. Not in the sense of believing in gods or a god, but in the sense of the Latin word religare, which means to bind, connect or enfold. Humans are mythophilic animals, driven by a need to find a complete explanation for events in terms of intentions and purposes.Research into the neurological bases of imagination, transcendence, metaphorability, art and religion, as well as moral behaviour and judgement (Trimble, 2007) is consistent with Dostoyevsky''s views. It has identified areas of the brain that have been labelled as the ‘god module'' or ‘god spot'' (Alper, 2001). These areas represent a new stratum of evolutionary complexity, an emergence specific to the human species. Their mental translations might be tentatively designated as the Darwinian soul, anchored in the material substrate and neither immortal nor cosmic. As consciousness and volition have become legitimate subjects of neuroscience (Baars, 2003), the Darwinian soul, and with it spirituality, seems to be ripe for scientific inquiry: the quest for meaning, creation and perception of metaphors, the experience of the trinity of Truth, Good and Beauty, the capacity for complex feelings that Immanuel Kant called sublimity, the thrill of humour and play, the power of empathy and the follies of boundless love or hate. Secularization does not erase the superstructure of spirituality: it is reflected, however queer it might seem, in the hypertrophy of the entertainment industry and also, more gloomily, in spiritual conflicts on a global scale.Dostoyevsky''s views on the human soul might be closer to those of Alfred Russel Wallace, who believed that an unknown force directed evolution towards an advanced organization. We can identify this ‘force'' as the second law of thermodynamics (Sharma & Annila, 2007). By moving evolving systems ever farther away from equilibrium, the second law eventually became the Creator of the ‘Neuronal God''.Christ, in the parable of the Grand Inquisitor, might be conceived of as a symbol of the truth outside the human world. Christ was listening to the assertions and questions of his interlocutor, but did not say a single word. His silence is essential to the parable.Similarly, the cosmos, to which humanity has been addressing its questions and predications, remains silent. By science, we increase knowledge only by tiny increments. The ‘god modules'' of our brains, unsatisfied and impatient, have hastily provided the full truth, deposited in the Holy Scripture. There are at least three books claiming to contain the revealed and hence unquestionable truth: the Judaic Torah, Christian Bible and Muslim Qur''an. A dogma of genocentrism in biology might offer an additional Scripture: the sequence of DNA in the genomes.Dostoyevsky''s legacy may suggest an amendment to the UN Charter. We, united humankind, solemnly declare: No truth has ever been revealed to us; we respect and tolerate each other in our independent searching and erring.     

Darwin was right: inbreeding depression on male fertility in the Darwin family

Charles Darwin, who was married to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood, was the first experimentalist to demonstrate the adverse effects of inbreeding. He documented the deleterious consequences of self‐fertilization on progeny in numerous plant species, and this research led him to suspect that the health problems of his 10 children, who were very often ill, might have been a consequence of his marriage to his first cousin. Because Darwin's concerns regarding the consequences of cousin marriage on his children even nowadays are considered controversial, we analyzed the potential effects of inbreeding on fertility in 30 marriages of the Darwin–Wedgwood dynasty, including the marriages of Darwin's children, which correspond to the offspring of four cousin marriages and three marriages between unrelated individuals. Analysis of the number of children per woman through zero‐inflated regression models showed a significantly adverse effect of the husband inbreeding coefficient on family size. Furthermore, a statistically significant adverse effect of the husband inbreeding coefficient on reproductive period duration was also detected. To our knowledge, this is the first time that inbreeding depression on male fertility has been detected in humans. Because Darwin's sons had fewer children in comparison to non‐inbred men of the dynasty, our findings give empirical support to Darwin's concerns on the consequences of consanguineous marriage in his own progeny. © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114 , 474–483.     

Essay review: The Correspondence of the young Darwin

The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume I, 1821–1836; Volume II, 1837–1843 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, 1986).