Neurobiological foundations of aesthetics and art

A theory of the neurobiological foundations of aesthetics and art is described. This has its roots in emotion, in which what is pleasant or unpleasant, a reward or punisher, is the result of an evolutionary process in which genes define the (pleasant or unpleasant) goals for action. To this is added the operation of the reasoning, syntactic, brain system which evolved to help solve difficult, multistep, problems, and the use of which is encouraged by pleasant feelings when elegant, simple, and hence aesthetic solutions are found that are advantageous because they are parsimonious, and follow Occam's Razor. The combination of these two systems, and the interactions between them, provide an approach to understanding aesthetics that is rooted in evolution and its effects on brain design and function.     

Design and Sociocultural Evolution: Theoretical and Practical Considerations

The two approaches described here may clarify the role of design in sociocultural evolution by making best use of information already available. The first, holistic in nature, explores possible advantages of a convergence between the design, systems, and social evolution communities which, to date, have worked largely in isolation of one another. The benefits of juxtaposing the three disciplines are examined by reviewing three works on social evolution for their insights into design practice. The second approach is reductionist in nature, and proposes working across the evolutionary literatures of disciplines contiguous with design, again in order to quickly inform design practice. The two approaches are considered complementary rather than exclusionary.     

Ultrasociality and Intersubjectivity

Multidisciplinary studies of evolution are pointing toward an intersubjective understanding of human cognition, belief, and behavior. Contrary to classical views of reason and knowledge, human mental capacity should not be thought of as an individually based tool for independent judgment and logical problem-solving. Instead, key aspects of learning and cognition were likely shaped to facilitate our species’ greatest relative advantage from the standpoint of natural selection: large-scale collaboration. Much of what appears to be faulty reasoning or inaccurate belief when viewed at the level of individuals makes more sense when considered in terms of intersubjectivity and group-level processes. Yet, distributed cognition also has shortcomings. Among these is, paradoxically, the propensity toward individualistic understandings of human thinking and behavior. Moreover, our intersubjective thought processes tend to be biased in favor of our in-groups and maintaining existing systems. Taken together, these premises correspond with some of the theoretical underpinnings of community research and social action. Yet, they challenge or complicate others. Further consideration of humans’ intersubjective cognition and learning may yield improved results in a variety of practices, including education and efforts to catalyze social and systemic changes.     

Theologians Wanted! Some Reflections about the Creation/Evolution Debate

I plead here in favor of more frequent recourse to and input from theologians, in debates about the creationist crisis, not only in order to develop new aspects of theology concerning creation, but also to undertake a real theological diagnosis of this crisis. The task of theology is not simply to write catechisms or Summae, but it is much more to do with incompleteness, light and shade. Theologians must confront themselves with reality—like secular theology at the seventeenth century, but also natural theologies—without forgetting to pose limits: absolute power of God, reality of the evil, scientific discoveries that are negative for theology, etc. Theology is a work of revelation (apocalypse).     

Ringing the changes: In tribute to Arthur R. Peacocke1

Justin Barrett's consideration of some challenges for religious belief raised by evolutionary and cognitive theories of religion was criticized by Howard Van Till for overstating tensions, mischaracterizing the most important epistemological issues, and proposing a solution that perpetuates war on evolution. We argue that each of these claims is untrue, and is not conducive to dialogue that constructively engages and attempts to resolve tensions between science and religion where they do exist.     

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory : on Stephen Jay Gould's Monumental Masterpiece

Stephen Jay Gould's monumental The Structure of Evolutionary Theory “attempts to expand and alter the premises of Darwinism, in order to build an enlarged and distinctive evolutionary theory … while remaining within the tradition, and under the logic, of Darwinian argument.” The three branches or “fundamental principles of Darwinian logic” are, according to Gould: agency (natural selection acting on individual organisms), efficacy (producing new species adapted to their environments), and scope (accumulation of changes that through geological time yield the living world's panoply of diversity and morphological complexity). Gould's efforts to contribute something important to each of these three fundamental components of Darwinian Theory are far from successful.     

Evolution and Process Thought

Five topics arising from evolutionary biology open new possibilities for fruitful dialogue between scientists and proponents of the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. These topics (with the main authors whose views are discussed) are: (1) Contingency and Teleology, Stephen Jay Gould, Simon Conway Morris; (2) The Baldwin Effect and Interiority, Bruce Weber and David DePew, Daniel Dennett, Terrence Deacon, Susan Oyama; (3) Complexity and Design, Michael Behe, David Griffin; (4) Hierarchical Levels and Downward Causation, Theo Meyering, Charles Hartshorne; and (5) Self-organization and Emergence, Terrence Deacon, Philip Clayton. In the final section, I look at the relation of science and metaphysics and ask whether the subjectivity postulated by process philosophy is accessible to scientific investigation.     

Biological and Cultural Evolution in a Common Universal Trend of Increasing Complexity

In the present article, a depiction of complexity versus time will be used for the construction of a novel form of a tree of life, called The Pattern of Life, comprising the biological, cultural, and scientific forms of the evolutionary process. This diagram accentuates the implication of the successive modifications of developmental programs, in the cultural and scientific realms coupled to a feedback mechanism that is decisive for the accelerating pace of complexity growth, also suggested to be of support of a cautious prediction of future evolution.     

Two minds rationality

I argue that views of human rationality are strongly affected by the adoption of a two minds theory in which humans have an old mind which evolved early and shares many features of animal cognition, as well as new mind which evolved later and is distinctively developed in humans. Both minds have a form of instrumental rationality—striving for the attainment of goals—but by very different mechanisms. The old mind relies on a combination of evolution and experiential learning, and is therefore driven entirely by repeating behaviours which succeeded in the past. The new mind, however, permits the solution of novel problems by reasoning about the future, enabling consequential decision making. I suggest that the concept of epistemic rationality—striving for true knowledge—can only usefully be applied to the new mind with its access to explicit knowledge and beliefs. I also suggest that we commonly interpret behaviour as irrational when the old mind conflicts with the new and frustrates the goals of the conscious person.