Human dignity and technology: A study and commentary∗

Several contradictory definitions were provided for evolution. It was viewed as progress or as local adaptation, as widening or as exploiting of transformation perspectives, as emergence of non‐historical patterns or as history of Life.

The conflicting views of evolution can be reconciled by taking the rival terms as different moments, or phases, of a single process. The first phase is form creation, the second is form selection. Progress and adaptation, widening and reduction of perspectives, emergence and history orderly mark the two successive phases.

Dynamic Structuralism and Darwinism differ in the preferential emphasis they put, respectively, in the first or in the second phase. According to structuralists, mere history does not depict a process: nothing can happen outside a frame, without a grid of meanings. A chance event, a non‐intelligible event is not a fact. A set of generative principles, of rules of form, is required both to produce evolution and to make it understandable.

By entrusting innovation to chance the Darwinian historical view is essentially pessimistic. Any small step forward can only be achieved at a price of innumerable sacrifices, and only the very few survive. In the dynamic structuralist view, forms (e.g. the mild “splash” by D'Arcy Thompson) emerge spontaneously and immediately, with no need of countless failures. They express concealed potentialities, explore the varied inventory of Nature, and do not result from the meaningless trouble of history.     

Structuralism as a philosophy of mathematical practice

This paper compares the statement ‘Mathematics is the study of structure’ with the actual practice of mathematics. We present two examples from contemporary mathematical practice where the notion of structure plays different roles. In the first case a structure is defined over a certain set. It is argued firstly that this set may not be regarded as a structure and secondly that what is important to mathematical practice is the relation that exists between the structure and the set. In the second case, from algebraic topology, one point is that an object can be a place in different structures. Which structure one chooses to place the object in depends on what one wishes to do with it. Overall the paper argues that mathematics certainly deals with structures, but that structures may not be all there is to mathematics. I wish to thank Colin McLarty as well as the anonymous referees for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper.     

Some remarks on the bearing of model theory on the theory of theories

The present paper offers some remarks on the significance of first order model theory for our understanding of theories, and more generally, for our understanding of the “structuralist” accounts of the nature of theoretical knowledge that we associate with Russell, Ramsey and Carnap. What is unique about the presentation is the prominence it assigns to Craig’s Interpolation Lemma, some of its corollaries, and the manner of their demonstration. They form the underlying logical basis of the analysis.     

Natures,Human Nature,Genes and Souls: Reclaiming Theological Anthropology Through Biological Structuralism

Abstract : Within the field of Theology and Science, discussions regarding the relationship between biology and theological anthropology have tended to focus on the themes of ‘human uniqueness’ and ‘human nature’. These ideas have continued among theologians and anthropologists despite the widespread agreement among neo‐Darwinian evolutionary biologists that such general or universal accounts of ‘natures’ in general, or ‘human nature’ in particular, have no proper place within the neo‐Darwinian evolutionary framework. In view of this neo‐Darwinian rejection of universal human nature and the subsequent undermining of theological anthropologies based on such, Biological Structuralism is proposed as an alternative theoretical framework through which to construct a theological anthropology in light of evolution. Within the Structuralist framework scientific resources are provided which facilitate fresh perspectives on ancient theological discussions regarding the nature of the soul and the place of nonhuman animals within theological anthropology.     

走向整合的智力研究 ——Demetriou的经验结构式认知发展理论述评

基于经验结构式认知发展理论的智力结构包含环境指向系统、超认知系统和加工系统三个层次。环境指向系统用于表征和加工不同领域的信息,加工系统是个体加工信息的操作平台,超认知系统负责监控和调节其他两个系统的认识活动。三个层次的发展既具有各自的特点又相互影响。因此,该理论指出智力结构的发展是一个动态平衡过程,存在三种发展变化模式：自下而上、自上而下和平行变化。智力结构层次内和层次间的发展都要遵循四种变化的机制。该理论作为整合型智力理论有自己的优势,但在概念使用、超认知概念的提出以及执行功能在结构中定位等问题有待商榷