Biological relativity revisited: the pre-eminent role of values.

IF 1.5 4区 生物学 Q4 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Theoretical Biology Forum Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.19272/202211402004
Denis Noble, George Ellis
{"title":"Biological relativity revisited: the pre-eminent role of values.","authors":"Denis Noble,&nbsp;George Ellis","doi":"10.19272/202211402004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Multilevel interpretations of development and evolution take to heart the contextual nature of both those processes, and so necessarily assume top-down causation occurs, right down to the physics level. In this article we revisit the Principle of Biological Relativity proposed by Noble in 2012, where all emergent levels of organisation are equally causally valid. While this is true in general for physical interactions between levels, we argue that in the case of conscious organisms making rational choices, there is indeed a preferred causal origin - namely the overall embracing influence of meaning and values. This is the opposite of what is suggested by a reductionist viewpoint, where it is the bottom-most physical level that is stated to be causally preferred (by some physicists), or the genetic level (by some evolutionary theorists). Charles Darwin was therefore correct to distinguish between Artificial (conscious) Selection, where values enter, and Natural Selection. The Modern Synthesis was wrong to exclude Darwin's distinction.</p>","PeriodicalId":54453,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Biology Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Biology Forum","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19272/202211402004","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Multilevel interpretations of development and evolution take to heart the contextual nature of both those processes, and so necessarily assume top-down causation occurs, right down to the physics level. In this article we revisit the Principle of Biological Relativity proposed by Noble in 2012, where all emergent levels of organisation are equally causally valid. While this is true in general for physical interactions between levels, we argue that in the case of conscious organisms making rational choices, there is indeed a preferred causal origin - namely the overall embracing influence of meaning and values. This is the opposite of what is suggested by a reductionist viewpoint, where it is the bottom-most physical level that is stated to be causally preferred (by some physicists), or the genetic level (by some evolutionary theorists). Charles Darwin was therefore correct to distinguish between Artificial (conscious) Selection, where values enter, and Natural Selection. The Modern Synthesis was wrong to exclude Darwin's distinction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新审视生物相对论:价值观的卓越作用。
对发展和进化的多层次解释将这两个过程的上下文本质放在心上,因此必然假设自上而下的因果关系发生,一直到物理层面。在这篇文章中,我们将重新审视诺贝尔在2012年提出的生物相对性原理,在该原理中,所有涌现的组织水平都具有同等的因果有效性。虽然对于不同层次之间的物理相互作用来说,这通常是正确的,但我们认为,在有意识的有机体做出理性选择的情况下,确实有一个首选的因果起源——即意义和价值观的整体拥抱影响。这与还原论的观点相反,还原论认为,最底层的物理层次(一些物理学家)或遗传层次(一些进化理论家)被认为是因果优先的。因此,查尔斯·达尔文区分价值进入的人工(有意识)选择和自然选择是正确的。《现代综合论》排除达尔文的区别是错误的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Theoretical Biology Forum
Theoretical Biology Forum 生物-生物学
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Editorial. The third-way third wave and the enduring appeal of bioexceptionalism. Origins and demise of selfish gene theory. Biological relativity revisited: the pre-eminent role of values. Evolution in two parts: as seen in a new fram ework for biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1