涌现进化

此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，翻译字数共688，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。

Emergent evolution was the hypothesis that, in the course of evolution, some entirely new properties, such as mind and consciousness, appear at certain critical points, usually because of an unpredictable rearrangement of the already existing entities. The term was originated by the psychologist C. Lloyd Morgan in 1922 in his Gifford Lectures at St. Andrews, which would later be published as the 1923 book Emergent Evolution.^[1]^[2]

Emergent evolution was the hypothesis that, in the course of evolution, some entirely new properties, such as mind and consciousness, appear at certain critical points, usually because of an unpredictable rearrangement of the already existing entities. The term was originated by the psychologist C. Lloyd Morgan in 1922 in his Gifford Lectures at St. Andrews, which would later be published as the 1923 book Emergent Evolution.

突生演化是这样一种假设: 在进化的过程中，一些全新的属性，如思维和意识，在某些关键点上出现，通常是因为已经存在的实体发生了不可预知的重新排列。这个术语最早由心理学家 c. Lloyd Morgan 于1922年在他位于圣安德鲁斯的吉福德的讲述教学法中提出，这本书后来作为1923年出版的《突生演化。

The hypothesis was widely criticized for providing no mechanism to how entirely new properties emerge, and for its historical roots in teleology.^[2]^[3]^[4]

The hypothesis was widely criticized for providing no mechanism to how entirely new properties emerge, and for its historical roots in teleology.

这个假说因为没有提供全新属性如何出现的机制以及它在目的论中的历史根源而受到广泛的批评。

Historical context

The term emergent was first used to describe the concept by George Lewes in volume two of his 1875 book Problems of Life and Mind (p. 412). Henri Bergson covered similar themes in his popular 1907 book Creative Evolution on the Élan vital. Emergence was further developed by Samuel Alexander in his Gifford Lectures at Glasgow during 1916–18 and published as Space, Time, and Deity (1920). The related term emergent evolution was coined by C. Lloyd Morgan in his own Gifford lectures of 1921–22 at St. Andrews and published as Emergent Evolution (1923). In an appendix to a lecture in his book, Morgan acknowledged the contributions of Roy Wood Sellars's Evolutionary Naturalism (1922).

The term emergent was first used to describe the concept by George Lewes in volume two of his 1875 book Problems of Life and Mind (p. 412). Henri Bergson covered similar themes in his popular 1907 book Creative Evolution on the Élan vital. Emergence was further developed by Samuel Alexander in his Gifford Lectures at Glasgow during 1916–18 and published as Space, Time, and Deity (1920). The related term emergent evolution was coined by C. Lloyd Morgan in his own Gifford lectures of 1921–22 at St. Andrews and published as Emergent Evolution (1923). In an appendix to a lecture in his book, Morgan acknowledged the contributions of Roy Wood Sellars's Evolutionary Naturalism (1922).

“涌现”这个术语最初是由乔治 · 刘易斯在他1875年出版的《生活与心智的问题》(412页)第二卷中用来描述这个概念的。亨利 · 柏格森在他1907年的畅销书《生机勃勃的创造性进化》中也提到了类似的主题。1916-18年间，Samuel Alexander 在他位于格拉斯哥的吉福德的讲述教学法中进一步发展了羽化理论，并出版了《空间、时间和神性》(1920)。相关的术语突生演化是 c. Lloyd Morgan 在他1921-1922年在圣安德鲁斯的吉福德的讲述教学法中创造的，并出版为《突生演化(1923年)》。在他书中的演讲的附录中，摩根承认了罗伊 · 伍德 · 塞拉斯的进化自然主义(1922)的贡献。

Origins

Response to Darwin's Origin of Species

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace's presentation of natural selection, coupled to the idea of evolution in Western thought, had gained acceptance due to the wealth of observational data provided and the seeming replacement of divine law with natural law in the affairs of men.^[5] However, the mechanism of natural selection described at the time only explained how organisms adapted to variation. The cause of genetic variation was unknown at the time.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace's presentation of natural selection, coupled to the idea of evolution in Western thought, had gained acceptance due to the wealth of observational data provided and the seeming replacement of divine law with natural law in the affairs of men. However, the mechanism of natural selection described at the time only explained how organisms adapted to variation. The cause of genetic variation was unknown at the time.

由于提供了大量的观测数据，以及在人类事务中神圣法则似乎被自然法则所取代，查尔斯 · 达尔文和阿尔弗雷德·拉塞尔·华莱士对自然选择的描述，再加上西方思想中的进化论观点，得到了人们的认可。然而，当时描述的自然选择机制仅仅解释了生物如何适应变异。当时，遗传变异的病因还不得而知。

/* Styling for Template:Quote */ .templatequote { overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0; padding: 0 40px; } .templatequote .templatequotecite {

   line-height: 1.5em;
   /* @noflip */
   text-align: left;
   /* @noflip */
   padding-left: 1.6em;
   margin-top: 0;

}

St. George Jackson Mivart's On the Genesis of Species (1872) and Edward Cope's Origin of the Fittest (1887) raised the need to address the origin of variation between members of a species. William Bateson in 1884 distinguished between the origin of novel variations and the action of natural selection (Materials for the Study of Variation Treated with Especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species).^[5]

In examining this aspect, excluded ab initio by Darwin, Wallace came to the conclusion that Life itself cannot be understood except by means of a theory that includes "an organising and directive Life-Principle." These necessarily involve a "Creative Power", a "directive Mind" and finally "an ultimate Purpose" (the development of Man). It supports the view of John Hunter that "life is the cause, not the consequence" of the organisation of matter. Thus, life precedes matter and when it infuses matter, forms living matter (protoplasm).

在研究这个方面时，华莱士从一开始就排除了达尔文的观点，他得出的结论是，生命本身不能被理解，除非通过一种包括“组织和指导性的生命原则”的理论这些必然涉及到“创造力”、“指导性思维”和最终的“终极目的”(人的发展)。它支持约翰 · 亨特的观点，即“生命是物质组织的原因，而不是结果”。因此，生命先于物质，当它注入物质时，就形成了生命物质(原生质)。

Wallace's further thoughts

Wallace throughout his life continued to support and extend the scope of Darwin's theory of evolution via the mechanism of natural selection. One of his works, Darwinism, was often cited in support of Darwin's theory. He also worked to elaborate and extend Darwin and his ideas on natural selection. However, Wallace also realized that the scope and claim of the theory was limited. Darwin himself had limited it.

Another major scientist to question natural selection as the motive force of evolution was C. Lloyd Morgan, a zoologist and student of T.H. Huxley, who had a strong influence on Samuel Alexander. His Emergent Evolution (1923) established the central idea that an emergence might have the appearance of saltation but was best regarded as "a qualitative change of direction or critical turning point."(quoted in Reid, p. 73-74)

另一位质疑自然选择作为进化动力的主要科学家是 c · 劳埃德 · 摩根，他是一位动物学家，也是 t.h. 的学生。赫胥黎对塞缪尔 · 亚历山大有着深远的影响。他的《突生演化(1923)确立了一个中心思想，即一个涌现可能有跳跃的表象，但最好被视为“方向或关键转折点的质变”。(引自 Reid，第73-74页)

/* Styling for Template:Quote */ .templatequote { overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0; padding: 0 40px; } .templatequote .templatequotecite {

   line-height: 1.5em;
   /* @noflip */
   text-align: left;
   /* @noflip */
   padding-left: 1.6em;
   margin-top: 0;

}

In examining this aspect, excluded ab initio by Darwin, Wallace came to the conclusion that Life itself cannot be understood except by means of a theory that includes "an organising and directive Life-Principle." These necessarily involve a "Creative Power", a "directive Mind" and finally "an ultimate Purpose" (the development of Man). It supports the view of John Hunter that "life is the cause, not the consequence" of the organisation of matter. Thus, life precedes matter and when it infuses matter, forms living matter (protoplasm).

Emergent evolution was revived by Robert G. B. Reid (March 20, 1939 - May 28, 2016), a biology professor at the University of Victoria (in British Columbia, Canada). In his book Evolutionary Theory: The Unfinished Synthesis (1985), he stated that the modern evolutionary synthesis with its emphasis on natural selection is an incomplete picture of evolution, and emergent evolution can explain the origin of genetic variation. Biologist Ernst Mayr heavily criticized the book claiming it was a misinformed attack on natural selection. Mayr commented that Reid was working from an "obsolete conceptual framework", provided no solid evidence and that he was arguing for a teleological process of evolution.

1939年3月20日至2016年5月28日，加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省维多利亚大学的生物学教授 Robert G.b. Reid 恢复了突生演化。在他的著作《进化论: 未完成的综合》(1985)中，他指出强调自然选择的现代进化综论是一幅不完整的进化画卷，而突生演化可以解释遗传变异的起源。生物学家恩斯特 · 迈尔严厉批评这本书，声称它是对自然选择的误导攻击。评论说 Reid 是在一个“过时的概念框架”工作，没有提供确凿的证据，他主张进化的目的论过程。

/* Styling for Template:Quote */ .templatequote { overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0; padding: 0 40px; } .templatequote .templatequotecite {

   line-height: 1.5em;
   /* @noflip */
   text-align: left;
   /* @noflip */
   padding-left: 1.6em;
   margin-top: 0;

}

Wallace then refers to the operation of another power called "mind" that utilizes the power of life and is connected with a higher realm than life or matter:

Reid later published the book Biological Emergences (2007) with a theory on how emergent novelties are generated in evolution. According to Massimo Pigliucci "Biological Emergences by Robert Reid is an interesting contribution to the ongoing debate on the status of evolutionary theory, but it is hard to separate the good stuff from the more dubious claims." Pigliucci noted a dubious claim in the book is that natural selection has no role in evolution. It was positively reviewed by biologist Alexander Badyaev who commented that "the book succeeds in drawing attention to an under appreciated aspect of the evolutionary process". Others have criticized Reid's unorthodox views on emergence and evolution. Biologist Samuel Scheiner stated that Reid's "presentation is both a caricature of evolutionary theory and severely out of date."

里德后来出版了《生物能出现》(Biological Emergences，2007)一书，其中提出了一个关于新生事物如何在进化中产生的理论。按照 Massimo Pigliucci 的说法，“罗伯特 · 里德的《生物荣誉》是对进化论地位的持续辩论的一个有趣贡献，但是很难把好的东西和更可疑的说法区分开来。”皮格里乌奇在书中提到了一个可疑的观点，即自然选择在进化中没有任何作用。这本书得到了生物学家亚历山大 · 巴德耶夫的正面评价，他评论说: “这本书成功地引起了人们对进化过程中一个不受重视的方面的注意”。其他人则批评里德关于突现和进化的非正统观点。生物学家塞缪尔 · 谢纳(samuelscheiner)指出，里德的“陈述既是对进化论的讽刺，又严重过时”

/* Styling for Template:Quote */ .templatequote { overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0; padding: 0 40px; } .templatequote .templatequotecite {

   line-height: 1.5em;
   /* @noflip */
   text-align: left;
   /* @noflip */
   padding-left: 1.6em;
   margin-top: 0;

}

Proceeding from Hunter's view that Life is the directive power above and behind living matter, Wallace argues that logically, Mind is the cause of consciousness, which exists in different degrees and kinds in living matter.

/* Styling for Template:Quote */ .templatequote { overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0; padding: 0 40px; } .templatequote .templatequotecite {

   line-height: 1.5em;
   /* @noflip */
   text-align: left;
   /* @noflip */
   padding-left: 1.6em;
   margin-top: 0;

}

Emergent evolution

Early roots

The issue of how change in nature 'emerged' can be found in classical Greek thought - order coming out of chaos and whether by chance or necessity. Aristotle spoke of wholes that were greater than the sum of their parts because of emergent properties. The second-century anatomist and physiologist Galen also distinguished between the resultant and emergent qualities of wholes. (Reid, p. 72)^[5]

Hegel spoke of the revolutionary progression of life from non-living to conscious and then to the spiritual and Kant perceived that simple parts of an organism interact to produce a progressively complex series of emergences of functional forms, a distinction that carried over to John Stuart Mill (1843), who stated that even chemical compounds have novel features that cannot be predicted from their elements. [Reid, p. 72]^[5]

The idea of an emergent quality that was something new in nature was further taken up by George Henry Lewes (1874–1875), who again noted, as with Galen earlier, that these evolutionary "emergent" qualities are distinguishable from adaptive, additive "resultants." Henry Drummond in The Descent of Man (1894) stated that emergence can be seen in the fact that the laws of nature are different for the organic or vital compared to the inertial inorganic realm.

/* Styling for Template:Quote */ .templatequote { overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0; padding: 0 40px; } .templatequote .templatequotecite {

   line-height: 1.5em;
   /* @noflip */
   text-align: left;
   /* @noflip */
   padding-left: 1.6em;
   margin-top: 0;

}

As Reid points out, Drummond also realized that greater complexity brought greater adaptability. (Reid. p. 73)^[5]

Samuel Alexander took up the idea that emergences had properties that overruled the demands of the lower levels of organization. And more recently, this theme is taken up by John Holland (1998):

/* Styling for Template:Quote */ .templatequote { overflow: hidden; margin: 1em 0; padding: 0 40px; } .templatequote .templatequotecite {

   line-height: 1.5em;
   /* @noflip */
   text-align: left;
   /* @noflip */
   padding-left: 1.6em;
   margin-top: 0;

}

Evolution

进化

Category:Non-Darwinian evolution

类别: 非达尔文进化论

C. Lloyd Morgan and emergent evolution

Category:Philosophical theories

范畴: 哲学理论

Another major scientist to question natural selection as the motive force of evolution was C. Lloyd Morgan, a zoologist and student of T.H. Huxley, who had a strong influence on Samuel Alexander. His Emergent Evolution (1923) established the central idea that an emergence might have the appearance of saltation but was best regarded as "a qualitative change of direction or critical turning point."(quoted in Reid, p. 73-74)^[5] Morgan, due to his work in animal psychology, had earlier (1894) questioned the continuity view of mental evolution, and held that there were various discontinuities in cross-species mental abilities. To offset any attempt to read anthropomorphism into his view, he created the famous, but often misunderstood methodological canon:

Category:Evolutionary biology

分类: 进化生物学

Category:Holism

分类: 整体论

This page was moved from wikipedia:en:Emergent evolution. Its edit history can be viewed at 涌现进化/edithistory

↑ Morgan, Conway Lloyd (1923). Emergent evolution : the Gifford lectures, delivered in the University of St. Andrews in the year 1922. MIT Libraries. New York : Henry Holt and Company ; London : William and Norgate. http://archive.org/details/emergentevolutio00morg_0.

↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 Bowler, Peter J. (2001). Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain. University of Chicago Press. pp. 140-142, pp. 376-384.

↑ McLaughlin, Brian P. (1992). The Rise and Fall of British Emergentism. In A. Beckerman, H. Flohr, and J. Kim, eds., Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 49–93.

↑ Baylis, Charles A. (1929). The Philosophic Functions of Emergence. The Philosophical Review. Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 372-384.
↑ ^5.0 ^5.1 ^5.2 ^5.3 ^5.4 ^5.5 Reid, Robert G.B. (2007). Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 30. ISBN 978-0262182577. https://archive.org/details/degreesthatmatte00rapp_0/page/30.

[1] Morgan, Conway Lloyd (1923). Emergent evolution : the Gifford lectures, delivered in the University of St. Andrews in the year 1922. MIT Libraries. New York : Henry Holt and Company ; London : William and Norgate. http://archive.org/details/emergentevolutio00morg_0.

[Bowler_2001-2] 2.0 ^2.1 Bowler, Peter J. (2001). Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain. University of Chicago Press. pp. 140-142, pp. 376-384.
v
t
e
Inline tags
Attribution

{{Attribution needed}}

{{By whom}}

{{Weasel-inline}}

{{Which?}}

{{Who}}

Citation

{{Better source}}

{{Citation needed}}
{{Citation needed span}}

{{Reference necessary}}

{{Citation needed (lead)}}

{{Failed verification}}

{{Full}}

{{Primary source-inline}}

{{Request quotation}}

{{Retracted}}

{{Third-party-inline}}

Incomplete

{{Author missing}}

{{Author incomplete}}

{{Date missing}}

{{ISBN missing}}

{{Page needed}}

{{Publisher missing}}

{{Title incomplete}}

{{Year missing}}

{{Dead link}}

Content

{{Contradict-inline}}

{{Contradiction-inline}}

{{Dubious|talk page section name}}

{{Examples}}

{{Inconsistent}}

{{List fact}}

{{Lopsided}}

{{POV-statement}}

Date and place

{{Clarify timeframe}}

{{Quantify}}

{{Update after}}

{{Update-small}}

{{When}}

{{Where}}

{{Year needed}}

Wikification

{{Disambiguation needed}}

{{Pronunciation needed}}

Wording

{{Ambiguous}}

{{Awkward}}

{{Buzz}}

{{Clarify}}

{{Clarify span}}

{{Definition}}

{{Elucidate}}

{{Expand acronym}}

{{Technical-statement}}

{{Vague|optional message to be displayed on mouseover}}

{{Why?}}

Category

[3] v

[4] t

[5] e

[6] {{Attribution needed}}

[7] {{By whom}}

[8] {{Weasel-inline}}

[9] {{Which?}}

[10] {{Who}}

[11] {{Better source}}

[12] {{Citation needed}}
{{Citation needed span}}

{{Reference necessary}}

[13] {{Citation needed span}}

[14] {{Reference necessary}}

[15] {{Citation needed (lead)}}

[16] {{Failed verification}}

[17] {{Full}}

[18] {{Primary source-inline}}

[19] {{Request quotation}}

[20] {{Retracted}}

[21] {{Third-party-inline}}

[22] {{Author missing}}

[23] {{Author incomplete}}

[24] {{Date missing}}

[25] {{ISBN missing}}

[26] {{Page needed}}

[27] {{Publisher missing}}

[28] {{Title incomplete}}

[29] {{Year missing}}

[30] {{Dead link}}

[31] {{Contradict-inline}}

[32] {{Contradiction-inline}}

[33] {{Dubious|talk page section name}}

[34] {{Examples}}

[35] {{Inconsistent}}

[36] {{List fact}}

[37] {{Lopsided}}

[38] {{POV-statement}}

[39] {{Clarify timeframe}}

[40] {{Quantify}}

[41] {{Update after}}

[42] {{Update-small}}

[43] {{When}}

[44] {{Where}}

[45] {{Year needed}}

[46] {{Disambiguation needed}}

[47] {{Pronunciation needed}}

[48] {{Ambiguous}}

[49] {{Awkward}}

[50] {{Buzz}}

[51] {{Clarify}}

[52] {{Clarify span}}

[53] {{Definition}}

[54] {{Elucidate}}

[55] {{Expand acronym}}

[56] {{Technical-statement}}

[57] {{Vague|optional message to be displayed on mouseover}}

[58] {{Why?}}

[3] McLaughlin, Brian P. (1992). The Rise and Fall of British Emergentism. In A. Beckerman, H. Flohr, and J. Kim, eds., Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 49–93.
v
t
e
Inline tags
Attribution

{{Attribution needed}}

{{By whom}}

{{Weasel-inline}}

{{Which?}}

{{Who}}

Citation

{{Better source}}

{{Citation needed}}
{{Citation needed span}}

{{Reference necessary}}

{{Citation needed (lead)}}

{{Failed verification}}

{{Full}}

{{Primary source-inline}}

{{Request quotation}}

{{Retracted}}

{{Third-party-inline}}

Incomplete

{{Author missing}}

{{Author incomplete}}

{{Date missing}}

{{ISBN missing}}

{{Page needed}}

{{Publisher missing}}

{{Title incomplete}}

{{Year missing}}

{{Dead link}}

Content

{{Contradict-inline}}

{{Contradiction-inline}}

{{Dubious|talk page section name}}

{{Examples}}

{{Inconsistent}}

{{List fact}}

{{Lopsided}}

{{POV-statement}}

Date and place

{{Clarify timeframe}}

{{Quantify}}

{{Update after}}

{{Update-small}}

{{When}}

{{Where}}

{{Year needed}}

Wikification

{{Disambiguation needed}}

{{Pronunciation needed}}

Wording

{{Ambiguous}}

{{Awkward}}

{{Buzz}}

{{Clarify}}

{{Clarify span}}

{{Definition}}

{{Elucidate}}

{{Expand acronym}}

{{Technical-statement}}

{{Vague|optional message to be displayed on mouseover}}

{{Why?}}

Category

[60] v

[61] t

[62] e

[63] {{Attribution needed}}

[64] {{By whom}}

[65] {{Weasel-inline}}

[66] {{Which?}}

[67] {{Who}}

[68] {{Better source}}

[69] {{Citation needed}}
{{Citation needed span}}

{{Reference necessary}}

[70] {{Citation needed span}}

[71] {{Reference necessary}}

[72] {{Citation needed (lead)}}

[73] {{Failed verification}}

[74] {{Full}}

[75] {{Primary source-inline}}

[76] {{Request quotation}}

[77] {{Retracted}}

[78] {{Third-party-inline}}

[79] {{Author missing}}

[80] {{Author incomplete}}

[81] {{Date missing}}

[82] {{ISBN missing}}

[83] {{Page needed}}

[84] {{Publisher missing}}

[85] {{Title incomplete}}

[86] {{Year missing}}

[87] {{Dead link}}

[88] {{Contradict-inline}}

[89] {{Contradiction-inline}}

[90] {{Dubious|talk page section name}}

[91] {{Examples}}

[92] {{Inconsistent}}

[93] {{List fact}}

[94] {{Lopsided}}

[95] {{POV-statement}}

[96] {{Clarify timeframe}}

[97] {{Quantify}}

[98] {{Update after}}

[99] {{Update-small}}

[100] {{When}}

[101] {{Where}}

[102] {{Year needed}}

[103] {{Disambiguation needed}}

[104] {{Pronunciation needed}}

[105] {{Ambiguous}}

[106] {{Awkward}}

[107] {{Buzz}}

[108] {{Clarify}}

[109] {{Clarify span}}

[110] {{Definition}}

[111] {{Elucidate}}

[112] {{Expand acronym}}

[113] {{Technical-statement}}

[114] {{Vague|optional message to be displayed on mouseover}}

[115] {{Why?}}

[4] Baylis, Charles A. (1929). The Philosophic Functions of Emergence. The Philosophical Review. Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 372-384.

[Reid-5] 5.0 ^5.1 ^5.2 ^5.3 ^5.4 ^5.5 Reid, Robert G.B. (2007). Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 30. ISBN 978-0262182577. https://archive.org/details/degreesthatmatte00rapp_0/page/30.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

涌现进化

目录

Historical context

Origins

Response to Darwin's Origin of Species

Wallace's further thoughts

Emergent evolution

Early roots

C. Lloyd Morgan and emergent evolution

导航菜单

搜索