Evolutionary neurobiology and art

In his important book on evolutionary theory, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett warns that Darwin's idea seeps through every area of human discourse like a "universal acid" (Dennett, 1995). Art and the aesthetic response cannot escape its influence. So my approach in this chapter is essentially naturalistic. Friedrich Nietzsche writes of observing the human comedy from afar, "like a cold angel...without anger, but without warmth" (Nietzsche, 1872, p. 164). Whether Nietzsche, of all people, could have done this is a matter of debate. But we know what he means. It describes a stance outside the human world as if looking down on human folly from Mount Olympus. From this stance, humans, their art and neurology are all part of the natural world, all part of the evolutionary process, the struggle for existence. The anthropologist David Dutton, in his contribution to the Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, says that all humans have an aesthetic sense (Dutton, 2001). It is a human universal. Biologists argue that such universals have an evolutionary basis. Furthermore, many have argued that not only humans but also animals, at least the higher mammals and birds, have an appreciation of the beautiful and the ugly (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1988).11Charles Darwin indeed writes "Birds appear to be the most aesthetic of all animals, excepting, of course, man, and they have nearly the same sense of the beautiful that we have" (1871, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, London: John Murray, vol.2, xiii, 39). This again suggests that aesthetics has an evolutionary origin. In parenthesis here, I should perhaps say that I am well aware of the criticism leveled at evolutionary psychology. I am well aware that it has been attacked as just so many "just-so" stories. This is neither the time nor the place to mount a defense but simply just to say that I believe that a defense is eminently feasible. © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Evolutionary neurobusiness

Numerous scientific disciplines suffer from a common epistemological ailment. They tend to generate impressive bodies of empirical knowledge that are otherwise disjointed. The key force that shapes this reality is the lack of organizing meta-frameworks that are capable of otherwise creating a consilient body of core knowledge. In the current paper, we seek to demonstrate the synthetic value of evolutionary theory across a wide range of neuro-business disciplines including neuroeconomics, neuromarketing, neuroentrepreneurship, and organizational neuroscience. Neuroscientists operating at the junction of the brain sciences and a wide range of business disciplines stand to benefit in recognizing that the minds of Homo consumericus, Homo corporaticus, and Homo economicus have been forged by Darwinian forces that have shaped all living organisms. A complete and accurate understanding of most neuro-business phenomena requires that these be tackled at both the proximate (i.e., how something operates) and ultimate (its adaptive function) levels.

Modeling, simulating, and simplifying links between stress, attachment, and reproduction

John Bowlby's use of evolutionary theory as a cornerstone of his attachment theory was innovative in its day and remains useful. Del Giudice's target article extends Belsky et al.'s and Chisholm's efforts to integrate attachment theory with more current thinking about evolution, ecology, and neuroscience. His analysis would be strengthened by (1) using computer simulation to clarify and simulate the effects of early environmental stress, (2) incorporating information about non-stress related sources of individual differences, (3) considering the possibility of adaptive behavior without specific evolutionary adaptations, and (4) considering whether the attachment construct is critical to his analysis.

Synapses, quantum theory and panpsychism

The introduction situates the ‘hard problem’ in its historical context and argues that the problem has two sides: the output side (the Kant-Eccles problem of the freedom of the Will) and the input side (the problem of qualia). The output side ultimately reduces to whether quantum mechanics can affect the operation of synapses. A discussion of the detailed molecular biology of synaptic transmission as presently understood suggests that such affects are unlikely. Instead an evolutionary argument is presented which suggests that our conviction of free agency is an evolutionarily induced illusion and hence that the Kant-Eccles problem is itself illusory. This conclusion is supported by well-known neurophysiology. The input side, the problem of qualia, of subjectivity, is not so easily outflanked. After a brief review of the neurophysiological correlates of consciousness (NCC) and of the Penrose-Hameroff microtubular neuroquantology it is again concluded that the molecular neurobiology makes quantum wave-mechanics an unlikely explanation. Instead recourse is made to an evolutionarily- and neurobiologically-informed panpsychism. The notion of an ‘emergent’ property is carefully distinguished from that of the more usual ‘system’ property used by most dual-aspect theorists (and the majority of neuroscientists) and used to support Llinas’ concept of an ‘oneiric’ consciousness continuously modified by sensory input. I conclude that a panpsychist theory, such as this, coupled with the non-classical understanding of matter flowing from quantum physics (both epistemological and scientific) may be the default and only solution to the problem posed by the presence of mind in a world of things.