Rating: 
Summary: Another Botched Science/Philosophy Crossover
Review: In the last few decades, there have been more and more scientists stepping out into the realm of philosophical thought and tossing in their two cents regarding important metaphysical questions. On the whole, this is a good, encouraging trend.
Yet, it is becoming too predictable that a philosophy book, written in the vain of science, will undoubtedly be strong in the latter, and fall so short in the former: Morowitz's "Emergence of Everything" is yet another testament to this trend.
I do not want to be too harsh, as there are some things this book does well, so I will focus on those first.
"Emergence of Everything" discusses the new trend in scientific thinking to group things into wholes rather than seperate them into parts. This trend was realized in philosophy by the Idealists showing roots in Plato, but taking life with Kant and primarily Hegel.
He then launches into a so-called "brief history of everything;" how evolution has transpired since the beginning of the cosmos until present day. The scientific explanations are quick, sometimes dense, but well-described. He leaves nothing out--including social sciences into latter day evolutions. And in the end even tampers with some spiritual implications. My point: the overview itself is satisfactory... even well-done I suppose.
Unfortunately, that IS basically all of the book's merits. It ends there: just a string of cosmological and historical observations. Despite explicitly calling his own book a "philosophical treatise" he lends no thought, analysis, or anything beyond questioning of the form, patterns or causes of specific evolutions or emergences. Most references to philosophy are more theological than philosophical, and he regularly refers to metaphysical phenomena with vague labels such as "God's Mind."
The book is a great description of the ontological and scientific occurences of our universe's evolution, but all deeper meaning is lost. The bridge he tries to erect is admirable, but typically it has been much sturdier starting from the other side. The theoretical side of this book has been explored more thoroughly by systems theorists', scientists such as Weinburg and Schroedinger, philosophers from Whitehead to Hegel, Schelling, and even contemporary writers like Habermas and Wilber.
Only worthwhile for its crash-course scientific chronology--even then, you'd be better off with more focused works.
Rating: 
Summary: Emergence of Everything Becomes an Emergence of Nothing
Review: Let me preface this review by asking if you have ever heard of cellular automata, Stephen Wolfram, or Conway's Game of Life? If all this is new to you, then this may be exactly the book for you.For the rest who know at least a little about the subject, this book is a waste of time for the two following reasons. First, by attempting to cover alot, the book covers nothing. It ties together ideas so broad, it's possible to make an argument (pro or con) for just about any idea in the universe. The second weakness is possibly even more severe. After investing my time and money in a book, I want to be taken somewhere that I was not at when I started. This book is entirely lacking in any useful, practical information on how to use the ideas of emergence. In other words, what are the next steps that I could take as a reader to explore these ideas? If the author is not going to give me any ideas about how to use the great ideas of emergence, perhaps he could at least tell me what others are currently doing or where I could go to do actual hands-on with emergence. After reading this book, my hands-on only leave me with hands full of fluff.
Rating:
Summary: False Equation
Review: Morowitz stats by pretending he is presenting emergence, but by the last chapter it becomes clear that his goal to look for the nature and operation of God in the emergent universe. His book is therefore more of a work of theology than science. The theology is cloaked in scientific jargon and mathematical equations, but its theology none the less. He asks the right questions but hasn't a clue as to the right answers. This is but one more attempt by a believer in the supernatural to use science to prove God and show a connection between science and religion. He failed on both counts .
Rating: 
Summary: A Reply to Scientific Atheism
Review: Morowitz the scientist makes a single point, which he drives home again, and again, ceaseless, incessantly, until finally it begins to sink in. It is, in this respect, perhaps the intellectual equivalent of Ravel's Bolero, or the yogi's infinitely repeated "Om". The point is that reductivism is the only tool we have for analyzing the world, it is an amazingly powerful tool, and yet at every level of complexity, emergent phenomena arise that could not have been predicted by the levels that preceded them, and can barely, if at all, be modeled an understood using reductivist analytical and experimental techiques. This is a message that will be rejected by one particular group: the self-styled "scientific atheists" who claim that scientific methodology ineluctably implies that God does not exist, or at least that there is no more reason to believe in God than it is to believe in the Tooth Fairy. Morowitz, by contrast, follows Spinoza in identifying the world of science as dealing with the product of the "immanent God" whose transcendance we attempt to capture spiritually. Scientific atheism's error is its inability to appreciate the notion of emergence. Just as consciousness emerges from a material and chemical substrate the scinetific understanding of which tell us virtually nothing about the nature of its emergent properties, so the physical universe may give rise to an emergent spirituality that simply escapes the scientific imagination. Morovitz' interesting book makes this point extremely clearly. I believe Amazon is due major kudos for providing a forum in which readers can compare and contrast their ideas. I really enjoyed the previous nine reviews of this provocative book.
Rating:
Summary: False Equation
Review: Motowitz's monumental book outlines 28 examples of said emergence, ranging from the making of our nonuniform universe, the emergence of stars and the elements of the periodic table, the solar system, planetary structures, universal metabolism, prokaryotic life, eukaryotic life, multicellular organisms, animals, humans, mind, philosophy and spirituality. At each level of emergence there may be agents that interact with their neighbors, not necessarily Darwinian interaction but some kind of interaction. Agents that find themselves to be successful are then latter discovered to be necessary for latter steps in the emergence, and their success is found as agents comply to what Morowitz calls a "pruning rule". The Darwinian selection principle, permitting agents to leave the most offspring as they are found to be fittest from natural selection, is such a pruning rule. The Pauli exclusion rule is a second example that Morowitz gives. The exclusion principle restricts the electron cloud that surrounds the natural elements (in our periodic table) in such a way that chemistry and bonding properties emerge from quantum mechanics; properties that are discovered to be necessary for life as we know it. On page 101 Morowitz writes: "...in our discussion of the Pauli exclusion principle we dealt with the restriction that no two electrons in a structure can share the same four quantum numbers - presumably four quantum numbers because of the four dimensions in formulating the Schrödinger equation using relativistic quantum mechanics. This principle does not come from dynamics of the problem, but from the symmetry requirements on the solutions.... Because of the non-dynamical feature, several physicists and philosophers of science detect a kind of noetic feature deep in physics" Morowitz points to this noetic quality in several places. Continuing on pages 101 to 102 he writes on the first recognized example of life-based behavior found in prokaryotes: ".... Somewhere in bacterial evolution, motility appeared. The operative structures are flagella, which rotate, propel the cells. A number of cases were discovered in which cells in a gradient of nutrients swim toward higher concentrations, and in a gradient of toxins swim toward lower concentration. The mechanism is somewhat indirect. Periodically the swimming cells randomly switch directions. In a favorable gradient they change less frequently, and in an unfavorable gradient they change more frequently. They are letting their profits run and cutting their losses. For a population of cells, this leads to a fit behavioral repertoire. The behavior looks causal, but the endpoint looks teleological. It requires sensing the environment, concentration versus time, and responding to the time gradient, which is also a space gradient, since the organisms are swimming. I think it is important to look at these hints of cognitive behavior as they appear." Regarding the mental or noetic aspect of all animal life, on page 138 Morowitz writes: "... There is currently a reexamination that argues that mental activity is universally distributed through the animal kingdom and perhaps in other taxa down to the unicellular eukaryotes. Psychologist Donald R. Griffen has gathered a great deal of evidence in the book Animal Minds and argues for the universality of cognition.... I see the grand dawn of the emergence of reflective thought." Morowitz describes the Principle of Competitive Exclusion (previously studied by Alfred Lotka, Vito Volterra, and Charles Elton), as a pruning rule that implies "... the impossibility of two species occupying the same niche in a steady-state ecosystem". For Morowitz this principle stems from Darwinian selection, but it has unsavory consequences as it affect social aspects of humanization. He writes of the principle that "... humans, having reflective thought and the power of choice, are not bound to living out a set of mathematical relations". In chapter 26, Morowitz gives accounts on how the Principle of Competitive Exclusion can be studied and used as a tool to avoid the unsavory qualities of ourselves (including prejudices and examples of genocide) that emerge from the principle when we unknowingly back into it. Morowitz did not notice that the Principle of Competitive Exclusion has a shadow principle, that I will name the Principle of Cooperative Inclusion. Nevertheless, this shadow principle has a noetic quality that Morowitz has grown fond of. It is such a teleological principle that says that hate will destroy itself when it is forced to coexist with the inclusion brought by love. And so my friends we hold onto the angry tension, not by competitive exclusion but by cooperative inclusion. A better world will unfold as hate ranges war with its own angry shadow; the catharsis will expunge our prejudices. Morowitz has many kind words for Teilhard de Chardin. On page 175 he writes: "... I see the World Wide Web as a reification of instantiation of the noosphere and consider Teilhard as an even more prescient thinker. Human thought is collective."
Rating:
Summary: Emerging complexity
Review: The Emergence of Everything is a valuable contribution to the dialogue between science and religion. It investigates the concept of emergence and considers fresh angles of looking at the world, at increasing complexity and at consciousness. The idea of emergence provides clues as to how novelty occurs.
The author chose 28 topics to consider, 28 moments of emergence in the history of the universe. Amongst the questions and phenomena discussed are the following: Why is there something rather than nothing? The non-uniformity of the universe, the emergence of stars, the periodic table, the solar system, planetary structure, geospheres, metabolism, cells, the neuron, animalness, hominization, toolmaking, language, agriculture, the worldviews of Athens and of Jerusalem, science and religion.
The point is to use history in order to study emergence, which can generate beliefs. Emergence has a divine aspect, the Word (Immanence) that becomes flesh (Transcendence). By looking at the work of Spinoza, Einstein and others, the author concludes that our evolving minds are the transcendence of the immanent God.
The book provides stimulating thoughts and is an engaging read. Although firmly rooted in pantheism his views are very valuable and interesting. To this reviewer, however, pantheism is limiting for a variety of reasons. Further to this I would like to refer the reader to the idea of panentheism as it manifests in the works of Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Krause, Dean Inge and especially Alfred North Whitehead, in particular the last mentioned's magnificent book Process And Reality.
Rating:
Summary: Reduction and Construction are Complementary
Review: The reviewers angrily decrying Dr. Morowitz's non-scientific perspective ignore his reductionist credentials. He is a biophysicist. He clearly understands reductionism including its limitations. I don't believe he advocates the replacement of reduction by construction (In my opinion, the methodology for studying emergence). Dr. Anderson at Princeton said it best; we must start with reduction. He also says that, "More is different." We all know in our hearts that more is definitely different. Science is now mature enough to tackle that age old observation. In the process, science will evolve. With any change, resistance almost always seems to emerge. Truth will win out in the end. This book is the tip of the iceberg in what is probably a watershed moment in the story of science.
Rating: 
Summary: Description, not explanation.
Review: This books presents a good *description* of a number of complex systems found in Nature. For me, it did not present a clear explanation as to *how* or why these systems became or are seen to be complex. A more honest title for me would be "Complex systems found in Nature - A description." I also agree with the previous reviewer who commented on the mixture of science and theology in the book.
Rating:
Summary: Quatsch, schmarrn, ...
Review: Translation: nonsense. Anyone who proclaims that reductionism is dead is woefully ignorant of the enormous breakthroughts, by standard 'reductionist' methods, in cell biology, including cancer research. See R. Weinberg's "One Renegade Cell: How Cancer Begins", as an antidote to the anti-scientific philosophy propagated in this book. First, there are no known laws of "self-organization". The only known laws of nature are the laws of physics and consequences deduced from the laws, namely, chemistry and cell biology. Complex adaptable models and other efforts to mathematize Darwinism are so far not falsifiable, hence are not yet science and may never be. Second, no one has yet defined 'emergence' in any meaningful (i.e., falsifiable) way. Worse, every mathematical model that can be written down is a form of 'reductionism', including so-called complex adaptable ones. Let us think clearly and be try to be precise: Quantum theory reduces phenomena to (explains phenomena via) atoms and molecules. All of chemistry is about that. Cell biology attempts to reduce observed phenomena to DNA, proteins, and cells. Believers in self-organized criticality try to reduce the important features of nature to the equivalent of sandpiles via the hope for a not yet found universality principle. Network enthusiasts hope to reduce phenomena to nodes and links, and also wish for a universality principle. In order to try to isolate cause and effect, there is no escape from reductionism of one form or another. Holism is an empty illusion: holism cannot even be mathematized or falsified. Holism is religion, not science, and should not be advertised as if it would be science. See Schr?dinger's "What is Life" for a clear explanation why we should not expect to discover macroscopic (statistical) laws of biological evolution, the only way to understand evolution being mutation by mutation at the level of DNA. Following Mendel, who was a reductionist in the Galilean spirit of physics, two of those who followed Schr?dinger's line of thought discovered the structure of DNA, and the genetic code. Genes and the genetic code are excellent examples of emergent objects that can be studied systematically. The genetic code is the source of the most important complexity in nature: life. Show me one, single, holist contribution to science or medicine, and I'll eat my words (without Schmarrn...)! Gene Autry sometimes shot from the hip, but he at least occasionally hit something!
Rating:
Summary: Quatsch, schmarrn, ...
Review: Translation: nonsense. Anyone who proclaims that reductionism is dead is woefully ignorant of the enormous breakthroughts, by standard 'reductionist' methods, in cell biology, including cancer research. See R. Weinberg's "One Renegade Cell: How Cancer Begins", as an antidote to the anti-scientific philosophy propagated in this book. First, there are no known laws of "self-organization". The only known laws of nature are the laws of physics and consequences deduced from the laws, namely, chemistry and cell biology. Complex adaptable models and other efforts to mathematize Darwinism are so far not falsifiable, hence are not yet science and may never be. Second, no one has yet defined 'emergence' in any meaningful (i.e., falsifiable) way. Worse, every mathematical model that can be written down is a form of 'reductionism', including so-called complex adaptable ones. Let us think clearly and be try to be precise: Quantum theory reduces phenomena to (explains phenomena via) atoms and molecules. All of chemistry is about that. Cell biology attempts to reduce observed phenomena to DNA, proteins, and cells. Believers in self-organized criticality try to reduce the important features of nature to the equivalent of sandpiles via the hope for a not yet found universality principle. Network enthusiasts hope to reduce phenomena to nodes and links, and also wish for a universality principle. In order to try to isolate cause and effect, there is no escape from reductionism of one form or another. Holism is an empty illusion: holism cannot even be mathematized or falsified. Holism is religion, not science, and should not be advertised as if it would be science. See Schrödinger's "What is Life" for a clear explanation why we should not expect to discover macroscopic (statistical) laws of biological evolution, the only way to understand evolution being mutation by mutation at the level of DNA. Following Mendel, who was a reductionist in the Galilean spirit of physics, two of those who followed Schrödinger's line of thought discovered the structure of DNA, and the genetic code. Genes and the genetic code are excellent examples of emergent objects that can be studied systematically. The genetic code is the source of the most important complexity in nature: life. Show me one, single, holist contribution to science or medicine, and I'll eat my words (without Schmarrn...)! Gene Autry sometimes shot from the hip, but he at least occasionally hit something!
|
