Recent philosophy of mind has tended to treat.

Not by Genes Alone excellently explains Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd's important ideas about human gene-culture co-evolution to a broader audience but remains short of a larger vision of civilization. Several decades ago Ralph Burhoe had seen that fertile possibility in Richerson and Boyd's work. I suggest getting past present reductionistic customs to a scientific perspective having an integral place for virtue. Subsystem agency is part of this view, as is the driving role of abundance, whose ultimate origins are (...) in the mysterious, quintessentially energetic Big Bang. The free-rider problem may not impede higher social organization as inexorably as Richerson and Boyd believe; "the tragedy" of enervating leakage from "the commons" may often be less influential than an invigorating flow of externalities to the commons. Eukaryotic origins mark the origin of inevitable wider sharing as higher living systems evolve. I use a metaphor of flesh and spirit in drawing a parallel between that turning point and the wide sharing that occurs in civilization. This helps solve the enigma of the demographic transition. Why do so many productive participants in first-world societies severely restrict their selfish-gene reproduction to below replacement birth rate? It is not because culture is maladaptive but because civilization's brain and womb have become partially differentiated in distinct populations. Considerations of social boundaries, myths of sacrifice, and human creativity help in understanding how human social evolution taps potentials present in reality. Human beings' diverse vigorous activities—the organized ones and the inadvertent ones, the wise and the foolish, the good and the bad, the carefully thoughtful and the merely playful—provide the ground of being, or primordial soup, for cultural entities that transcend our intentions. If we have it right for the most part and are fortunate, we will continue to emerge at higher levels. (shrink)

The subject of the present thesis is the phenomenon of simultaneous colour contrast: As is well known, the perceived colour of a given light stimulus depends almost as strongly on the stimulation of neighbouring regions of the visual field as on the local stimulus itself. Thus, the perceived colour of a target stimulus can be manipulated either by changing the colour co-ordinates of the target itself, or, alternatively, by changing the colour co-ordinates of the surround. Classical models of simultaneous contrast (...) are based on the implicit assumption that the changes in perceived colour brought about by these two kinds of manipulation are basically of the same kind, and thus may compensate each other. This ‘compensation assumption’ is equivalent to the widespread assumption that the space of perceived colours is three-dimensional. In principle, though, the well-established facts of trichromatic theory are compatible with a dimensionality of the space of perceived colours higher than three (namely three times the number of differently coloured regions in the visual field). One of the central results of the present investigations is that the compensation assumption seems to be unwarranted in the case of simple centre-surround stimuli. This instilled the expectation that classical methods for measuring simultaneous contrast effects, such as grey settings and asymmetric colour matching, may sometimes be inappropriate, and thus yield misleading results. In further experiments it is shown that this is indeed the case when uniformly coloured surrounds are used. In the case of variegated surrounds, however, matters appear to be much less complicated. This difference seems to be due to impressions of perceptual transparency being evoked by uniform surrounds, but not by variegated ones. (shrink)