Saltar para: Posts , Pesquisa e Arquivos 
"OH WATERS, TEEM WITH MEDICINE TO KEEP MY BODY SAFE FROM HARM, SO THAT I MAY LONG SEE THE SUN." - Rig Veda
In Mind and Cosmos, Nagel continues his attacks on reductionism. Though the book is brief its claims are big. Nagel insists that the mind-body problem “is not just a local problem” but “invades our understanding of the entire cosmos and its history.” If what he calls “materialist naturalism” or just “materialism” can’t explain consciousness, then it can’t fully account for life since consciousness is a feature of life. And if it can’t explain life, then it can’t fully account for the chemical and physical universe since life is a feature of that universe. Subjective experience is not, to Nagel, some detail that materialist science can hand-wave away. It’s a deal breaker. Nagel believes that any future science that grapples seriously with the mind-body problem will be one that is radically reconceived.
We can look at the history of technology as a human driven, parallel experiment of evolution. So far artifacts are not capable of self-reproduction, but the population-level dynamics of long-term technological innovation nonetheless resemble biological evolution in many ways. The design of new technologies is strongly inﬂuenced by existing technologies, and technological change can be viewed as a process of descent with variation and selection [5-7]. Both chance and the appropriate context are required for innovations to occur. Lineages of design often show rapid change and diversiﬁcation as well as exaptation. The later is illustrated by Gutenberg’s printing press, when an existing technology (the screw press) that was co-opted to serve a completely novel purpose. Extinction and replacement are also common. As soon as a genuinely novel invention appears, it is typically followed by an enormous diversiﬁcation, followed by the extinction (and turnover) of most competing inventions. Moreover, technological change also displays convergence: similar discoveries are made simultaneously by diferent inventors such as the more than 20 diferentpatents involving light bulb inventions prior to Edison’s success. The view that technological evolution follows similar rules to biological evolution has captured theinterest of scientists, historians and engineers alike.
Despite the commonalities, technological evolution departs from biological evolution in fundamental ways. For
technological change long-term goals and expectations play a leading role in which the designers seek optimality, typically under explicit criteria such as e"ciency, cost and speed. Moreover, as pointed by Fran¸cois Jacob, in contrast to artifacts, living structures are largelythe result of tinkering, i.e. a widespread reuse and combination of available elements to build new structures.
Technology is highly dependent on the combination of preexisting inventions, but unlike biology, the introduction of new simple elements can completely reset the path of future technologies. In contrast, in biology, once established, solutions to problems are seldom replaced.
Both biological and technological innovations involve cost constraints. Thermodynamic can also help
understanding the origin of some structures. Allometric scaling laws provide a good illustration of how a theory of biological distribution networks (including both vascular and respiratory ones) based on efciencient energy dissipation on fractal trees. Efficiency has also beendriving technological improvements and marks the development of the steam engine and the bicycle . The evolution of the latter can be traced as a succession ofimprovement steps towards increasing performance and lower metabolic cost. However, the coupling between energy costs and improvements is not a precondition for technological change to occur. On one hand, many examples illustrate a common pattern of development of a given invention: in early stages, inventions are often overly expensive and not perceived as economically relevant. The barrier to di↵usion can only be overcome through the vision of individuals pursuing their views and goals.
Is it possible to formulate a theory of technological evolution? How much can we take advantage from our theoretical understanding of biological evolution? Recent advances within network theory and a unique availability of the fossil record of human inventions might helpin reaching that goal. Such theory needs to consider the existence of universal trends, the economic context and history. We believe that a major effort in this direction would settle the debate on similarities versus differences.