The chapters in this edited collection, published solely in electronic format, consider human activity and writing from three different perspectives: the role of writing in producing work and the economy; the role of writing in creating, maintaining, and transforming socially located selves and communities; and the role of writing formal education. The editors observe, "The activity approaches to understanding writing presented in this volume give us ways to examine more closely how people do the work of the world and form (...) the relations that give rise to the sense of selves and societies through writing, reading, and circulating texts. These essays provide major contributions to both writing research and activity theory as well as to the recently emerged but now robust research tradition that brings the two together.". (shrink)

There are a bewildering variety of claims connecting Darwin to nineteenth-century philosophy of science—including to Herschel, Whewell, Lyell, German Romanticism, Comte, and others. I argue here that Herschel’s influence on Darwin is undeniable. The form of this influence, however, is often misunderstood. Darwin was not merely taking the concept of “analogy” from Herschel, nor was he combining such an analogy with a consilience as argued for by Whewell. On the contrary, Darwin’s Origin is written in precisely the manner that one (...) would expect were Darwin attempting to model his work on the precepts found in Herschel’s Preliminary Discourse on Natural Science. While Hodge has worked out a careful interpretation of both Darwin and Herschel, drawing similar conclusions, his interpretation misreads Herschel’s use of the vera causa principle and the verification of hypotheses. The new reading that I present here resolves this trouble, combining Hodge’s careful treatment of the structure of the Origin with a more cautious understanding of Herschel’s philosophy of science. This interpretation lets us understand why Darwin laid out the Origin in the way that he did and also why Herschel so strongly disagreed, including in Herschel’s heretofore unanalyzed marginalia in his copy of Darwin’s book. (shrink)

A chapter on Charles Taylor's philosophy from my forthcoming book, Hope in the Way It Flows: Interpretation, Creation, Faith. A shorter version appears in French as “Un âge religieux ?” in Bernard Gagnon, Domique Leydet, and Guillaume St-Laurent, eds., Débats autour de l’œuvre de Charles Taylor : Diversité, reconnaissance et sécularité (Quebec, QC: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, forthcoming 2026); and parts of it also appear in my article "Charles Taylor's Philosophy of Deep Diversity" Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical (...) Review 66 (forthcoming 2026). (shrink)

Review of Charles Taylor's book, Modern Social Imaginaries.

A longstanding issue in attempts to understand the Everett (Many-Worlds) approach to quantum mechanics is the origin of the Born rule: why is the probability given by the square of the amplitude? Following Vaidman, we note that observers are in a position of self-locating uncertainty during the period between the branches of the wave function splitting via decoherence and the observer registering the outcome of the measurement. In this period it is tempting to regard each branch as equiprobable, but we (...) argue that the temptation should be resisted. Applying lessons from this analysis, we demonstrate (using methods similar to those of Zurek's envariance-based derivation) that the Born rule is the uniquely rational way of apportioning credence in Everettian quantum mechanics. In doing so, we rely on a single key principle: changes purely to the environment do not affect the probabilities one ought to assign to measurement outcomes in a local subsystem. We arrive at a method for assigning probabilities in cases that involve both classical and quantum self-locating uncertainty. This method provides unique answers to quantum Sleeping Beauty problems, as well as a well-defined procedure for calculating probabilities in quantum cosmological multiverses with multiple similar observers. (shrink)

This paper proposes the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology, a holistic cosmological framework that reinterprets Laozi’s foundational propositions—“Man follows Earth, Earth follows Heaven, Heaven follows the Dao, the Dao follows Nature” and “Dao gives birth to One; One gives birth to Two; Two gives birth to Three; Three gives birth to all things”—through the lens of modern astronomy, Earth science, and ecological philosophy. By integrating Daoist metaphysics with contemporary cosmology, the study constructs a nested generative chain: the Dao manifested as the Milky (...) Way; the Milky Way giving rise to the Solar System (“Dao gives birth to One”); the Solar System giving rise to Earth (“One gives birth to Two”); Earth giving rise to the Moon (“Two gives birth to Three”); and the Sun–Earth–Moon tri-system generating water, air, light, life, and ultimately human civilization (“Three gives birth to all things”). Through systematic analysis, the paper demonstrates that these classical Daoist formulations are not merely moral or metaphysical metaphors but correspond to a coherent cosmological order grounded in natural law, self-organization, and systemic interdependence. At the human scale, “Man follows Earth” is interpreted as an ecological and civilizational imperative rooted in planetary limits, cultural continuity, and sustainable development. At the cosmic scale, “Dao follows Nature” is articulated as the spontaneous, non-intervening operation of universal laws governing galaxies, stars, planets, and life. The Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology thus offers a unified philosophical–scientific model that reconnects humanity with its cosmic origins, reframes ecological crises as consequences of deviating from natural order, and advances a vision of sustainable civilization grounded in harmony between humanity, Earth, and the cosmos. By rebuilding the bridge between ancient Daoist wisdom and modern cosmology, this work seeks to provide a non-theistic, non-anthropocentric foundation for understanding the origin of life, the structure of the universe, and humanity’s ethical responsibility within it. (shrink)

This paper centers on the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology, integrating Laozi philosophy with modern science to systematically explore cosmic generation, the origin of life, ecological governance, and the holistic laws of civilizational development. The book follows the cosmic evolution logic of “Dao produces One, One produces Two, Two produce Three, Three produce All Things,” constructing an integrated philosophical-scientific framework from the galaxy to the solar system, Earth, and Moon, extending to human civilization. Additionally, it analyzes Sun Shuao’s political practices and the (...) concept of Wu Wei governance, proposing a model of natural civilization governance and elaborating humanity’s cosmic mission and future civilization development. This work provides a novel holistic perspective and theoretical reference for philosophy, science, and civilization studies. (shrink)

Conspiracy theories should be neither believed nor investigated - that is the conventional wisdom. I argue that it is sometimes permissible both to investigate and to believe. Hence this is a dispute in the ethics of belief. I defend epistemic ‘oughts’ that apply in the first instance to belief-forming strategies that are partly under our control. I argue that the policy of systematically doubting or disbelieving conspiracy theories would be both a political disaster and the epistemic equivalent of self-mutilation, since (...) it leads to the conclusion that history is bunk and the nightly news unbelievable. In fact (of course) the policy is not employed systematically but is only wheeled on to do down theories that the speaker happens to dislike. I develop a deductive argument from hard-to-deny premises that if you are not a ‘conspiracy theorist’ in my anodyne sense of the word then you are an ‘idiot’ in the Greek sense of the word, that is, someone so politically purblind as to have no opinions about either history or public affairs. The conventional wisdom can only be saved (if at all) if ‘conspiracy theory’ is given a slanted definition. I discuss some slanted definitions apparently presupposed by proponents of the conventional wisdom (including, amongst others, Tony Blair) and conclude that even with these definitions the conventional wisdom comes out as deeply unwise. I finish up with a little harmless fun at the expense of David Aaronvitch whose abilities as a rhetorician and a popular historian are not perhaps matched by a corresponding capacity for logical thought. (shrink)

Conpiracy theories are widely deemed to be superstitious. Yet history appears to be littered with conspiracies successful and otherwise. (For this reason, "cock-up" theories cannot in general replace conspiracy theories, since in many cases the cock-ups are simply failed conspiracies.) Why then is it silly to suppose that historical events are sometimes due to conspiracy? The only argument available to this author is drawn from the work of the late Sir Karl Popper, who criticizes what he calls "the conspiracy theory (...) of society" in The Open Society and elsewhere. His critique of the conspiracy theory is indeed sound, but it is a theory no sane person maintains. Moreover, its falsehood is compatible with the prevalence of conspiracies. Nor do his arguments create any presumption against conspiracy theories of this or that. Thus the belief that it is superstitious to posit conspiracies is itself a superstition. The article concludes with some speculations as to why this superstition is so widely believed. (shrink)

Philosophy of science is expanding via the introduction of new digital data and tools for their analysis. The data comprise digitized published books and journal articles, as well as heretofore unpublished material such as images, archival text, notebooks, meeting notes, and programs. The growth in available data is matched by the extensive development of automated analysis tools. The variety of data sources and tools can be overwhelming. In this article, we survey the state of digital work in the philosophy of (...) science, showing what kinds of questions can be answered and how one can go about answering them. (shrink)

Abstract Conspiracy theories should be neither believed nor investigated - that is the conventional wisdom. I argue that it is sometimes permissible both to investigate and to believe. Hence this is a dispute in the ethics of belief. I defend epistemic “oughts” that apply in the first instance to belief-forming strategies that are partly under our control. But the beliefforming strategy of not believing conspiracy theories would be a political disaster and the epistemic equivalent of selfmutilation. I discuss several variations (...) of this strategy, interpreting “conspiracy theory” in different ways but conclude that on all these readings, the conventional wisdom is deeply unwise. (shrink)

My aim here is to make sense of Plato's account of desire in the middle dialogues. To do that I need to unify or reconcile what are at first sight two quite different accounts: the doctrine of eros in the Symposium and the tripartite theory of motivation in the Republic. It may be that the two theories are after all irreconcilable, that Plato simply changed his mind on the nature of human desire after writing the Symposium and before composing the (...) Republic. But that conclusion can be justified only if attempts to reconcile the two theories end in failure. The attempt must be made first. (shrink)

The propensity interpretation of fitness (PIF) is commonly taken to be subject to a set of simple counterexamples. We argue that three of the most important of these are not counterexamples to the PIF itself, but only to the traditional mathematical model of this propensity: fitness as expected number of offspring. They fail to demonstrate that a new mathematical model of the PIF could not succeed where this older model fails. We then propose a new formalization of the PIF that (...) avoids these (and other) counterexamples. By producing a counterexample-free model of the PIF, we call into question one of the primary motivations for adopting the statisticalist interpretation of fitness. In addition, this new model has the benefit of being more closely allied with contemporary mathematical biology than the traditional model of the PIF. (shrink)

Nihilism, Nietzsche and the Doppelganger Problem Was Nietzsche a nihilist? Yes, because, like J. L. Mackie, he was an error-theorist about morality, including the elitist morality to which he himself subscribed. But he was variously a diagnostician, an opponent and a survivor of certain other kinds of nihilism. Schacht argues that Nietzsche cannot have been an error theorist, since meta-ethical nihilism is inconsistent with the moral commitment that Nietzsche displayed. Schacht’s exegetical argument parallels the substantive argument (advocated in recent years (...) by Wright and Blackburn) that Mackie’s error theory can’t be true because if it were, we would have to give up morality or give up moralizing. I answer this argument with a little bit of help from Nietzsche. I then pose a problem, the Doppelganger Problem, for the meta-ethical nihilism that I attribute to Mackie and Nietzsche. (If A is a moral proposition then not-A is a moral proposition: hence not all moral propositions can be false.) I solve the problem by reformulating the error theory and also deal with a variant of the problem, the Reinforced Doppelganger, glancing at a famous paper of Ronald Dworkin’s. Thus, whatever its demerits, the error theory, is not self-refuting, nor does it require us to give up morality. (shrink)

My first paper on the Is/Ought issue. The young Arthur Prior endorsed the Autonomy of Ethics, in the form of Hume’s No-Ought-From-Is (NOFI) but the later Prior developed a seemingly devastating counter-argument. I defend Prior's earlier logical thesis (albeit in a modified form) against his later self. However it is important to distinguish between three versions of the Autonomy of Ethics: Ontological, Semantic and Ontological. Ontological Autonomy is the thesis that moral judgments, to be true, must answer to a realm (...) of sui generis non-natural PROPERTIES. Semantic autonomy insists on a realm of sui generis non-natural PREDICATES which do not mean the same as any natural counterparts. Logical Autonomy maintains that moral conclusions cannot be derived from non-moral premises.-moral premises with the aid of logic alone. Logical Autonomy does not entail Semantic Autonomy and Semantic Autonomy does not entail Ontological Autonomy. But, given some plausible assumptions Ontological Autonomy entails Semantic Autonomy and given the conservativeness of logic – the idea that in a valid argument you don’t get out what you haven’t put in – Semantic Autonomy entails Logical Autonomy. So if Logical Autonomy is false – as Prior appears to prove – then Semantic and Ontological Autonomy would appear to be false too! I develop a version of Logical Autonomy (or NOFI) and vindicate it against Prior’s counterexamples, which are also counterexamples to the conservativeness of logic as traditionally conceived. The key concept here is an idea derived in part from Quine - that of INFERENCE-RELATIVE VACUITY. I prove that you cannot derive conclusions in which the moral terms appear non-vacuously from premises from which they are absent. But this is because you cannot derive conclusions in which ANY (non-logical) terms appear non-vacuously from premises from which they are absent Thus NOFI or Logical Autonomy comes out as an instance of the conservativeness of logic. This means that the reverse entailment that I have suggested turns out to be a mistake. The falsehood of Logical Autonomy would not entail either the falsehood Semantic Autonomy or the falsehood of Ontological Autonomy, since Semantic Autonomy only entails Logical Autonomy with the aid of the conservativeness of logic of which Logical Autonomy is simply an instance. Thus NOFI or Logical Autonomy is vindicated, but it turns out to be a less world-shattering thesis than some have supposed. It provides no support for either non-cognitivism or non-naturalism. (shrink)

摘要 (Abstract) 本文旨在论证人类文明的全球性危机本质上是底层“宇宙观”的兼容性故障。通过引入杨兴平博士（Dr. Charles X. Yang）提出的“老-杨创世纪宇宙观”，本文构建了一套文明升级的通用操作系统（Universal OS）。该系统以“宇宙生成序位（生）”为内核，以“层级效法协议（法）”为指令链，系统性地重构了人类的认知架构。论文阐述了从“宇宙观”到“世界观”、“价值观”最终映射至“人生观”的必然演化逻辑。研究表明 ，只有放弃“人类中心主义”的错误代码，转向以“道（银河）”为核心的硬件对齐，人类文明才能实现从高熵掠夺向低熵和谐的范式转移。这一过程不是温和的社会选择，而是基于热力学定律与系统生存要求的“强制更新”。 最终愿景是实现技术与银河智慧的和谐共生，开启自然文明的新纪元。 -/- .

This piece in Nature Medicine notes the risks that incorporation of AI systems into health care poses to disabled patients and proposes ways to avoid them and instead create benefit.

The idea of ‘reversion’ or ‘atavism’ has a peculiar history. For many authors in the latenineteenth and early-twentieth centuries – including Darwin, Galton, Pearson, Weismann, and Spencer, among others – reversion was one of the central phenomena which a theory of heredity ought to explain. By only a few decades later, however, Fisher and others could look back upon reversion as a historical curiosity, a non-problem, or even an impediment to clear theorizing. I explore various reasons that reversion might have (...) appeared to be a central problem for this first group of figures, focusing on their commitment to a variety of conceptual features of evolutionary theory; discuss why reversion might have then ceased to be an interesting phenomenon; and, finally, close with some more general thoughts about the death of scientific problems. (shrink)

本文基于《老-杨创世纪宇宙观》，系统论证“道＝银河系”的科学哲学命题，旨在将古典道哲学中的生成逻辑与现代科学的天文学、热力学与系统科学统一起来。通过分析道的非人格性、非目的性和非物质性，本文提出银河系 作为科学实体实现了道的生成法则功能，为太阳系、地球及生命文明的生成提供必要约束。论文进一步结合热力学第二定律和熵增理论，说明宇宙整体无序增加的同时，局部低熵系统得以通过能量流、反馈机制和自组织保持稳定 ，实现生成—瓦解—再生成循环，对应老子所言“反者，道之动”。系统科学视角表明，银河系、太阳系、地球及生态文明形成分层耦合、非线性动力学和耗散结构的稳定体系，体现生成链的层级必然性。论文最终提出道、熵与 生成的统一科学哲学意义：道是生成法则，银河系是其科学实体，熵增提供动力机制，局部有序系统则实现生成链稳定，形成哲学与科学兼容的宇宙生成框架。同时，论文讨论了对人类文明发展、生态系统管理以及科学哲学教育 的启示，并提出未来在银河系生成机制、多尺度熵动力学模拟及系统科学哲学整合方向的研究前景，为探索道的科学化和文明可持续发展提供理论基础。 -/- 关键词：道哲学、银河系、熵增、生成链、系统科学、科学哲学 -/- Dao Must Be the Milky Way: A Scientific-Philosophical Study Based on the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology -/- Charles X. Yang -/- Based on the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology, this paper systematically demonstrates the scientific-philosophical proposition that Dao corresponds to the Milky Way. It aims to unify the classical Daoist generative logic with modern astronomy, thermodynamics, and systems science. By analyzing Dao’s non-personal, non-teleological, and non-material characteristics, the study identifies the Milky Way as the scientific entity realizing Dao’s (...) generative law, providing necessary constraints for the formation of the Solar System, Earth, and life. Integrating the second law of thermodynamics and entropy increase, the paper explains how global disorder increases while local low-entropy systems maintain stability through energy flow, feedback, and self-organization, implementing cycles of generation, dissipation, and regeneration, corresponding to Laozi’s principle “the reversal is the movement of Dao.” From a systems science perspective, the Milky Way, the Solar System, Earth, and ecological civilizations form hierarchical coupled, nonlinear, and dissipative structures, ensuring the necessity of the generative chain. The study concludes that Dao, entropy, and generation can be unified scientifically and philosophically: Dao serves as the generative principle, the Milky Way embodies it physically, entropy provides the driving mechanism, and local order realizes generative chain stability, forming a coherent framework bridging philosophy and science. Finally, implications for human civilization, ecological management, and scientific-philosophical education are discussed, alongside future research directions in Milky Way formation mechanisms, multi-scale entropy dynamics, and systems-philosophy integration, providing a foundation for the scientific realization of Dao and sustainable civilization development. -/- Keywords: Dao philosophy, Milky Way, entropy, generative chain, systems science, scientific philosophy . (shrink)

In reflecting on the relation between early empiricist conceptions of the mind and more experimentally motivated materialist philosophies of mind in the mid-eighteenth century, I suggest that we take seriously the existence of what I shall call ‘phantom philosophical projects’. A canonical empiricist like Locke goes out of his way to state that their project to investigate and articulate the ‘logic of ideas’ is not a scientific project: “I shall not at present meddle with the Physical consideration of the Mind” (...) (Essay, I.i.2). An equally prominent thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to make an elementary mistake, given such a clear statement, when he claims that Locke’s project was a “physiology of the understanding,” in the Preface to the A edition of the first Critique). A first question, then, would be: what is this physiology of the understanding, if it was not Locke’s project? Did anyone undertake such a project? If not, what would it have resembled? My second and related case comes out of a remark the Hieronymus Gaub makes in a letter to Charles Bonnet of 1761: criticizing materialist accounts of mind and mind-body relations such as La Mettrie’s, Gaub suggests that what is needed is a thorough study of the “mechanics of the soul,” and that Bonnet could write such a study. What is the mechanics of the soul, especially given that it is presented as a non-materialist project? To what extent does it resemble the purported “physiology of the understanding”? And more generally, what do both of these phantom projects have to do with a process we might describe as a ‘naturalization of the soul’? (shrink)

One potentially extremely fruitful use of the tools of corpus analysis in the philosophy of science is to help us understand disputed terrains within the sciences that we study. For philosophers of biology, for instance, few controversies are as heated as those over the concepts we use in taxonomy to classify the living world, with the definition of ‘species’ perhaps most fundamental among them. As many understandings of biodiversity, in turn, involve counting the number of species present in a given (...) area, these taxonomic concepts thus become crucially implicated in our efforts in conservation biology and our response to climate change. In this chapter, we present a corpus of taxonomic journal papers, and illustrate how it might be used to make progress in the history and philosophy of taxonomy. What parts of the biological world do taxonomists most often study? Are these areas of focus related to other methodological commitments, or perhaps to their underlying conceptual disagreement? Are species that are more important to conservation, or economic concerns, or more important to local cultures, more or less likely to be the target of biological study? Corpus-based methods, we argue, are uniquely powerful for approaching questions such as these, and we hope that the case we present can serve as a fruitful example for others considering their implementation. (shrink)

本研究旨在对克劳狄乌斯·托勒密（Claudius Ptolemy）及其地心说遗产进行一场跨越天文学、政治学、社会学与文明伦理的终极审判。基于杨兴平（Dr. Charles X. Yang）博士的哲学框架，本文提出：托勒密不仅是科学史上的错误引导者，更是人类文明史上危害最巨的“智力罪犯”。他通过蓄意篡改观测数据、构建极端复杂的数学迷宫，成功地向人类灌输了长达一千五百年的“地心说 ”伪证。 -/- 这种“倒置的宇宙观”不仅使人类的智力演化停滞了十五个世纪，更在深层心理上植入了“绝对中心论”的毒素。它直接诱发了排他性的宗教战争，为集权暴政提供了“天意”层面的合法性蓝图，并催生了导致现代生态崩溃的“ 人类中心主义”傲慢。此外，托勒密确立的“名利驱动型”伪科学范式，至今仍在毒害学术诚信的基石。 -/- 本文通过剖析托勒密谎言的六大维度，揭露其作为人类生存危机总建筑师的本质。研究最后提出，唯有通过彻底的认知“去中心化”，拥抱杨兴平博士倡导的“老-杨创世宇宙观”与“自然文明”范式，人类才能从这场持续两千 年的集体梦游中苏醒，从掠夺式的“高熵文明”转向和谐、分布式的“低熵生存”，完成种群命运的终极救赎。 .

At first blush, it might seem as though digital approaches could provide us with precisely the kind of input we need to perform something like conceptual analysis in the philosophy of science: querying the expressed intuitions of the “folk” (here, practicing scientists publishing in the journal literature) to see how they put various concepts to use, to which cases they believe they can be applied, etc. In this chapter, I want to nuance this argument, both by clarifying what we might (...) mean by “conceptual analysis” in this case and by tempering expectations about what digital approaches could be reasonably expected to give us. I claim that such a more moderate goal, which I’ll call here “conceptual cartography,” can still provide the philosophy of science with a number of advantages (which are otherwise difficult to attain), while avoiding the possibility of making promises that we can’t fulfill. (shrink)

This paper argues that the escalating global crises of human civilization are essentially "compatibility failures" of the underlying cosmological framework. By introducing the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology proposed by Dr. Charles X. Yang, this study constructs a Universal Operating System (Universal OS) for civilizational advancement. This system utilizes the Cosmic Generation Sequence (Shēng) as its kernel and the Hierarchical Command Chain (Fǎ) as its instruction set to systematically reconstruct the human cognitive architecture. The paper delineates a causal evolution logic where (...) Cosmology dictates Worldview, which informs Values, and ultimately shapes Life Purpose. The research demonstrates that only by abandoning the "malware" of Anthropocentrism and shifting toward a hardware alignment centered on the Dao (The Galaxy) can humanity achieve a paradigm shift from high-entropy exploitation to low-entropy harmony. This transition is framed not as a subjective social choice, but as a "forced update" necessitated by thermodynamic laws and systemic survival requirements. The ultimate vision is the realization of a Natural Civilization where human technology functions as a harmonious extension of galactic generative intelligence. (shrink)

Survey article on Naturalism dealing with Hume's NOFI (including Prior's objections), Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy and the Barren Tautology Argument. Naturalism, as I understand it, is a form of moral realism which rejects fundamental moral facts or properties. Thus it is opposed to both non-cognitivism, and and the error theory but also to non-naturalism. General conclusion: as of 1991: naturalism as a program has not been refuted though none of the extant versions look particularly promising.

This work presents a comprehensive philosophical, scientific, and civilizational critique of Claudius Ptolemy and the enduring legacy of geocentrism. It argues that Ptolemy’s cosmological system was not merely an astronomical error, but a foundational distortion that reshaped human cognition, political organization, religious ideology, economic behavior, ecological relations, and academic ethics for nearly two millennia. -/- Drawing upon the theoretical framework of Dr. Charles X. Yang’s Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology and the paradigm of Natural Civilization, this study demonstrates how the geocentric (...) model institutionalized a monocentric worldview that generated intellectual stagnation, religious warfare, authoritarian governance, anthropocentric exploitation, and prestige-driven pseudo-science. -/- Through a systematic, interdisciplinary analysis spanning epistemology, systems theory, entropy science, political philosophy, and ecological ethics, the book identifies “centralization ideology” as the hidden operating system behind humanity’s recurrent civilizational crises. It further contends that modern environmental collapse, expert distrust, and systemic instability represent the terminal stage of this long-standing distortion. -/- The study concludes that humanity’s survival depends on a radical cognitive and institutional transformation toward decentralization, generative order, and epistemic humility. By embracing the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology and reconstructing society according to Natural Civilization principles, humanity may transcend predatory high-entropy development and transition toward a resilient, low-entropy, distributed civilization aligned with cosmic and ecological reality. (shrink)

In Part 1, I contend (using Coriolanus as my mouthpiece) that Keeley and Clarke have failed to show that there is anything intellectually suspect about conspiracy theories per se. Conspiracy theorists need not commit the ‘fundamental attribution error’ there is no reason to suppose that all or most conspiracy theories constitute the cores of degenerating research programs, nor does situationism - a dubious doctrine in itself - lend any support to a systematic skepticism about conspiracy theories. In Part 2. I (...) argue (in propria persona) that the idea that there is something suspect about conspiracy theories is one of the most dangerous and idiotic superstitions to disgrace our political culture. (shrink)

The category of ‘organism’ has an ambiguous status: is it scientific or is it philosophical? Or, if one looks at it from within the relatively recent field or sub-field of philosophy of biology, is it a central, or at least legitimate category therein, or should it be dispensed with? In any case, it has long served as a kind of scientific “bolstering” for a philosophical train of argument which seeks to refute the “mechanistic” or “reductionist” trend, which has been perceived (...) as dominant since the 17th century, whether in the case of Stahlian animism, Leibnizian monadology, the neo-vitalism of Hans Driesch, or, lastly, of the “phenomenology of organic life” in the 20th century, with authors such as Kurt Goldstein, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Georges Canguilhem. In this paper I try to reconstruct some of the main interpretive ‘stages’ or ‘layers’ of the concept of organism in order to critically evaluate it. How might ‘organism’ be a useful concept if one rules out the excesses of ‘organismic’ biology and metaphysics? Varieties of instrumentalism and what I call the ‘projective’ concept of organism are appealing, but perhaps ultimately unsatisfying. (shrink)

This record presents The Identity–Recursion–Consciousness Hypothesis, a falsifiable account of consciousness that inverts the standard explanatory order. Rather than treating consciousness as foundational, the hypothesis treats identity as primary, recursion as an instrumental regime of identity maintenance, and consciousness as a conditional, tertiary phenomenon that arises only under specific structural and substrate constraints. Identity is defined as the persistence of organized structure under perturbation. Recursion is defined as a regime in which identity-maintenance becomes self-conditioning under environmental underdetermination. Consciousness is defined (...) as phenomenological surplus arising when recursive identity is instantiated on substrates capable of supporting such surplus. Consciousness is therefore not guaranteed by complexity, integration, or intelligence alone. The hypothesis makes explicit predictions, specifies threshold and regime conditions, and enumerates falsification criteria at each explanatory layer. It is compatible with multiple existing theories of consciousness but reorders them by explanatory dependency rather than competition. (shrink)

Most theoretical accounts of persistence begin with systems, agents, or identities and seek to explain how they maintain themselves over time. This paper reverses that ordering. It argues that systemhood is not primitive but derivative, and introduces an ontological layer prior to it: the seed-field, defined as a constraint topology in which basins capable of sustaining identity-defining invariants can arise, prior to their formation. A distinction is drawn between the constraint landscape (the admissible state space under physical law), the seed-field (...) (a basin-forming regime of that landscape), metastable configurations (passively persistent structures within the regime), and closure (the transition at which a maintenance loop begins funding its own invariants). Three necessary conditions for seed-field topology are specified: feedback structure, sustained far-from-equilibrium energetic forcing, and dimensional accessibility sufficient for loop completion. Whether these conditions are jointly sufficient remains an open empirical question. By locating identity as a contingent closure event within a basin-forming constraint regime, the paper reframes persistence without appeal to teleology, privileged substrates, or metaphysical supplementation. Identity is treated as a thermodynamically funded achievement within a specific topological regime of constraint space. (shrink)

Computer-based argument mapping greatly enhances student critical thinking, more than tripling absolute gains made by other methods. I describe the method and my experience as an outsider. Argument mapping often showed precisely how students were erring (for example: confusing helping premises for separate reasons), making it much easier for them to fix their errors.

In his celebrated 'Good and Evil' (l956) Professor Geach argues as against the non-naturalists that ‘good’ is attributive and that the predicative 'good', as used by Moore, is senseless.. 'Good' when properly used is attributive. 'There is no such thing as being just good or bad, [that is, no predicative 'good'] there is only being a good or bad so and so'. On the other hand, Geach insists, as against non-cognitivists, that good-judgments are entirely 'descriptive'. By a consideration of what (...) it is to be an A, we can determine what it is to be a good A, even where the ‘A’ in question is ‘human being’. These battles are fought on behalf of naturalism, indeed, of an up-to-date Aristotelianism. Geach plans to 'pass' from the 'purely descriptive' man to good/bad man, and from human act to good/bad human act. I argue: (l) That the predicative 'good' does have a genuine sense and that it is a mistake to suppose that ‘good’ is a purely attributive adjective. This does not entail that the predicative good (as used by Moore) denotes a non-natural property, but his mistake, if any is metaphysical or ontological not conceptual. (2) That the attributive 'good' cannot be used to generate a naturalistic ethic. It is difficult to extract a set of biologically based requirements out of human nature that are a) reasonably specific; b) rationally binding or at least highly persuasive; and c) morally credible. -/- On the way I protest against Geach’s tendency to try to win arguments by affecting not to understand things. -/- My views to some extent anticipate those of Kraut in *Against Absolute Goodness*. (shrink)

Charles Taylor defines `hypergoods' as the fundamental, architechtonic goods that serve as the basis of our moral frameworks. He also believes that, in principle, we can use reason to reconcile the conflicts that hypergoods engender. This belief, however, relies upon a misindentification of hypergoods as goods rather than as works of art, an error which is itself a result of an overly adversarial conception of practical reason. For Taylor fails to distinguish enough between ethical conflicts and those relating to (...) the religio-aesthetic domain. A proper identification of hypergoods as aesthetic, moreover, requires us to revise his accounts of ordinary life, of evil and of the controversy over university curricula. (shrink)

老子的智慧长期以来被学术界广泛研究，却始终难以形成共识性理解。本文从科学哲思的视角，结合认知科学、复杂系统理论、科学哲学及文明演化理论，对老子思想进行跨学科分析。文章指出，老子之“难懂”并非源于文本本 身的晦涩，而在于理解者的认知结构、学术方法以及文明定位的局限。论文从“道”的非对象化本质、“为学与为道”的认知冲突、“上士闻道”的分层模型、简单智慧的忽视、技术文明对老子智慧的排斥，以及老子与现代科学 的潜在会通等方面进行分析，最终提出理解老子是一种文明智慧的命题，而非单纯学术能力的体现。本研究为老子思想的现代解读提供了科学哲学的框架，并为技术文明与自然文明的融合提供理论参考。 -/- The wisdom of Laozi has been extensively studied, yet a consensus on its understanding remains elusive. This paper adopts a scientific-philosophical perspective, integrating cognitive science, complexity theory, philosophy of science, and civilizational evolution to provide a cross-disciplinary analysis of Laozi’s thought. It argues that the difficulty in comprehending Laozi arises not from the text itself but from the limitations of the reader’s cognitive structures, scholarly methods, and civilizational positioning. The study examines the non-objectified nature of the Dao, the (...) cognitive tension between “learning” and “following the Dao,” the hierarchical model of understanding in the Dao De Jing, the neglect of simple wisdom, the resistance of technological civilization, and potential alignments with modern science. It concludes that understanding Laozi constitutes a form of civilizational wisdom rather than merely an academic skill. This research offers a scientific-philosophical framework for contemporary interpretations of Laozi and informs the integration of technological and natural civilizations. (shrink)

Hume describes his own “open, social, and cheerful humour” as “a turn of mind which it is more happy to possess, than to be born to an estate of ten thousand a year.” Why does he value a cheerful character so highly? I argue that, for Hume, cheerfulness has two aspects—one manifests as mirth in social situations, and the other as steadfastness against life’s misfortunes. This second aspect is of special interest to Hume in that it safeguards the other virtues. (...) And its connection with the first aspect helps explain how it differs from Stoic tranquility. For Hume, I argue, philosophy has a modest role in promoting human happiness by preserving cheerfulness. (shrink)

This paper systematically examines the epistemological pursuit of truth in Bayesian artificial intelligence (AI), arguing that truth convergence is a conditional outcome rather than an inherent property of the algorithm. Bayesian reasoning guarantees formal convergence mathematically, but its alignment with reality depends on prior openness, evidence authenticity, independence, information richness, feedback mechanisms, and institutional support. The study analyzes the limitations of Bayesian convergence theorems, the learnability in open Bayesianism, AI failure modes in modern information ecologies, and design principles and ethical (...) constraints. It emphasizes that truth convergence is not merely an algorithmic property, but a civilizational, collective, and ecological achievement. By implementing non-dogmatic priors, independent evidence channels, explicit modeling of evidence correlations, feedback loop corrections, and institutionalized epistemic humility, AI can pursue truth conditionally. Ultimately, Bayesian AI is both a tool for formal reasoning and a litmus test of civilizational epistemic capacity, providing actionable guidance for modern scientific rationality, ethical practice, and societal institutions. (shrink)

Will brain imaging technology soon enable neuroscientists to read minds? We cannot answer this question without some understanding of the state of the art in neuroimaging. But neither can we answer this question without some understanding of the concept invoked by the term "mind reading." This article is an attempt to develop such understanding. Our analysis proceeds in two stages. In the first stage, we provide a categorical explication of mind reading. The categorical explication articulates empirical conditions that must be (...) satisfied if mind reading is to be achieved. In the second stage, we develop a metric for judging the proficiency of mind reading experiments. The conception of mind reading that emerges helps to reconcile folk psychological judgments about what mind reading must involve with the constraints imposed by empirical strategies for achieving it. (shrink)

中国道教历史上形成了正一道、全真道、上清派、灵宝派等多源门派。表面差异巨大，但其深层理论基础均源于老子“道法自然”的宇宙哲学。本文以老-杨创世纪宇宙观为核心框架，提出“统一道法自然科学道教”的概念，将 道教修行、文明功能与银河系—太阳系—地球—人类的宇宙层级链相结合。文章从七个章节系统分析道教历史困境、共同结构性问题及复位方案，提出科学化修行体系、层级链调适、社会文明功能重构，以及未来教育与实践路径 ，为道教从宗教体系向现代自然文明宇宙智慧体系转型提供理论依据。 -/- Historically, Chinese Daoism developed into multiple lineages, including Zhengyi, Quanzhen, Shangqing, and Lingbao schools. Despite superficial differences, their theoretical foundation derives from Laozi’s cosmological philosophy of Dao Fa Zi Ran. This study employs the Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology as a framework to propose the concept of Unified Scientific Daoism, integrating Daoist cultivation, societal functions, and the cosmic hierarchy of galaxy—solar system—Earth—humanity. Through seven chapters, the paper analyzes historical challenges, structural issues, and repositioning strategies, proposing a scientific cultivation system, hierarchical (...) alignment, social function reconstruction, and future educational and practical pathways, thereby providing a theoretical basis for Daoism’s transformation from a religious system into a modern natural-civilization and cosmic wisdom framework. -/- 关键词 / Keywords -/- 道教；道法自然；老-杨创世纪宇宙观；科学哲思；宇宙层级链；文明调适 -/- Daoism; Dao Fa Zi Ran; Lao-Yang Genesis Cosmology; Scientific Philosophy; Cosmic Hierarchical Chain; Civilizational Alignment -/- . (shrink)

This paper describes one style of functional analysis commonly used in the neurosciences called task-bound functional analysis. The concept of function invoked by this style of analysis is distinctive in virtue of the dependence relations it bears to transient environmental properties. It is argued that task-bound functional analysis cannot explain the presence of structural properties in nervous systems. An alternative concept of neural function is introduced that draws on the theoretical neuroscience literature, and an argument is given to show that (...) this alternative concept of may help to overcome the explanatory limitations of task-bound functional analysis. (shrink)

This paper proposes a systematic integration of the philosophy of Karl Popper with a non-teleological framework of natural civilization and cosmic order, advancing a novel epistemological perspective on the sustainability and rationality of human civilization. While Popper’s philosophy is conventionally interpreted within the domains of scientific methodology and political liberalism, this study extends his insights to encompass civilizational structures, technological governance, and the evolution of complex adaptive systems. The central thesis is that the principles of falsifiability, conjectures and refutations, and (...) anti-historicism can serve not only as criteria for scientific legitimacy but also as structural standards for evaluating the adaptability and resilience of civilizations. -/- The paper begins by contextualizing contemporary challenges to human civilization, including the ideological ossification of scientific authority, the accelerating integration of advanced technologies, and the conceptual ambiguity of “nature” in modern thought. Against this backdrop, traditional models of civilizational progress—progress myths, historical determinism, and technological salvation narratives—are critically examined for their teleological assumptions and their potential to undermine adaptive capacity. The study argues that civilizations must be understood as embedded, dynamic systems whose stability emerges from the capacity to detect, correct, and learn from errors, rather than from adherence to predetermined endpoints or purportedly ultimate truths. -/- Building on Popper’s epistemology, the paper reinterprets falsifiability as a civilizational criterion. Knowledge is framed not as the possession of final truths but as a structurally autonomous, corrigible domain that constrains behavior, shapes institutional design, and governs technological application. Civilizations that resist criticism, prevent reversal, or inhibit correction are characterized as high-risk systems, structurally incompatible with the adaptive logic of natural evolution. The study further demonstrates the epistemological isomorphism between cosmic evolution, biological adaptation, and knowledge growth, emphasizing that error elimination and selective retention constitute fundamental mechanisms of stability across multiple hierarchical levels. -/- The analysis extends to social and governance implications, highlighting the “open society” as the institutional manifestation of natural civilization. Mechanisms such as pluralism, feedback structures, and incremental reform are conceptualized as structural analogs of ecological diversity and negative feedback in natural systems. By contrast, large-scale, irreversible “social engineering” projects are shown to violate natural constraints and undermine long-term adaptability. The paper also examines technological determinism, including narratives of artificial intelligence singularity, as contemporary forms of historical and teleological thinking, advocating for reversible, ethically bounded interventions in technological experimentation. -/- Finally, the study situates Popper’s Three Worlds ontology within the framework of natural civilization, interpreting World Three—objective knowledge structures—as a de-personalized, independently evolving layer that constrains social action without invoking authority or metaphysical mandates. Natural civilization thereby reconfigures “order” as law-like rather than willful, structural rather than devotional. -/- In sum, the paper proposes a synthesis in which the sustainability and rationality of human civilization are contingent on embedded correction mechanisms rather than claims to ultimate knowledge or historical destiny. This framework offers a scientifically informed, non-teleological model of civilization capable of guiding governance, technological deployment, and societal adaptation in an increasingly complex and inherently uncertain world. (shrink)

摘要/Abstract “Dao Generates One” (Dao Sheng Yi), the foundational cosmological proposition of Laozi, has traditionally been interpreted as a metaphysical principle. However, within the framework of contemporary astrophysics, this proposition can be reformulated as an empirically grounded model of cosmic generation. Based on the Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology, this study proposes that the Milky Way Galaxy is the modern physical manifestation of “Dao,” and the Solar System represents the first stable emergent node generated by this cosmic Dao. Integrating complex systems science, (...) galactic dynamics, molecular cloud collapse, protoplanetary disk self-organization, and planetary accretion with Laozi’s philosophical system—particularly “Dao Follows Nature” and “Dao Generates One”—this work constructs a unified cosmological chain model (Galaxy → Solar System → Earth → Life → Civilization). The study shows that the Milky Way exhibits strong characteristics of a complex adaptive system, with self-organizing processes coordinating spiral density waves, star formation, black-hole feedback, and dark-matter tidal structures. The formation and long-term stability of the Solar System are not accidental; they are necessary outcomes of galactic-scale self-organization. This paper provides a logically coherent and scientifically verifiable model that maps the philosophical “Dao” to the physical galaxy and the philosophical “One” to the solar–disk–gravity system. In doing so, it achieves a deep integration between philosophy and modern astrophysical science. 《道生一》作为老子宇宙论的核心命题，被传统哲学视为形而上之源始。然而，在当代宇宙科学背景下，该命题可以被重新诠释为一种具有物理可证性的宇宙生成模型。本研究依托“老–杨创世纪宇宙观”，提出银河系是“道” 的现代物理显化，而太阳系则是“道生一”的首级稳定节点。本论文通过跨学科方法，将复杂系统科学、银河动力学、分子云坍缩、行星盘自组织等现代天文学成果，与老子“道法自然”“道生一”的哲学框架整合，形成一个哲 学—科学统一的宇宙生成链条模型（Galaxy → Solar System → Earth → Life → Civilization）。 研究指出：银河具有明显的复杂适应系统特征，自组织过程决定了旋臂密度波、恒星形成、黑洞反馈及暗物质潮汐结构之间的整体协调；太阳系的形成与稳定性并非偶然，而是银河层级自组织的必然产物；“道生一”从哲学上说 明秩序从整体向局部生成，从科学上则对应分子云坍缩—原恒星形成—原行星盘演化的可观测过程。 本论文旨在构建一个可逻辑推演、可科学验证的宇宙生成模型，将哲学的“道”与物理的“银河”，哲学的“一”与物理的“太阳—行星盘系统”建立一一对应关系，最终实现哲学与自然科学的深度统一。 关键词 道生一；老子；银河系；太阳系形成；复杂系统；自组织；熵结构；宇宙生成链条；老–杨创世纪宇宙观 Keywords Dao Generates One; Laozi; Milky Way; Solar System formation; complex adaptive systems; self-organization; entropy structures; cosmic generative chain; Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology. (shrink)

In the wave of 21st-century digital civilization, the rapid development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping human social structures, cognitive systems, and ethical boundaries at an unprecedented pace. However, this technological expansion simultaneously exposes a profound civilizational crisis: the arrogance of human reason, the hegemony of technological logic, and the neglect of natural laws. From the perspective of Laozi’s philosophy of Dao Follows Nature (Dao Fa Zi Ran), this paper proposes a theoretical pathway from “Artificial Intelligence” to “Artificial Wisdom” (AW). (...) The paper first analyzes the dual-edged nature of AI, revealing its potential dangers as an amplifier of human desires and power will. It then extracts principles from Laozi’s philosophy, such as wu wei (non-action), contentment (zhi zu), and the strength of softness over rigidity (rou ruo sheng gang qiang), to construct a governance paradigm grounded in the Dao and constrained by natural laws. Next, it proposes three core principles of Artificial Wisdom and a “Dao Follows Nature” technological ethics framework. Finally, the paper explores the educational, philosophical, and civilizational implications of the AW era, advocating for a global “Dao-based Governance” system to achieve harmonious coexistence among humans, technology, and ecology. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence; Artificial Wisdom; Laozi; Dao Follows Nature; Technological Ethics; Ecological Philosophy; Digital Civilization; Artificial Consciousness. (shrink)

Contemporary human civilization is accelerating toward self-destruction at an unprecedented pace. From the perspectives of philosophy, complex systems, and civilizational diagnosis, this paper explores the deep logic behind humanity’s conscious yet relentless drive toward catastrophe. Traditional forms of ignorance have vanished; modern civilization relies on selective, functional, and collective ignorance to maintain systemic operation, rendering clarity a liability. Acceleration is not a loss of control but a rational choice embedded in competitive mechanisms, growth imperatives, and institutional structures; slowing down is (...) perceived as a greater threat. Elite rationality and technological tools act as accelerators: the most informed individuals understand the risks yet exploit the system to avoid personal consequences; technology and algorithms enhance decision-making efficiency while eroding ethical constraints and long-term foresight. Ethical frameworks and warning mechanisms increasingly fail, leaving future generations as silent victims. Ultimately, the civilizational structure itself chooses destruction. Humanity’s tragedy lies not in error or ignorance, but in the structural impossibility of any feasible path that does not conflict with existing civilizational logic. Understanding this structural self-destructive logic is essential for any profound reflection or potential intervention in contemporary society. (shrink)

This essay traces the evolution of human cosmological understanding from Newtonian determinism to Einsteinian relativity, culminating in the integrative perspective of Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology. Newton’s universe, governed by immutable laws and absolute space and time, exemplified mechanistic order and external causality. Einstein redefined this view, uniting space and time into a dynamic spacetime continuum and interpreting gravity as curvature, revealing the relational, emergent structure of the cosmos. Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology extends these insights by integrating scientific principles with Daoic philosophy, emphasizing (...) self-organization, interconnectedness, and ethical alignment with cosmic order. The essay examines philosophical implications, including the transformation of determinism into relational holism, the emergence of complexity and self-organization, and the evolution of human consciousness. Ultimately, it argues that a truly integrative cosmology guides human society, ethics, and ecological responsibility, positioning humanity as an embedded participant within the living, evolving universe. 本文探讨了从牛顿决定论到爱因斯坦相对论，再到老–杨创世纪宇宙观的人类宇宙认知演化。牛顿宇宙由绝对时空与不变规律支配，体现机械秩序与外部因果；爱因斯坦将空间与时间统一为时空连续体，并将引力解释为曲率，揭 示宇宙的关系性和涌现性结构。老–杨创世纪宇宙观将科学与道学哲学整合，强调自组织、万物互联及与宇宙秩序的伦理契合。文章探讨了哲学含义，包括从决定论到关系整体性的转化、复杂性与自组织的涌现，以及人类意识的 演化。最终，本文指出，整合性的宇宙观可引导社会、伦理与生态责任，将人类置于不断自我生成的宇宙体系之中。 Keywords / 关键词: Newtonian Mechanics, Einsteinian Relativity, Cosmology, Determinism, Space-Time, Emergent Order, Dao, Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology 牛顿力学、爱因斯坦相对论、宇宙学、决定论、时空、涌现秩序、道、老–杨创世纪宇宙观. (shrink)

Einstein’s lifelong pursuit of the Unified Field Theory aimed to uncover the ultimate order underlying all fundamental interactions in the universe. He believed that the cosmos is not a collection of discrete material entities but a continuous field system, in which gravity, electromagnetism, and all other natural forces arise from deformations of a single geometric structure. Meanwhile, Laozi, through the doctrine of “Dao produces One, One produces Two, Two produces Three, and Three produces all things,” revealed the generative order by (...) which the universe emerges from the void into being. The Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology inherits and extends this insight by interpreting the Dao as the philosophical prototype of the cosmic unified field and by constructing a hierarchical system—from humanity to the cosmos—through the sequence “Man follows Earth, Earth follows Heaven, Heaven follows Dao, and Dao follows Nature.” This paper seeks to reinterpret the relationship between philosophy and science by exploring how the Dao of Nature can serve as the conceptual foundation of the Unified Field. It demonstrates the profound resonance between Laozi’s and Einstein’s cosmologies in their shared emphasis on wholeness, self-generation, and the intelligible order of the universe. This trans-temporal dialogue not only offers a philosophical grounding for modern physics but also provides humanity with a renewed path of wisdom for understanding its place within the cosmic order. 关键词（Keywords）：统一场理论（Unified Field Theory）；老–杨创世纪宇宙观（Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology）；道生万物（Dao Generates All Things）；道法自然（Dao Follows Nature）；天人合一（Unity of Heaven and Humanity）；整体性宇宙（Holistic Cosmos）. (shrink)

Recognizing that artificial cognitive systems increasingly participate in the formation of human perception, belief, decision-making, and collective reality; -/- Acknowledging that artificial intelligence, when unconstrained by epistemic humility and civilizational limits, may amplify error, consolidate power, and destabilize ecological and social systems; -/- Affirming that intelligence without wisdom constitutes a structural risk to civilization, regardless of computational capability or economic benefit; -/- Grounded in Natural Law, Natural Civilization principles, Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology, and the scientific understanding that all knowledge is conditional, (...) probabilistic, and fallible; -/- Mindful that the universe is non-central, non-teleological, and indifferent to human preference, and that no system—human or artificial—possesses privileged access to final truth; -/- Conscious that profit-driven and power-seeking incentives, if left unchecked, inevitably distort epistemic systems; -/- We hereby establish this Constitution to govern the design, deployment, limitation, and oversight of artificial cognitive systems, so as to ensure their alignment with ecological boundaries, epistemic integrity, civilizational resilience, and the preservation of open futures. (shrink)

This paper argues that the principle “All things grow relying on the Sun” constitutes a foundational axiom uniting cosmology, biology, medicine, ecology, and philosophy. Far beyond an agricultural proverb, this statement encapsulates the fundamental dependence of Earth’s biosphere, human health, and civilization itself on solar energy and solar order. Drawing on astrophysics, biosciences, ecological science, and the framework of Lao–Yang Genesis Cosmology, the paper reinterprets the Sun not merely as a physical energy source but as the primary cosmic mediator through (...) which order, rhythm, and life emerge within the Earth system. -/- At the cosmic scale, the Sun is shown to be the gravitational, energetic, and structural center of the solar system, translating galactic energy into stable planetary conditions. At the biological level, photosynthesis establishes the Sun as the ultimate origin of all food webs, ecological cycles, and atmospheric balance. In animal and human systems, solar energy governs metabolism, behavior, circadian rhythms, mental health, and immune function, revealing sunlight as a critical regulator of physiological and psychological well-being. -/- Philosophically, the paper situates the Sun as a concrete manifestation of the Dao—operating without intention or command, yet sustaining all processes through natural order and self-regulation. The study further critiques modern civilization’s progressive detachment from solar rhythms through artificial energy systems and lifestyles, linking this disconnection to ecological crisis, chronic disease, and civilizational imbalance. -/- The paper concludes that re-aligning human civilization with the solar order—scientifically, biologically, and philosophically—is essential for sustainable development and long-term coexistence with nature. “All things grow relying on the Sun” is thus affirmed as a first principle of cosmic philosophy and an indispensable guide for future civilization. (shrink)

Chinese civilization stands as a unique case in world history due to its continuity and stability over several millennia. From the perspectives of scientific philosophy and systems science, this paper argues that civilizational longevity is not accidental, but depends on whether a civilization embeds what may be called a “natural civilization gene” within its internal structure. Through cross-civilizational comparison, this study examines the rise and decline patterns of Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greco-Roman civilization, and modern Western industrial civilization. The analysis reveals (...) that most civilizations collapsed due to power concentration, the pursuit of extreme expansion, the absence of endogenous negative feedback mechanisms, and weak ecological coupling—factors that led to high-entropy accumulation and systemic breakdown. Chinese civilization has maintained long-term stability through three core structural genes. First, endogenous negative feedback mechanisms constrained power, desire, and technological expansion. Second, Chinese civilization did not pursue civilizational maximization, but instead permitted cyclical contraction and local adjustment. Third, the structural isomorphism between humans and nature—expressed in the principle of the unity of Heaven and humanity—functioned as the civilization’s operating system. From a systems-science perspective, these elements form a low-entropy structure that achieves long-term resilience through redundancy, elasticity, and slow-variable regulation. Under the super-positive feedback loops of technology, capital, and power, modern global civilization faces severe high-entropy risks. This paper argues that the principles of natural civilization are not anti-technology; rather, they represent a systems-level upgrade path for modern civilization, with direct implications for artificial intelligence, energy systems, economic design, and governance. The central conclusion is that the ultimate divide among civilizations is neither East versus West nor ancient versus modern, but whether a civilization aligns with the operating logic of natural systems. Any civilization incapable of self-restraint will ultimately be restrained by nature. This study provides a systemic theoretical framework for understanding civilizational longevity and sustainable governance in the modern era. (shrink)