Hippokratis Kiaris

Scientific disciplines traditionally are defined by their subject matter. In turn, they engage specific methodologies and scientific approaches that are familiar to those that are engaged in their study. Biological sciences however constitute an exception. They engage methodologies that have been developed for the natural sciences, but their subject matter is more relevant to humanities, especially history. The distinctive point that creates this discordance is the integration of notions such as randomness and stochasticity. In traditional natural sciences, limiting them signifies progress by improved methodologies and theories. In biological sciences they are increasingly appreciated as integral components of its subject matter. Relevant to this is also their predictive power. In the former, rendering predictions was constantly seen as validation of the theory by deduction. In biology, the focus on prediction is reduced, and what persists is the retrospective validation of past event and the appreciation of the impact of stochasticity, historicity, and subjectivity. These differences are reflected to the inability, and indeed the abandonment of rendering predictions as a goal for biology, and more recently as well as in other times in history, to the politically – and culturally inflicted - re-evaluation of what both the goals and the method of biomedical research should be.

The essay discusses two sources of randomness in the natural world. The first one is methodological and is associated with the complexity of the system, the inability to handle data of astronomically large scale, or the lack of adequate theory. The second is due to the emergence of a state that cannot be expressed as a function of a previous state albeit it is perceived as its derivative. By examining the ramifications of each possibility, the essay concludes that in both cases, albeit from different directions, objectivism is an illusional concept and that the only avenue to move forward is an anthropocentric perception of life and of the natural world. In both cases the conclusions reached may appear as paradoxical which raises skepticism regarding the breadth of the modern epistemological perspectives.

Ion, one of the earliest of Plato’s dialogues, is also considered as one of the philosopher’s less important philosophical works. It is also viewed as one of the earliest texts on the philosophy of art that distinguishes between techne and artistic creation, with the latter representing a form of divine inspiration which occurs outside the awareness of its creator. Here I will offer an alternative interpretation that is based on the dissociation of the poet from his reciter. The latter, by operating as a medium, functions similarly to the ignorant in Chinese but possessor and user of a perfect manual, in Searle’s Chinese room. Furthermore, I propose that art, in Plato’s view, may represent a form of creative achievement with significance that exceeds the sum of the specific disciplines it deals with.

The integration of postmodern thinking in the sciences, especially in biology, has been subject to harsh criticism. Contrary to Enlightenment ideals of objectivity and neutrality in the scientific method, the postmodern stance holds that truth is relative, not universal, and therefore progress is ambiguous. The effect of postmodern thought has ramifications that extend from the distrust of preexisting scientific conclusions to questions about the impact of progress in society. It also reflects skepticism about the scientific endeavor. Especially when postmodern ideas are considered to have gained traction, the anti-postmodern critique has become harsher. At stake is whether postmodern notions are indeed irrelevant, and—even more important—whether they compromise scientific progress. The conditional significance of universals in biology and the role of historicity in the evolutionary process makes biology different from the other natural sciences and subjects it to the postmodern critique. This article argues that rather than being viewed as a science that seeks universals, biology should be viewed as a construct, more relevant to a technology, aiming to attain functionalities. Such recognition may fuel progress and assist biology in attaining its ultimate goal, which is to address the most intricate questions about the living world.

Our genes determine to a large extent who we are and why we are different from others. In this book, Hippokratis Kiaris explores how various genetic polymorphisms in different ethnic populations may affect the development of distinct cultures and eventually historical decisions. It should be read by anybody interested in history, anthropology, behavior, psychology or genetics. The reader will find clues linking together these scientific disciplines and how such genetically determined behavioral traits may play an undervalued, as yet, role in shaping historical outcomes.

Civilizations can be perceived as living human beings that are born, mature, age, and ultimately die and disappear, passing their legacy to the future generations. These transitions may be projected to the different stages of cognitive development of children. The Western Civilization, which embodies our current state of cultural advancement from the Classic Greek to the modern period, can be paralleled by the gradual transitions of human beings toward adulthood. From this perspective, the ancient Greek era resembles the toddler years of humanity at which the first “why”-type questions are being asked. The theocratic period that followed until the Renaissance can be seen as our childhood, when people lived their lives under the tight boundaries set by religious authorities. The period spanning from the Enlightenment until almost the end of the 20th century can be considered as our teenage years when people rediscover their past, are liberated from superstition, and set the path forward based on reason by a manner at which the distinction between plausible and feasible is vague. Within this scheme, postmodernism also finds its place in our teenhood. The last few decades, from this perspective, signify our entrance to adulthood at which major questions are considered answered, or at least settled, and the only path forward perceived as feasible is the one that is followed already, a state that is bringing us closer to our intellectual aging and its inevitable death. Some signs of aging-related pathologies are already manifested in today’s technology-intensive society. By identifying our intellectual age and by appreciating our health status, we may be able to proactively delay or even avert our intellectual aging and death.

The future of human evolution triggers many discussions, in the intersection of biological, technological, and philosophical enquiry. I will discuss the proposition that the evolution of the human species will rely increasingly in stochastic phenomena in the future, by a manner at which selection will play a minimal role only. This is the direct consequence of our cultural evolution that was intensified after the Enlightenment and combined with the scientific, technological, and medical advances of our civilization, renders the perseverance of our species, as its ultimate goal. This supersedes the goals instructed by biology alone as they apply to all other species. To that end, H. sapiens will be the first and only species that through its logic-based progress, defies the rationale of natural selection as an evolutionary force and forecasts a rather unpredictable future path.

The simulation argument acquires increased popularity in scientific and intellectual circles. Usually, it is approached from a perspective that examines the validity of the argument from the perspective of whether it can or cannot be accepted. Here I will accept that the argument is valid and that indeed we live in a simulation, and then argue that on this basis the future of humanity is a rather pessimistic one. The concern and eventually realization that we live in a simulation coincides with our cultural evolution as a species and with our intellectual advancement as humanity. Depending on how well-perfected this simulation that we live in is, it mirrors either a “game over” or a “frozen screen” stage, to borrow from the terminology of video games. In these cases, this calls for the intervention of the simulator that either needs to reset its simulation or to eliminate the factor that has caused the malfunction.