:KDW,V,W/LNHWR%HD5RERW" *XLOW\5RERWV+DSS\'RJV7KH4XHVWLRQRI$OLHQ0LQGVE\'DYLG0F)DUODQG 5HYLHZE\'DQLHO&'HQQHWW %LR6FLHQFH9RO1R 6HSWHPEHU SS 3XEOLVKHGE\University of California PressRQEHKDOIRIWKHAmerican Institute of Biological Sciences 6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.14 . $FFHVVHG

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of California Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience.

http://www.jstor.org Fall Focus on Books learn to appreciate some of the advances respect, that they go back to Harvard out the terrain using what you already and controversies in evolutionary de- Press and propose to use the current know to interpret what you find. For- velopmental biology while reading Greg version of their book as the seed for a tunately, David McFarland has chosen Wray. Then again, there is no essay on community-wide, online, open-ended the second option in Guilty Robots, the role of phenotypic plasticity in evo- effort. Of course, it would also be nice if Happy Dogs: The Question of Alien lution, a topic that has acquired central it were open access, but that’s another Minds, and there is much food for status during the past two decades; after story. thought here for both scientists and perusing Evolution a reader might be philosophers. excused for not appreciating the entire MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI It is written in the spirit of Valentino field of evolutionary genomics, or for Massimo Pigliucci (massimo Braitenberg’s brilliant little book Vehicles being ignorant of ongoing discussions @platofootnote.org) is a professor in the (1984), a series of thought experiments on crucial new concepts like evolvabil- Department of Philosophy at the City that led readers from robotic vehicles ity. Even attempts to move beyond strict University of New York, Lehman College. even simpler than bacteria to ever-more biology with entries on evolution and sophisticated and versatile agents capa- society, evolution and religion, and the References cited ble of tracking food, avoiding harm, above-mentioned essay on antievolu- Browne J, Ekman P, Kauffman S, May R, Pigliucci comparing situations, and remembering tionism barely scratch the surface—why M, and Raison C. 2009. Darwin’s Descendants. things. McFarland starts his project a is there no discussion of evolutionary New York Academy of Sciences. (7 August 2009; little higher on the ladder of sophisti- psychology, as controversial and some- www.nyas.org/Publications/Detail.aspx?cid=56e3 cation, with a robot designed to serve as what dubious as the field is? 5057-c0ad-4b83-8c02-bc38082419dc) a night watchman of sorts, identifying While some of these lacunae could Coyne JA. 2009. Why Evolution Is True. Viking. interlopers, calling for help when have been avoided during the planning Diderot D, d’Alembert JR. 1751–1777. Encyclopédie. needed, and, most important, preserv- stages of the volume, I think the under- (7 August 2009; http://quod.lib.umich.edu/d/did/) ing its energy supply for another day, lying problem is that encyclopedic efforts Müller GB. 2007. Evo-devo: Extending the evolu- budgeting its activities to stay alive at all are a thing of the past, certainly when it tionary synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics 8: costs. This basic robot is then enhanced comes to the paper variety of encyclo- 943–949. in various ways, in a design process pedia. In this bold new era of ubiquitous Norenzayan A, Shariff AF. 2008. The origin and whose ultimate goal is a robot that can and increasingly cheap laptop comput- evolution of religious prosociality. Science 322: be held accountable and to whom things ers, 24/7 Internet access, e-readers, smart 58–62. matter—a robot with subjectivity and phones, and so on, I simply do not see Pigliucci M. 2007. Do we need an extended evolu- values. many people willing to lug around a tionary synthesis? Evolution 61: 2743–2749. How do nonhuman animals compare thousand pages of what is going to be a with such robots? Animal minds (in- necessarily incomplete and increasingly cluding our own) are the real quarry unrepresentative reference source like here, and McFarland uses the parallels Evolution. Publishers, editors, and au- and differences between clearly imagined thors would be much better off em- WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE A ROBOT? robots and various well-studied animals bracing the anarchy and flexibility of to illuminate the issues in a host of re- the Web to develop decentralized and Guilty Robots, Happy Dogs: The search controversies currently raging in more focused projects, such as the Question of Alien Minds. David psychology and ethology. This has been excellent Complete Works of Charles Dar- McFarland. Oxford University Press, his larger strategy for many years, and win online (http://darwin-online.org.uk/). 2009. 256 pp., illus. $15.95 (ISBN this book gives us a summary of the Even encyclopedias are taking a de- 9780199219308 paper). lessons he has gleaned from this inter- cidedly different form these days, and if disciplinary exploration. one does not like the proletarian ny scientist who wants to investigate One message driven home most Wikipedia, excellent models of schol- A minds—our minds, animal minds, effectively, in my opinion, is that it is arly efforts are out there, such as the alien minds—will soon discover that entirely appropriate to consider natural Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy there is no way to proceed without ven- selection to be a (mindless, purpose- (http://plato.stanford.edu/). These take turing into the playgrounds and battle- less) designer, and to compare the de- seriously the idea of organic, grassroots fields of the philosophers. You can either signs churned up by eons of natural growth arising from the efforts of a ded- stumble into this investigation and selection on a par with designs generated icated community, based on what the thrash about with a big scientific stick, top-down by would-be intelligent community itself sees as worth writing thwacking yourself about as often as designers—engineers and roboticists. about, as opposed to the centralized your opponents, or you can enter cau- Sometimes the perspective is particu- planning typical of the standard model. tiously, methodically, trying to figure larly bracing, as when McFarland in- Indeed, let me suggest to Ruse and sists on situating his imagined robots Travis, both of whom I know and highly doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.14 in a market economy so he can note www.biosciencemag.org September 2009 / Vol. 59 No. 8 • BioScience 707 Fall Focus on Books that nobody would buy such a robot— out explicit representation, and he pro- behavior seems to suffice: “Certainly we it wouldn’t pay for itself. Animals, sim- poses to define cognitive processes as can say that the teacher behaves as if it ilarly, are amazingly thrifty because they those that require “a certain kind of wants, hopes, or desires the pupil to be- have to be; they have superb layers of mechanism—one that requires manip- have in a certain way,” he says, but he also self-protection and repertoires of self- ulation of explicit representations” goes on to note that the teacher could advancing behaviors, but not a smidgen (p. 87). This sets the bar high and departs have a “strong theory of mind” about the more than can pay for itself in the long from standard usage, but perhaps it is pupil and be wrong (p. 105). The com- run. This often brings out the rationale best to follow his lead. Note that with parison with robots is always astringent for animal (or robot) features that would this definition, it isn’t clear that our here, and McFarland puts our built-in otherwise be lost in the shadows. It also hand-eye coordination or even our abil- skepticism about robot minds to good obliges McFarland to commit to a ity to find our way home counts as a use in reining in our romanticism about “behaviorist” approach—not the ideo- cognitive process (unless we use a map our furry friends. logical straitjacket of the Skinnerians or an explicit mental map). McFarland proposes a contrast but the behaviorism expressed by Tur- between two views of what is going on ing in 1937, when he noted about the inside: the hedonic model and the human computers of his day: “The be- automaton model. According to the he- havior of the computer at any moment donic, “the feelings of pleasure and dis- is determined by the symbols which he pleasure that arise from various parts is observing, and his ‘state of mind’ at of the body in situations of motivational that moment” (p. 241). Handsome is as compromise are combined in some way, handsome does, a motto enshrined in and behavioral adjustments are made the rationale for the Turing test, and the so as to maximize pleasure and minimize only way a science of mind can proceed. displeasure.” By contrast, in the au- But how much can one glean from tomaton, “the behavioral and physio- inner behavior (the machinery of the logical adjustments are automatic, mind, in effect) by observing the com- and...the system is attuned to produce petencies of outer behavior? Do ani- the best compromise among the com- mals, for instance, really have the beliefs peting demands” (p. 123). He says, “The that their behavior seems to indicate fundamental difference between the two they do? Here McFarland avails himself McFarland also proposes a demand- views is that in the automaton view of a slightly unorthodox but useful in- ing definition of subjective experience: the quantity maximized is implicit, terpretation of philosophy’s terms of “The agent is the recipient of experi- while in the hedonic view it is explicit” art, realism and functionalism. Realism ence, and knows it” (p. 94). Using this (p. 123). But are these views as distinct would not impute a belief to the organ- definition, the behavior of turning to a as they first appear? When he turns to ism unless it was “in principle identifi- more painless posture while asleep Michel Cabanac’s experiments with peo- able outside the role that it plays in the would not count as demonstrating ple being paid to endure discomfort, system” (p. 69), whereas functionalism subjective experience of pain, and it and paying for sandwiches of different (such as my intentional-stance view) is follows that much animal behavior tastiness (by their own taste), he can more relaxed, willing to impute beliefs (think of fish, for instance) is not clear rely, for once, on what subjects say about that are only implicit in the design and evidence that animals have subjective their decisions. As he goes on to note, functioning of the larger system. For experience, no matter how frantically however, a subliminal process can take realists, a belief is an explicit represen- they squirm. McFarland does not infer the place of a “conscious motive,” ap- tation, “not simply part of a procedure. that animals don’t have subjective ex- parently, and thus “it is not clear that If a representation is to be explicit, then perience or explicit beliefs. He just points Michel Cabanac is correct in assuming there has to be a physically identifiable out that given these well-motivated def- that trade-offs involving money neces- bearer of the information (the token) initions, we cannot yet tell. sarily involve a conscious mental com- and, additionally, something, most likely Indeed, that is the larger conclusion ponent” (p. 128). someone, who can be identified as the that McFarland draws again and again— As we near the summit, we consider user of the information” (p. 77). the evidence is not yet in, not even about robot designers who want their robot to Human beings have beliefs aplenty, Border, his dog. He looks sympatheti- be “accountable for its behavior.” For obviously, because they have lots of ex- cally at important experiments and ob- this, it needs its own values, not just its plicit knowledge that they can readily ex- servations, of dogs “teaching” their pups, designers’ values. It can learn to adjust press. Do dogs or robots have explicit of animals making sophisticated choices its values, but this learning must de- beliefs? Do they need them? McFarland (are they explicitly maximizing their ex- pend on some prior “immutable” values shows how robots can exhibit behav- pected pleasure?). In each case he finds it was born with, you might say. Here I iors similar to animals’ behaviors with- that a functionalist interpretation of the think McFarland misses a possibility: It

708 BioScience • September 2009 / Vol. 59 No. 8 www.biosciencemag.org Fall Focus on Books might be unwise to design a robot that these chapters. Difficult and often con- could eventually undo even its initial troversial topics such as photophysiology “immutable” values and take on a new LIFE AT THE ENDS (chapter 2) and turbulence (chapter 3) summum bonum, but this is not an en- OF THE EARTH provide the reader with a nice review gineering impossibility (Suber 2001). of the processes before delving into their Perhaps the only way to make an ac- The Biology of Polar Regions. 2nd ed. roles in polar environments. Each chap- D. N. Thomas, G. E. Fogg, P. Convey, ter typically ends with summary or con- countable robot that could deserve pun- C. H. Fritsen, J.-M. Gili, R. Gradinger, clusion sections, which could work well, ishment for its misdeeds and rewards J. Laybourn-Parry, K. Reid, and D. W. but, unfortunately, several of these sec- for its heroics would be to give it the H. Walton. Oxford University Press, tions are not well developed. For exam- dangerous capacity to renounce the val- 2008. 416 pp., illus. $60.00 (ISBN ple, the “wider perspectives” section of ues we installed in it at birth. 9780199298136 paper). chapter 4 (“Glacial Habitats in Polar McFarland has done his homework Regions”) hardly goes beyond the sur- well; he offers a patient, sympathetic, s a scientist who has spent 25 years face on the role of polar environments and largely accurate discussion of A conducting research in polar re- as analogs for life on other icy worlds. philosophers’ best relevant work, plung- gions, I was immediately drawn to The Only two references in this section were ing into the darkest thickets of contro- Biology of Polar Regions for several rea- published after 2005, which does little versy over supervenience, eliminativism, sons: (a) The poles, particularly Antarc- justice to what we have learned about symbol grounding, higher-order thought tica, represent one of the last frontiers of the icy systems of Mars, Europa, and exploration on our planet; (b) polar en- Enceledus over the past five years. I theories, and the like. Some of his read- vironments are highly sensitive barom- think that many aspects of this chapter, ings will jar the authors he discusses, eters of climate change and can affect the and the book in general, are directly rel- who will think that they have been mis- entire Earth system as they respond to evant to astrobiology and worthy of bet- understood to hold positions that had changing climate; and (c) this work con- ter coverage. never occurred to them, but they will tinues the vision and style of the late never find him sniping in standard philo- G. E. Fogg, who was not only an eminent sophical fashion; if he misreads them, it scientist but also a visionary able to view This edition of The Biology of Polar Regions is because his effort to find a construc- Earth in a completely holistic way. The tive reading was too charitable by half. first version of the book, published in packs a plethora of information. The authors’ 1998, was written by Fogg alone; for this Philosophers are not always trying to detailed comparisons of Arctic and Antarctic do as much as scientists imagine. second edition, it took eight authorita- tive authors—with expertise spanning habitats generate a breadth of coverage that DANIEL C. DENNETT topics such as marine biology, biologi- cal oceanography, sea ice, soils, limnol- few books on polar environments offer. Daniel C. Dennett ogy, climate change, and Antarctic ([email protected]) is the conservation and policy—to update Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosopy Fogg’s original version. Kudos to the I was also left wondering to what de- and codirector of the Center for Cognitive present authors for maintaining Fogg’s gree the data presented in many of the Studies at Tufts University in Medford, original chapters 1 and 2 and the con- chapters have changed over the past five Massachusetts. cluding chapter largely unchanged, years as the result of climate change. paying tribute to his inquisitive pursuit This is particularly relevant to the de- of the nature of science and masterful scriptions of species within Arctic ter- References cited synthesis of information across many restrial and marine systems, which are Braitenberg V. 1984. Vehicles: Experiments in Syn- disciplines. clearly in a state of transition. For ex- thetic Psychology. MIT Press. Fogg’s first two chapters describe the ample, are the depth profiles, species Suber P. 2001. Saving Machines from Themselves: basic physical and biological constraints lists, and food-chain depictions in chap- The Ethics of Deep Self-Modification. (22 July on life in polar regions. The subsequent ter 5 (“Inland Waters in Polar Regions”) nine chapters are updated substantially and chapter 6 (“Open Oceans in Polar 2009: www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/selfmod. to reflect the many new discoveries made Regions”) representative of the present htm) over the past decade. I found the chap- situation? Current literature indicates Turing A. 1937. On computable numbers, with an ters on sea ice, marine benthos, and hu- that these relationships have changed application to the Entscheidungsproblem. Pro- man impacts (particularly the review of or are in the process of changing rapidly. ceedings of the London Mathematical Society polar politics) to be exceptional. Any Although the authors do devote chapter 42: 230–265. Erratum in Proceedings of the student of the polar sciences must read 10 to describing the influence of climate London Mathematical Society 43: 544–546 change on many levels of polar ecosys- (1938). doi:10.1112/plms/s2-43.6.544 doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.15 tems, and even include a section on www.biosciencemag.org September 2009 / Vol. 59 No. 8 • BioScience 709