In the philosophy of mind, innatism is the view that the mind is born with already-formed ideas, knowledge, and beliefs. The opposing doctrine, that the mind is a tabula rasa (blank slate) at birth and all knowledge is gained from experience and the senses, is called empiricism.
Innatism and nativism are generally synonymous terms
referring to the notion of preexisting ideas in the mind. However, more
specifically, innatism refers to the philosophy of Descartes, who assumed that God or a similar being or process placed innate ideas and principles in the human mind. The innatist principles in this regard may overlap with similar concepts such as natural order and state of nature, in philosophy.
Nativism represents an adaptation of this, grounded in the fields of genetics, cognitive psychology, and psycholinguistics. Nativists hold that innate beliefs are in some way genetically programmed in our mind—they are the phenotypes of certain genotypes
that all humans share in common. Nativism is a modern view rooted in
innatism. The advocates of nativism are mainly philosophers who also
work in the field of cognitive psychology or psycholinguistics: most notably Noam Chomsky and Jerry Fodor (although the latter adopted a more critical attitude toward nativism in his later writings).The nativist's general objection against empiricism is still the same as was raised by the rationalists; the human mind of a newborn child is not a tabula rasa but is equipped with an inborn structure.
History
Although
individual human beings vary in many ways (culturally, ethnically,
linguistically, and so on), innate ideas are the same for everyone
everywhere. For example, the philosopher René Descartes theorized that knowledge of God is innate in everybody. Philosophers such as Descartes and Plato were rationalists. Other philosophers, most notably the empiricists, were critical of innate ideas and denied they existed.
The debate over innate ideas is central to the conflict between
rationalists (who believe certain ideas exist independently of
experience) and empiricists (who believe knowledge is derived from
experience).
Many believe the German philosopher Immanuel Kant synthesized these two early modern traditions in his philosophical thought.
Plato
Plato
argues that if there are certain concepts that we know to be true but
did not learn from experience, then it must be because we have an innate
knowledge of it and that this knowledge must have been gained before
birth. In Plato's Meno, he recalls a situation where his mentor Socrates
questioned a slave boy about geometry. Though the slave boy had no
previous experience with geometry, he was able to answer correctly.
Plato reasoned that this was possible because Socrates' questions
sparked the innate knowledge of math the boy had from birth.
Descartes
Descartes
conveys the idea that innate knowledge or ideas is something inborn
such as one would say, that a certain disease might be 'innate' to
signify that a person might be at risk of contracting such a disease. He
suggests that something that is 'innate' is effectively present from
birth and while it may not reveal itself then, is more than likely to
present itself later in life. Descartes’ comparison of innate knowledge
to an innate disease, whose symptoms may show up only later in life,
unless prohibited by a factor like age or puberty, suggests that if an
event occurs prohibiting someone from exhibiting an innate behaviour or
knowledge, it doesn't mean the knowledge did not exist at all but rather
it wasn't expressed – they were not able to acquire that knowledge. In
other words, innate beliefs, ideas and knowledge require experiences to
be triggered or they may never be expressed. Experiences are not the
source of knowledge as proposed by John Locke, but catalysts to the
uncovering of knowledge.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz suggested that we are born with certain innate ideas, the most identifiable of these being mathematical truisms. The idea that 1 + 1 = 2 is evident to us without the necessity for empirical evidence.
Leibniz argues that empiricism can show us show that concepts are true
in the present; the observation of one apple and then another in one
instance, and in that instance only, leads to the conclusion that one
and another equals two. However, the suggestion that one and another
will always equal two requires an innate idea, as that would be a
suggestion of things unwitnessed.
Leibniz called such concepts as mathematical truisms "necessary
truths". Another example of such may be the phrase, "What is, is" or "It
is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be". Leibniz argues
that such truisms are universally assented to (acknowledged by all to be
true); this being the case, it must be due to their status as innate
ideas. Often some ideas are acknowledged as necessarily true but are not
universally assented to. Leibniz would suggest that this is simply
because the person in question has not become aware of the innate idea,
not because they do not possess it. Leibniz argues that empirical
evidence can serve to bring to the surface certain principles that are
already innately embedded in our minds. This is similar to needing to
hear only the first few notes to recall the rest of the melody.
John Locke
The main antagonist to the concept of innate ideas is John Locke,
a contemporary of Leibniz. Locke argued that the mind is in fact devoid
of all knowledge or ideas at birth; it is a blank sheet or tabula rasa.
He argued that all our ideas are constructed in the mind via a process
of constant composition and decomposition of the input that we receive
through our senses.
Locke, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,
suggests that the concept of universal assent in fact proves nothing,
except perhaps that everyone is in agreement; in short universal assent
proves that there is universal assent and nothing else. Moreover, Locke
goes on to suggest that in fact there is no universal assent.
Even a phrase such as "What is, is" is not universally assented to;
infants and severely mentally disabled adults do not generally
acknowledge this truism.
Locke also attacks the idea that an innate idea can be imprinted on the
mind without the owner realizing it. For Locke, such reasoning would
allow one to conclude the absurd: "All the Truths a Man ever comes to
know, will, by this account, be, every one of them, innate." To return to the musical analogy, we may not be able to recall the
entire melody until we hear the first few notes, but we were aware of
the fact that we knew the melody and that upon hearing the first few
notes we would be able to recall the rest.
Locke ends his attack upon innate ideas by suggesting that the mind is a tabula rasa or "blank slate", and that all ideas come from experience; all our knowledge is founded in sensory experience.
Essentially, the same knowledge thought to be a priori by
Leibniz is, according to Locke, the result of empirical knowledge, which
has a lost origin [been forgotten] in respect to the inquirer. However,
the inquirer is not cognizant of this fact; thus, he experiences what
he believes to be a priori knowledge.
The theory of innate knowledge is excessive. Even innatists
accept that most of our knowledge is learned through experience, but if
that can be extended to account for all knowledge, we learn color
through seeing it, so therefore, there is no need for a theory about an
innate understanding of color.
No ideas are universally held. Do we all possess the idea of God? Do
we all believe in justice and beauty? Do we all understand the law of
identity? If not, it may not be the case that we have acquired these
ideas through impressions/experience/social interaction.
Even if there are some universally agreed statements, it is just the
ability of the human brain to organize learned ideas/words, that is,
innate. An "ability to organize" is not the same as "possessing
propositional knowledge" (e.g., a computer with no saved files has all
the operations programmed in but has an empty memory).
Contemporary approaches
Linguistics
In his Meno,
Plato raises an important epistemological quandary: How is it that we
have certain ideas that are not conclusively derivable from our
environments? Noam Chomsky
has taken this problem as a philosophical framework for the scientific
inquiry into innatism. His linguistic theory, which derives from 18th
century classical-liberal thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt,
attempts to explain in cognitive terms how we can develop knowledge of
systems which are said, by supporters of innatism, to be too rich and
complex to be derived from our environment. One such example is our
linguistic faculty. Our linguistic systems contain a systemic complexity
which supposedly could not be empirically derived: the environment
seems too poor, variable and indeterminate,
according to Chomsky, to explain the extraordinary ability to learn
complex concepts possessed by very young children. Essentially, their
accurate grammatical knowledge cannot have originated from their
experiences as their experiences are not adequate. It follows that humans must be born with a universal innate grammar,
which is determinate and has a highly organized directive component,
and enables the language learner to ascertain and categorize language
heard into a system. Chomsky states that the ability to learn how to
properly construct sentences or know which sentences are grammatically
incorrect is an ability gained from innate knowledge. Noam Chomsky cites as evidence for this theory, the apparent
invariability, according to his views, of human languages at a
fundamental level. In this way, linguistics may provide a window into
the human mind, and establish scientific theories of innateness which
otherwise would remain merely speculative.
One implication of Noam Chomsky's innatism, if correct, is that
at least a part of human knowledge consists in cognitive
predispositions, which are triggered and developed by the environment,
but not determined by it. Chomsky suggests that we can look at how a
belief is acquired as an input-output situation. He supports the
doctrine of innatism as he states that human beliefs gathered from
sensory experience are much richer and complex than the experience
itself. He asserts that the extra information gathered is from the mind
itself as it cannot solely be from experiences. Humans derive excess
amount of information from their environment so some of that information
must be pre-determined.
There are two types of interplanetary contamination:
Forward contamination is the transfer of life and other forms of contamination from Earth to another celestial body.
Back contamination is the introduction of extraterrestrial organisms and other forms of contamination into Earth's biosphere.
It also covers infection of humans and human habitats in space and on
other celestial bodies by extraterrestrial organisms, if such organisms
exist.
The main focus is on microbial life and on potentially invasive species.
Non-biological forms of contamination have also been considered,
including contamination of sensitive deposits (such as lunar polar ice
deposits) of scientific interest. In the case of back contamination, multicellular life is thought
unlikely but has not been ruled out. In the case of forward
contamination, contamination by multicellular life (e.g. lichens) is
unlikely to occur for robotic missions, but it becomes a consideration
in crewed missions to Mars.
Current space missions are governed by the Outer Space Treaty and the COSPAR guidelines for planetary protection. Forward contamination is prevented primarily by sterilizing the spacecraft. In the case of sample-return missions,
the aim of the mission is to return extraterrestrial samples to Earth,
and sterilization of the samples would make them of much less interest.
So, back contamination would be prevented mainly by containment, and
breaking the chain of contact between the planet of origin and Earth. It
would also require quarantine procedures for the materials and for anyone who comes into contact with them.
Overview
Most of the Solar System
appears hostile to life as we know it. No extraterrestrial life has
ever been discovered. But if extraterrestrial life exists, it may be
vulnerable to interplanetary contamination by foreign microorganisms.
Some extremophiles
may be able to survive space travel to another planet, and foreign life
could possibly be introduced by spacecraft from Earth. If possible,
some believe this poses scientific and ethical concerns.
Locations within the Solar System where life might exist today include the oceans of liquid water beneath the icy surface of Europa, Enceladus,
and Titan (its surface has oceans of liquid ethane / methane, but it may also have liquid water below the surface and ice volcanoes).
There are multiple consequences for both forward- and
back-contamination. If a planet becomes contaminated with Earth life, it
might then be difficult to tell whether any lifeforms discovered
originated there or came from Earth. Furthermore, the organic chemicals produced by the introduced life would confuse sensitive searches for biosignatures
of living or ancient native life. The same applies to other more
complex biosignatures. Life on other planets could have a common origin
with Earth life, since in the early Solar System there was much exchange
of material between the planets which could have transferred life as
well. If so, it might be based on nucleic acids too (RNA or DNA).
The majority of the species isolated are not well understood or
characterized and cannot be cultured in labs, and are known only from
DNA fragments obtained with swabs. On a contaminated planet, it might be difficult to distinguish the DNA
of extraterrestrial life from the DNA of life brought to the planet by
the exploring. Most species of microorganisms on Earth are not yet well
understood or DNA sequenced. This particularly applies to the
unculturable archaea,
and so are difficult to study. This can be either because they depend
on the presence of other microorganisms, are slow growing, or depend on
other conditions not yet understood. In typical habitats, 99% of microorganisms are not culturable. Introduced Earth life could contaminate resources of value for future human missions, such as water.
Invasive species could outcompete native life or consume it, if there is life on the planet. However, the experience on earth shows that species moved from one
continent to another may be able to out compete the native life adapted
to that continent. Additionally, evolutionary processes on Earth might have developed
biological pathways different from extraterrestrial organisms, and so
may be able to outcompete it. The same is also possible the other way
around for contamination introduced to Earth's biosphere.
In addition to science research concerns, there are also attempts
to raise ethical and moral concerns regarding intentional or
unintentional interplanetary transport of life.
Evidence for possible habitats outside Earth
Enceladus and Europa show the best evidence for current habitats, mainly due to the possibility of their hosting liquid water and organic compounds.
There is ample evidence to suggest that Mars once offered habitable conditions for microbial life.It is therefore possible that microbial life may have existed on Mars, although no evidence has been found.
It is thought that many bacterial spores (endospores) from Earth were transported on Mars spacecraft. Some may be protected within Martian rovers and landers on the shallow surface of the planet. In that sense, Mars may have already been contaminated.
Certain lichens from the arctic permafrost are able to photosynthesize
and grow in the absence of any liquid water, simply by using the
humidity from the atmosphere. They are also highly tolerant of UV radiation, using melanin and other more specialized chemicals to protect their cells.
Although numerous studies point to resistance to some of Mars
conditions, they do so separately, and none have considered the full
range of Martian surface conditions, including temperature, pressure,
atmospheric composition, radiation, humidity, oxidizing regolith, and
others, all at the same time and in combination. Laboratory simulations show that whenever multiple lethal factors are combined, the survival rates plummet quickly.
Other studies have suggested the potential for life to survive using deliquescing salts.
These, similarly to the lichens, use the humidity of the atmosphere. If
the mixture of salts is right, the organisms may obtain liquid water at
times of high atmospheric humidity, with salts capturing enough to be
capable of supporting life.
Research published in July 2017 shows that when irradiated with a simulated Martian UV flux, perchlorates become even more lethal to bacteria (bactericide effect). Even dormant spores lost viability within minutes. In addition, two other compounds of the Martian surface, iron oxides and hydrogen peroxide,
act in synergy with irradiated perchlorates to cause a 10.8-fold
increase in cell death when compared to cells exposed to UV radiation
after 60 seconds of exposure. It was also found that abraded silicates (quartz and basalt) lead to the formation of toxic reactive oxygen species. The researchers concluded that "the surface of Mars is lethal to
vegetative cells and renders much of the surface and near-surface
regions uninhabitable." This research demonstrates that the present-day surface is more uninhabitable than previously thought, and reinforces the notion to inspect at least a few meters into the
ground to ensure the levels of radiation would be relatively low.
Enceladus
The Cassini spacecraftdirectly sampled the plumes escaping from Enceladus.
Measured data indicates that these geysers are made primarily of salt
rich particles with an 'ocean-like' composition, which is thought to
originate from a subsurface ocean of liquid saltwater, rather than from the moon's icy surface. Data from the geyser flythroughs also indicate the presence of organic
chemicals in the plumes. Heat scans of Enceladus's surface also indicate
higher temperatures around the fissures where the geysers originate,
with temperatures reaching −93 °C (−135 °F), which is 115 °C (207 °F)
warmer than the surrounding surface regions.
Europa
Europa has much indirect evidence for its sub-surface ocean. Models of how Europa is affected by tidal heating
require a subsurface layer of liquid water in order to accurately
reproduce the linear fracturing of the surface. Indeed, observations by
the Galileo spacecraft of how Europa's magnetic field interacts with Jupiter's field strengthens the case for a liquid, rather than solid, layer; an electrically conductive fluid deep within Europa would explain these results. Observations from the Hubble Space Telescope in December 2012 appear to show an ice plume spouting from Europa's surface, which would immensely strengthen the case for a liquid subsurface
ocean. As was the case for Enceladus, vapour geysers would allow for
easy sampling of the liquid layer. Unfortunately, there appears to be little evidence that geysering is a
frequent event on Europa due to the lack of water in the space near
Europa.
Forward contamination is prevented by sterilizing space probes
sent to sensitive areas of the Solar System. Missions are classified
depending on whether their destinations are of interest for the search
for life, and whether there is any chance that Earth life could
reproduce there.
NASA made these policies official with the issuing of Management Manual NMI-4-4-1, NASA Unmanned Spacecraft Decontamination Policy on September 9, 1963. Prior to NMI-4-4-1 the same sterilization requirements were required
on all outgoing spacecraft regardless of their target. Difficulties in
the sterilization of Ranger probes sent to the Moon are the primary
reasons for NASA's change to a target-by-target basis in assessing the
likelihood forward contamination.
Some destinations such as Mercury
need no precautions at all. Others such as the Moon require
documentation but nothing more, while destinations such as Mars require
sterilization of the rovers sent there.
Back contamination would be prevented by containment or
quarantine. However, there have been no sample-returns thought to have
any possibility of a back contamination risk since the Apollo missions. The Apollo regulations have been rescinded and new regulations have yet to be developed. See suggested precautions for sample-returns.
Crewed spacecraft
Crewed spacecraft
are of particular concern for interplanetary contamination because of
the impossibility to sterilize a human to the same level as a robotic
spacecraft. Therefore, the chance of forwarding contamination is higher
than for a robotic mission. Humans are typically host to a hundred trillion microorganisms in ten thousand species in the human microbiome
which cannot be removed while preserving the life of the human.
Containment seems the only option, but effective containment to the same
standard as a robotic rover appears difficult to achieve with
present-day technology. In particular, adequate containment in the event
of a hard landing is a major challenge.
Human explorers may be potential carriers back to Earth of microorganisms acquired on Mars, if such microorganisms exist. Another issue is the contamination of the water supply by Earth
microorganisms shed by humans in their stools, skin and breath, which
could have a direct effect on the long-term human colonization of Mars.
Historical examples of measures taken to prevent planetary
contamination of the moon include the inclusion of an anti-bacterial
filter in the Apollo Lunar Module, from Apollo 13
and onward. This was placed on the cabin relief valve in order to
prevent contaminants from the cabin being released into the lunar
environment during the depressurization of the crew compartment, prior
to EVA.
The Moon
The Apollo 11 missions incited public concern about the possibility of microbes on the Moon, creating fears about a plague being brought to Earth when the astronauts returned. NASA received thousands of letters from Americans concerned with the potential for back contamination.
As a testbed
The Moon
has been suggested as a testbed for new technology to protect sites in
the Solar System, and astronauts, from forward and back contamination.
Currently, the Moon has no contamination restrictions because it is
considered to be "not of interest" for prebiotic chemistry and origins of life. Analysis of the contamination left by the Apollo program astronauts could also yield useful ground truth for planetary protection models.
Non-contaminating exploration methods
Telerobotics exploration on Mars and Earth
One of the most reliable ways to reduce the risk of forward and back
contamination during visits to extraterrestrial bodies is to use only robotic spacecraft. Humans in close orbit around the target planet could control equipment
on the surface in real time via telepresence, so bringing many of the
benefits of a surface mission, without its associated increased forward
and back contamination risks.
Back contamination issues
Since
the Moon is now generally considered to be free from life, the most
likely source of contamination would be from Mars during either a Mars sample-return mission or as a result of a crewed mission to Mars.
The possibility of new human pathogens, or environmental disruption due
to back contamination, is considered to be of extremely low probability
but cannot yet be ruled out.
NASA and ESA are actively developing a Mars Sample Return Program
to return samples collected by the Perseverance Rover to Earth. The
European Space Foundation report cites many advantages of a Mars
sample-return. In particular, it would permit extensive analyses on
Earth, without the size and weight constraints for instruments sent to
Mars on rovers. These analyses could also be carried out without the
communication delays for experiments carried out by Martian rovers. It
would also make it possible to repeat experiments in multiple
laboratories with different instruments to confirm key results.
Carl Sagan was first to publicise back contamination issues that might follow from a Mars sample-return. In Cosmic Connection (1973) he wrote:
Precisely because Mars is an
environment of great potential biological interest, it is possible that
on Mars there are pathogens, organisms which, if transported to the
terrestrial environment, might do enormous biological damage.
Later in Cosmos (1980) Carl Sagan wrote:
Perhaps Martian samples can be
safely returned to Earth. But I would want to be very sure before
considering a returned-sample mission.
NASA and ESA views are similar. The findings were that with
present-day technology, Martian samples can be safely returned to Earth
provided the right precautions are taken.
Suggested precautions for sample-returns
NASA
has already had experience with returning samples thought to represent a
low back contamination risk when samples were returned for the first
time by Apollo 11.
At the time, it was thought that there was a low probability of life on
the Moon, so the requirements were not very stringent. The precautions
taken then were inadequate by current standards, however. The
regulations used then have been rescinded, and new regulations and
approaches for a sample-return would be needed.
Chain of contact
A
sample-return mission would be designed to break the chain of contact
between Mars and the exterior of the sample container, for instance, by
sealing the returned container inside another larger container in the
vacuum of space before it returns to Earth. In order to eliminate the risk of parachute failure, the capsule could
fall at terminal velocity and the impact would be cushioned by the
capsule's thermal protection system. The sample container would be
designed to withstand the force of the impact.
Receiving facility
Working inside a BSL-4 laboratory with air hoses providing positive air pressure to their suits
To receive, analyze and curate extraterrestrial soil samples, NASA
has proposed to build a biohazard containment facility, tentatively
known as the Mars Sample Return Receiving Facility (MSRRF). This future facility must be rated biohazard level 4 (BSL-4). While existing BSL-4 facilities deal primarily with fairly well-known
organisms, a BSL-4 facility focused on extraterrestrial samples must
pre-plan the systems carefully while being mindful that there will be
unforeseen issues during sample evaluation and curation that will
require independent thinking and solutions.
The facility's systems must be able to contain unknown
biohazards, as the sizes of any putative Martian microorganisms are
unknown. In consideration of this, additional requirements were
proposed. Ideally it should filter particles of 0.01 μm or larger, and
release of a particle 0.05 μm or larger is unacceptable under any
circumstance.
The reason for this extremely small size limit of 0.01 μm is for consideration of gene transfer agents (GTAs) which are virus-like particles that are produced by some microorganisms that package random segments of DNA capable of horizontal gene transfer. These randomly incorporate segments of the host genome and can transfer
them to other evolutionarily distant hosts, and do that without killing
the new host. In this way many archaea and bacteria can swap DNA with
each other. This raises the possibility that Martian life, if it has a
common origin with Earth life in the distant past, could swap DNA with
Earth microorganisms in the same way. In one experiment reported in 2010, researchers left GTAs (DNA
conferring antibiotic resistance) and marine bacteria overnight in
natural conditions and found that by the next day up to 47% of the
bacteria had incorporated the genetic material from the GTAs. Another reason for the 0.05 μm limit is because of the discovery of ultramicrobacteria as small as 0.2 μm across.
The BSL-4 containment facility must also double as a cleanroom
to preserve the scientific value of the samples. A challenge is that,
while it is relatively easy to simply contain the samples once returned
to Earth, researchers would also want to remove parts of the sample and
perform analyses. During all these handling procedures, the samples
would need to be protected from Earthly contamination. A cleanroom
is normally kept at a higher pressure than the external environment to
keep contaminants out, while a biohazard laboratory is kept at a lower
pressure to keep the biohazards in. This would require
compartmentalizing the specialized rooms in order to combine them in a
single building. Solutions suggested include a triple walled containment
facility, and extensive robotic handling of the samples.
The facility would be expected to take 7 to 10 years from design to completion, and an additional two years recommended for the staff to become accustomed to the facilities.
Dissenting views on back contamination
Robert Zubrin, from the Mars Society,
maintains that the risk of back contamination is negligible. He
supports this using an argument based on the possibility of transfer of
life from Earth to Mars on meteorites.
Legal process of approval for Mars sample-return
Margaret Race has examined in detail the legal process of approval for a MSR. She found that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
(which did not exist in the Apollo era), a formal environment impact
statement is likely to be required, and public hearings during which all
the issues would be aired openly. This process is likely to take up to
several years to complete.
During this process, she found, the full range of worst accident
scenarios, impact, and project alternatives would be played out in the
public arena. Other agencies such as the Environment Protection Agency,
Occupational Health and Safety Administration, etc., might also get
involved in the decision-making process.
The laws on quarantine would also need to be clarified as the
regulations for the Apollo program were rescinded. In the Apollo era,
NASA delayed announcement of its quarantine regulations until the day
Apollo was launched, bypassing the requirement for public debate -
something that would likely not be tolerated today.
It is also probable that the presidential directive NSC-25 would
apply, requiring a review of large scale alleged effects on the
environment to be carried out subsequent to other domestic reviews and
through a long process, leading eventually to presidential approval of
the launch.
Apart from those domestic legal hurdles, there would be numerous
international regulations and treaties to be negotiated in the case of a
Mars sample-return, especially those relating to environmental
protection and health. Race concluded that the public of necessity has a
significant role to play in the development of the policies governing
Mars sample-return.
Alternatives to sample-returns
Several
exobiologists have suggested that a Mars sample-return is not necessary
at this stage, and that it is better to focus more on in situ studies
on the surface first. Although it is not their main motivation, this
approach of course also eliminates back contamination risks.
Some of these exobiologists advocate more in situ studies
followed by a sample-return in the near future. Others go as far as to
advocate in situ study instead of a sample-return at the present state
of understanding of Mars.
Their reasoning is that life on Mars is likely to be hard to
find. Any present day life is likely to be sparse and occur in only a
few niche habitats. Past life is likely to be degraded by cosmic
radiation over geological time periods if exposed in the top few meters
of the Mars surface. Also, only certain special deposits of salts or
clays on Mars would have the capability to preserve organics for
billions of years. So, they argue, there is a high risk that a Mars
sample-return at our current stage of understanding would return samples
that are no more conclusive about the origins of life on Mars or
present day life than the Martian meteorite samples we already have.
Another consideration is the difficulty of keeping the sample
completely free from Earth life contamination during the return journey
and during handling procedures on Earth. This might make it hard to show
conclusively that any biosignatures detected does not result from
contamination of the samples.
Instead they advocate sending more sensitive instruments on Mars
surface rovers. These could examine many different rocks and soil types,
and search for biosignatures on the surface and so examine a wide range
of materials which could not all be returned to Earth with current
technology at reasonable cost.
A sample-return to Earth would then be considered at a later
stage, once we have a reasonably thorough understanding of conditions on
Mars, and possibly have already detected life there, either current or
past life, through biosignatures and other in situ analyses.
Instruments under development for in situ analyses
NASA
Marshall Space Flight Center is leading a research effort to develop a
Miniaturized Variable Pressure Scanning Electron Microscope (MVP-SEM)
for future lunar and Martian missions.[77]
Several teams, including Jonathan Rothberg, and J. Craig Venter,
are separately developing solutions for sequencing alien DNA directly
on the Martian surface itself.
Levin is working on updated versions of the Labeled Release
instrument flown on Viking. For instance versions that rely on detecting
chirality. This is of special interest because it can enable detection
of life even if it is not based on standard life chemistry.
The Urey Mars Organic and Oxidant Detector instrument for detection
of biosignatures has been descoped, but was due to be flown on ExoMars in 2018. It is designed with much higher levels of sensitivity for biosignatures than any previous instruments.
Study and analyses from orbit
During
the “Exploration Telerobotics Symposium" in 2012, experts on
telerobotics from industry, NASA, and academics met to discuss
telerobotics and its applications to space exploration. Amongst other
issues, particular attention was given to Mars missions and a Mars
sample-return.
They came to the conclusion that telerobotic approaches could
permit direct study of the samples on the Mars surface via telepresence
from Mars orbit, permitting rapid exploration and use of human cognition
to take advantage of chance discoveries and feedback from the results
obtained.
They found that telepresence exploration of Mars has many
advantages. The astronauts have near real-time control of the robots,
and can respond immediately to discoveries. It also prevents
contamination both ways and has mobility benefits as well.
Finally, return of the sample to orbit has the advantage that it
permits analysis of the sample without delay, to detect volatiles that
may be lost during a voyage home.
Telerobotics exploration of Mars
Similar methods could be used to directly explore other biologically sensitive moons such as Europa, Titan, or Enceladus, once human presence in the vicinity becomes possible.
In August 2019, scientists reported that a capsule containing tardigrades (a resilient microbial animal) in a cryptobiotic state may have survived for a while on the Moon after the April 2019 crash landing of Beresheet, a failed Israeli lunar lander.
Science of morality (also known as science of ethics or scientific ethics) may refer to various forms of ethical naturalism grounding morality and ethics in rational, empirical consideration of the natural world. It is sometimes framed as using the scientific approach to determine
what is right and wrong, in contrast to the widespread belief that
"science has nothing to say on the subject of human values".
Overview
Moral science may refer to the consideration of what is best for, and how to maximize the flourishing of, either particular individuals or all conscious creatures. It has been proposed that "morality" can be appropriately defined on the basis of fundamental premises necessary for any
empirical, secular, or philosophical discussion and that societies can
use the methods of science to provide answers to moral questions.
The norms advocated by moral scientists (e.g. rights to abortion, euthanasia, and drug liberalization under certain circumstances) would be founded upon the shifting and growing collection of human understanding. Even with science's admitted degree of ignorance, and the various
semantic issues, moral scientists can meaningfully discuss things as
being almost certainly "better" or "worse" for promoting flourishing.
History
In philosophy
UtilitarianJeremy Bentham discussed some of the ways moral investigations are a science. He criticized deontological ethics
for failing to recognize that it needed to make the same presumptions
as his science of morality to really work – whilst pursuing rules that
were to be obeyed in every situation (something that worried Bentham).
W. V. O. Quine advocated naturalizing epistemology by looking to natural sciences like psychology for a full explanation of knowledge. His work contributed to a resurgence of moral naturalism in the last half of the 20th century. Paul Kurtz, who believes that the careful, secular pursuit of normative rules is vital to society, coined the term eupraxophy to refer to his approach to normative ethics. Steven Pinker, Sam Harris, and Peter Singer believe that we learn what is right and wrong through reason and empirical methodology.
Maria Ossowska used the methods of science to understand the origins of moral norms.
Maria Ossowska
thought that sociology was inextricably related to philosophical
reflections on morality, including normative ethics. She proposed that
science analyse: (a) existing social norms and their history, (b) the
psychology of morality, and the way that individuals interact with moral
matters and prescriptions, and (c) the sociology of morality.
In popular literature
The theory and methods of a normative science of morality are explicitly discussed in Joseph Daleiden's The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations (1998). Daleiden's book, in contrast to Harris, extensively discusses the relevant philosophical literature. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam Harris's goal is to show how moral truth can be backed by "science", or more specifically, empirical knowledge, critical thinking, philosophy, but most controversially, the scientific method.
Our moral behavior, while more
complex than the social behavior of other animals, is similar in that it
represents our attempt to manage well in the existing social
ecology. ... from the perspective of neuroscience and brain evolution,
the routine rejection of scientific approaches to moral behavior based
on Hume's warning against deriving ought from is seems
unfortunate, especially as the warning is limited to deductive
inferences. ... The truth seems to be that values rooted in the
circuitry for caring—for well-being of self, offspring, mates, kin, and
others—shape social reasoning about many issues: conflict resolutions,
keeping the peace, defense, trade, resource distribution, and many other
aspects of social life in all its vast richness.
Daleiden and Leonard Carmichael warn that science is probabilistic, and that certainty is not possible. One should therefore expect that moral prescriptions will change as humans gain understanding.
In futurism
Transhumanist philosophers such as David Pearce and Mark Alan Walker have extensively discussed the ethical implications of future technologies. Walker coined the term "biohappiness" to describe the idea of directly manipulating the biological roots of happiness in order to increase it. Pearce argues that suffering could eventually be eradicated entirely, stating that: "It is predicted that the world's last unpleasant experience will be a precisely dateable event." Proposed technological methods of overcoming the hedonic treadmill include wireheading
(direct brain stimulation for uniform bliss), which undermines
motivation and evolutionary fitness; designer drugs, offering
sustainable well-being without side effects, though impractical for
lifelong reliance; and genetic engineering,
the most promising approach. Genetic recalibration through
hyperthymia-promoting genes could raise hedonic set-points, fostering
adaptive well-being, creativity, and productivity while maintaining
responsiveness to stimuli. While scientifically achievable, this
transformation requires careful ethical and societal considerations to
navigate its profound implications.
The science of morality may aim to discover the best ways to motivate
and shape individuals. Methods to accomplish this include instilling
explicit virtues, building character strengths, and forming mental associations.
These generally require some level of practical reason. James Rest
suggested that abstract reasoning is also a factor in making moral
judgements and emphasized that moral judgements alone do not predict moral
behaviour: “Moral judgement may be closely related to advocacy
behaviour, which in turn influences social institutions, which in turn
creates a system of norms and sanctions that influences people’s
behaviour.” Daleiden suggested that religions instill a practical sense of virtue
and justice, right and wrong. They also effectively use art and myths to
educate people about moral situations.
Role of government
Harris argues that moral science does not imply an "Orwellian
future" with "scientists at every door". Instead, Harris imagines data
about normative moral issues being shared in the same way as other
sciences (e.g. peer-reviewed journals on medicine).
Daleiden specifies that government, like any organization, should
have limited power. He says "centralization of power irrevocably in the
hands of one person or an elite has always ultimately led to great evil
for the human race. It was the novel experiment of democracy—a clear
break with tradition—that ended the long tradition of tyranny.” He is also explicit that government
should only use law to enforce the most basic, reasonable, proven and
widely supported moral norms. In other words, there are a great many
moral norms that should never be the task of the government to enforce.
One author has argued that to attain a society where people are motivated by conditioned self-interest, punishment must go hand-in-hand with reward. For instance, in this line of reasoning, prison remains necessary for
many perpetrators of crimes. This is so, even if libertarian free will
is false. This is because punishment can still serve its purposes: it
deters others from committing their own crimes, educates and reminds
everyone about what the society stands for, incapacitates the criminal
from doing more harm, goes some way to relieving or repaying the victim,
and corrects the criminal (also see recidivism). This author argues that, at least, any prison system should
be pursuing those goals, and that it is an empirical question as to
what sorts of punishment realize these goals most effectively, and how
well various prison systems actually serve these purposes.
The brain areas that are consistently involved when humans reason about moral issues have been investigated. The neural network underlying moral decisions overlaps with the
network pertaining to representing others' intentions (i.e., theory of
mind) and the network pertaining to representing others' (vicariously
experienced) emotional states (i.e., empathy). This supports the notion
that moral reasoning is related to both seeing things from other
persons’ points of view and to grasping others’ feelings. These results
provide evidence that the neural network underlying moral decisions is
probably domain-global (i.e., there might be no such things as a "moral
module" in the human brain) and might be dissociable into cognitive and
affective sub-systems.
An essential, shared component of moral judgment involves the
capacity to detect morally salient content within a given social
context. Recent research implicated the salience network in this initial
detection of moral content. The salience network responds to behaviourally salient events, and may be critical to modulate downstream default and frontal control
network interactions in the service of complex moral reasoning and
decision-making processes. This suggest that moral cognition involves
both bottom-up and top-down attentional processes, mediated by discrete
large-scale brain networks and their interactions.
In universities
Moral sciences is offered at the degree level at Ghent University (as "an integrated empirical and philosophical study of values, norms and world views")
Other implications
Daleiden
provides examples of how science can use empirical evidence to assess
the effect that specific behaviours can have on the well-being of
individuals and society with regard to various moral issues. He argues
that science supports decriminalization and regulation of drugs,
euthanasia under some circumstances, and the permission of sexual
behaviours that are not tolerated in some cultures (he cites homosexuality as an example). Daleiden further argues that in seeking to reduce human suffering, abortion
should not only be permissible, but at times a moral obligation (as in
the case of a mother of a potential child who would face the probability
of much suffering). Like all moral claims in his book, however,
Daleiden is adamant that these decisions remain grounded in, and
contingent on empirical evidence.
The ideas of cultural relativity,
to Daleiden, do offer some lessons: investigators must be careful not
to judge a person's behaviour without understanding the environmental
context. An action may be necessary and more moral once we are aware of
circumstances. However, Daleiden emphasizes that this does not mean all ethical norms
or systems are equally effective at promoting flourishing and he often offers the equal treatment of women as a reliably superior norm, wherever it is practiced.
Criticisms
The
idea of a normative science of morality has met with many criticisms
from scientists and philosophers. Critics include physicist Sean M. Carroll, who argues that morality cannot be part of science. He and other critics cite the widely held "fact-value distinction",
that the scientific method cannot answer "moral" questions, although it
can describe the norms of different cultures. In contrast, moral
scientists defend the position that such a division between values and
scientific facts ("moral relativism") is not only arbitrary and
illusory, but impeding progress towards taking action against documented
cases of human rights violations in different cultures.
Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion occupy "non-overlapping magisteria".
To Gould, science is concerned with questions of fact and theory, but
not with meaning and morality – the magisteria of religion. In the same
vein, Edward Teller proposed that politics decides what is right, whereas science decides what is true.
During a discussion on the role that naturalism might play in professions like nursing,
the philosopher Trevor Hussey calls the popular view that science is
unconcerned with morality "too simplistic". Although his main focus in
the paper is naturalism in nursing, he goes on to explain that science
can, at very least, be interested in morality at a descriptive level. He
even briefly entertains the idea that morality could itself be a
scientific subject, writing that one might argue "... that moral
judgements are subject to the same kinds of rational, empirical
examination as the rest of the world: they are a subject for science –
although a difficult one. If this could be shown to be so, morality
would be contained within naturalism. However, I will not assume the
truth of moral realism here."
The metaphor "stream of consciousness" suggests how thoughts seem to flow through the consciousmind. Research studies have shown that humans only experience one mental event at a time, as a fast-moving mind-stream. The full range of thoughts one can be aware of forms the content of this "stream".
The term was coined by Alexander Bain in 1855, when he wrote in The Senses and the Intellect, "The concurrence of Sensations
in one common stream of consciousness (on the same cerebral highway)
enables those of different senses to be associated as readily as the
sensations of the same sense". But the man who popularized it is commonly credited instead: William James, often considered the father of American psychology, used it in 1890 in The Principles of Psychology.
Early Buddhist scriptures describe the "stream of consciousness" (Pali; viññāna-sota) where it is referred to as the Mindstream. The practice of mindfulness, which is about being aware moment-to-moment of one's subjective conscious experience, aid one to directly experience the "stream of consciousness" and to gradually cultivate self-knowledge and wisdom.
Buddhist teachings describe the continuous flow of the "stream of
mental and material events" as including sensory experiences (i.e.,
seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touch sensations, or a thought
relating to the past, present or future) as well as various mental
events that are generated, namely, feelings, perceptions and
intentions/behaviour. These mental events are also described as being influenced by other factors such as attachments and past conditioning. Further, the moment-by-moment manifestation of the "stream of
consciousness" is described as being affected by physical laws,
biological laws, psychological laws, volitional laws, and universal
laws.
"The logical significance of the law of Reason and Consequent
lies in this, – That in virtue of it, thought is constituted into a
series of acts all indissolubly connected; each necessarily inferring
the other" (Hamilton 1860:61-62).
In this context the words "necessarily infer" are synonymous with "imply". In further discussion Hamilton identified "the law" with modus ponens; thus the act of "necessarily infer" detaches the consequent for
purposes of becoming the (next) antecedent in a "chain" of connected
inferences.
William James asserts the notion as follows:
"Consciousness, then, does not appear to itself chopped up in
bits. Such words as 'chain' or 'train' do not describe it fitly as it
presents itself in the first instance. It is nothing jointed; it flows. A
'river' or a 'stream' are the metaphors by which it is most naturally
described. In talking of it hereafter let us call it the stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life. (James 1890:239)
He was enormously skeptical about using introspection
as a technique to understand the stream of consciousness. "The attempt
at introspective analysis in these cases is in fact like seizing a
spinning top to catch its motion, or trying to turn up the gas quickly
enough to see how the darkness looks." However, the epistemological separation of two levels of analyses
appears to be important in order to systematically understand the
"stream of consciousness."
Conceptually understanding what is meant by the "present moment,"
"the past" and "the future" can aid one to systematically understand
the "stream of consciousness."
Criticism
Susan Blackmore
challenged the concept of stream of consciousness. "When I say that
consciousness is an illusion I do not mean that consciousness does not
exist. I mean that consciousness is not what it appears to be. If it
seems to be a continuous stream of rich and detailed experiences,
happening one after the other to a conscious person, this is the
illusion." However, she also says that a good way to observe the "stream
of consciousness" may be to calm the mind in meditation. The criticism
is based on the stream of perception data from the senses rather than
about consciousness itself. Also, it is not explained the reason why
some things are conscious at all. Suggestions have also been made regarding the importance of separating
"two levels of analyses" when attempting to understand the "stream of
consciousness".
Baars is in agreement with these points. The continuity of the
"stream of consciousness" may in fact be illusory, just as the
continuity of a movie is illusory. Nevertheless, the seriality of
mutually incompatible conscious events is well supported by objective
research over some two centuries of experimental work. A simple
illustration would be to try to be conscious of two interpretations of
an ambiguous figure or word at the same time. When timing is precisely
controlled, as in the case of the audio and video tracks of the same
movie, seriality appears to be compulsory for potentially conscious
events presented within the same 100 ms interval.
J. W. Dalton has criticized the global workspace theory on the grounds that it provides, at best, an account of the cognitive function of consciousness, and fails even to address the deeper problem of its nature, of what consciousness is, and of how any mental process whatsoever can be conscious: the so-called "hard problem of consciousness". Avshalom Elitzur
has argued, however, "While this hypothesis does not address the 'hard
problem', namely, the very nature of consciousness, it constrains any
theory that attempts to do so and provides important insights into the
relation between consciousness and cognition.", as much as any
consciousness theory is constrained by the natural brain perception
limitations.
New work by Richard Robinson shows promise in establishing the
brain functions involved in this model and may help shed light on how we
understand signs or symbols and reference these to our semiotic
registers.
Daniel Kolak
has argued extensively against the existence of a stream of
consciousness, in the sense of someone having a continuous identity over
time, in his book I am You.
Kolak describes three opposing philosophical views regarding the
continuity of consciousness: Closed individualism, Empty individualism,
and Open individualism.
Closed Individualism is defined as the default common sense view of
identity where one's identity consists of a line stretching across time,
which Kolak, argues is incoherent. Empty Individualism is the view that
one's identity only exists for an infinitesimally small amount of time,
and an individual person has an entirely different identity from moment
to moment. Kolak instead advocates for Open Individualism, which is the
view that everyone is in reality the same being, and that the "self"
doesn't actually exist at all, similar to anattā in Buddhist philosophy.
Derek Parfit
is another philosopher who has challenged the idea of the existence of a
continuous stream of consciousness over time. In his book Reasons and Persons, Parfit describes the teletransportation paradox thought experiment, which describes the difficulties in distinguishing one's future self from an entity that is merely a copy of oneself.
In literature, stream of consciousness writing is a literary device
which seeks to portray an individual's point of view by giving the
written equivalent of the character's thought processes, either in a
loose interior monologue, or in connection to his or her sensory
reactions to external occurrences. Stream-of-consciousness as a narrative device is strongly associated with the modernist movement. The term was first applied in a literary context, transferred from psychology, in The Egoist, April 1918, by May Sinclair, in relation to the early volumes of Dorothy Richardson's novel sequence Pilgrimage. Amongst other modernist novelists who used it are James Joyce in Ulysses (1922) and William Faulkner in The Sound and the Fury (1929).
In science fiction, inner space refers to works of psychological science fiction
that emphasize internal, mental, and emotional experiences over
external adventure or technological speculation, which defined it as "a
category introduced to science fiction by representatives of the New
Wave to designate internal, mental experiences as imaginary worlds with
no connection to the real world" contrasts with traditional science
fiction's fascination with outer space.
Works from this genre appeared as part of the emergence of the New Wave in science fiction in the 1960s. They were popularized by English writer J.G. Ballard and associated with the New Wave movement in science fiction. Subsequent contributions by critics and writers such as Michael Moorcock, Pat Cadigan, and Greg Bear helped establish inner space as a recurring theme in science fiction discourse.
Rob Mayo wrote that the 1980s was the second "golden age" of inner space, associated with writers such as Pat Cadigan and Greg Bear; he also notes the movie Dreamscape
(1984), which he calls "the first inner space film". He notes that the
genre once again returned the 2000s, here noting the movies The Cell (2000) and Inception (2010), as well as the video game Psychonauts (2005). He notes that Inception marked "the transition of inner space fiction from a marginal genre (SF literature) to a viable mainstream (Hollywood cinema)".
