“The verb “to design” has been monumentally unproductive in our quest to understand design in nature for three main reasons. First, it led to the common view that the things humans design are “artificial,” in contrast to the “natural” designs that surround us. This is wrong, because we are part of nature and our designs are governed by the same principle as everything else, the constructal law. Second, it has led some of us to search for “the designer”—God, or an individual, who must be behind every design. Science is not and never was the search for “the designer.” The name for that much older search is religion. Finally, it has led other, more scientifically minded people to reject the idea of design in nature as part of a broader repudiation of the traditional idea of a designer.”
Zane, J. Peder; Bejan, Adrian (2012-01-24). Design in Nature: How the Constructal Law Governs Evolution in Biology, Physics, Technology, and Social Organization (Kindle Locations 897-903). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
KB: The reason I use the term network consciousness is because my reading of animal behavior leads me to believe that there is only one kind of evolution (confirmed in this book by the constructal law) and thus all systems from the inanimate to the animate are part of one universal dynamic, i.e. the network. The earth, moon and the sun, tectonic plates, prey and predator ecosystems, and geopolitics all evolve within the one network because these all subscribe to the same principles of nature. I believe it is more sensible to believe that genes mutate according to principles of energy rather than by random. This idea has been criticized as magical thinking by modern biologists who consider their theory of random gene mutations to be a rational, fact based, rigorous system of thinking. However unlike modern biology, Natural Dog Training does not ask What causes dogs to do what they do, i.e. what creates behavior, which is what modern evolutionary theory is doing with the theory of gene replication being the “creator” of behavior. Rather it asks How do dogs do what they do, what is going on inside the dog during a moment of behavior? The How question leads us to see that two equal/opposite emotional poles allow emotion as energy to move from a pole of high concentration (stress) to a place of less concentration (preyful aspect absorbs stress).The flow of emotion then begets the social structure, or design, to implement this flow according to the principle of emotional conductivity. The important thing to understand is that the How question which leads to the correct definition of the design, neither proves nor disproves the notion of a Designer. What it shows is that either position requires the same leap of faith. Paradoxically the Intelligent Designers and Creationists are aware of the leap of faith they make, whereas modern biologists believe they are being strictly rational. They are unaware of their faith in their God of Randomness as the Creator of behavior.
Why is there but one network? Because all forms of life participate in the flow of emotion as energy. Resistance to the flow of energy creates stress. All emotional beings are therefore carriers of an emotional charge more than they can be said to be carriers of genes. Eventually through billions upon billions of interactions over time, the universal action of emotion becoming unresolved (stress as the physical memory of pure emotion toward something positive) intensifies and disseminates the charge and in this way (e–>UE–>RE) computes the many carriers into but one design pattern not only for the more efficient flow of energy, but to add more energy to the network so that it can continually expand. So stress evolved in order to transmit information of an emotional content through the system and through time and thus the network always becomes more complex. In other words, raw physical energy of natural forces becomes information. Energy enters the network and is processed into information, i.e. it inflects the feelings of one organism and changes how it feels toward other organisms and beings.
(From what I’ve read so far, I believe the author would contest the point I’m making here in that he is arguing that the constructal law validates modern Darwinism, even though as far as I can see the constructal law undermines the central tenet of modern biology. I believe he might say that genes mutate by random, but only the ones that subscribe to the constructal law go on to flourish. But even if the mutations can be called random, again, I think this merely returns us right back to the same leap of faith. The most important thing is when trying to understand How do dogs do what they do, that we put the question of ultimate causation aside and understand that behavior must subscribe to a universal dynamic of flow and that this is far more fundamental than gene replication. When we see two dogs meet and greet, if they subscribe to the emotional principle of flow then they flourish. Their behavior has nothing to do with dominance and gene propagation.)