{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03361344537815126, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0058823529411764705, 'mean_word_length': 4.565420560747664, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Drilling Down and Building Up

If you drill down far enough into any phenomenon, eventually you get to physics. Unless you hold that some phenomena lie outside nature, you pretty much have to accept that. It is the building back up, inferring the whole from its parts, that is terribly difficult and that many will say is impossible, at least across certain boundaries. Start with Milton and ifyou dig down you get to Milton's brain. Drill into it and you get to what Hofstadter (1985) described as "billions of in-themselves-meaningless neural firings" (p. 649). Below that you get to Milton's DNA, and so on down. What is the prospect of building up from these lower levels to anything like an explanation of Paradise Lost? Do we not have to start a new page, taking the neural substrate as given and not very informative, recording instead the events and circumstances of Milton's life and whatever we can infer about his thoughts, beliefs, and feelings? No, say Dennett and Wilson in the monumental works under review. Both, in different ways, are about continuity across levels. Wilson says it in his title: Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. The closest synonym for consilience, ac-