Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander
|
Blinded by Science |
| Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, & What Makes Us Human, by Matt Ridley HarperCollins, 336 pp., $25.95) This is a very strange book, and I am not quite sure what the author is attempting to achieve. At the very least it appears that he wants to shore up genetic determinism as the key factor in understanding human nature and individual behavior. Genetic determinism is rational materialism's substitute for the religious notion of predestination; taking the place of God as puppet master are the genes, whose actions and interactions control who we are, what we think, and how we act. This reductionist view received a body blow recently when the mappers of the human genome found that we have only about 30,000 genes. Because of their understanding of human complexity, the scientists were expecting at least 100,000 -- and that means there are probably too few genes for strict genetic determinism to be true. Ridley, a science writer and former U.S. editor of The Economist, tries to ride to the rescue. In doing so, he adds a twist that he hopes will overcome our apparent genetic paucity: Yes, he says, our genes decide who we are, what we do and think, and even with whom we fall in love. But, he posits, our molecular masters are not rigidly preset when we are born. Rather, they change continually in reaction to our biological and emotional experiences. Hence, 30,000 are more than enough for a soft genetic determinism to be true -- which means that the battle between those who believe we are the product of our biology (nature) versus those who believe we are the result of our environment (nurture) can now end in a truce in which both sides win. We are indeed controlled by our genes, but they in turn are influenced by our experiences. Ridley says that the mapping of the genome "has indeed changed everything, not by closing the argument or winning the [nature versus nurture] battle for one side or the other, but by enriching it from both ends till they meet in the middle." To Ridley, the core of our true selves isn't soul, mind, or even body in the macro sense; we are, in essence, merely the expression of our genes at any given moment. If this is true, then my perception of Nature via Nurture as so much nonsense was the only reaction I could have had, given my original genetic programming, as later modified by my every experience and emotion from my conception, through the womb, childhood, high school, college, practicing law, the death of my father, indeed up to and including the reading of this book. If that is so – if I was forced by my gene expression of the moment to perceive this book as I have -- what have we really learned that can be of any benefit to humankind? We are all slaves to chemistry and there is no escape. Even aside from such broader issues, Ridley does not make a persuasive case. Maybe it is my legal training, but I found his evidence very thin. He doesn't present proofs so much as resort to wild leaps of logic predicated on questionably relevant social science and facile analogies based on a few animal studies. These are simply not strong enough to be the sturdy weight-supporting pillars that his thesis requires to be credible. Let's look at just one example. He cites studies of monogamous prairie voles to suggest that humans only think they fall in love, when, in reality, what we call love is merely the expression of genes resulting in the release of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin. Claiming that he is not going to "start extrapolating anthropomorphically from pair-bonding in voles to love in people," he proceeds to do just that. Citing the vole studies and Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream -- in which a love potion makes Titania fall in love with a man with a donkey's head – Ridley writes: Who would now wager against me that I could not do something like this to a modern Titania? Admittedly, a drop on the eyelids would not suffice. I would have to give her a general anesthetic while I cannulated her medial amygdala and injected oxytocin into it. I doubt even then that I could make her love a donkey. But I might stand a fair chance of making her feel attracted to the first man she sees upon waking. Would you bet against me? But shouldn't it take far more than measuring the physical effects of oxytocin on prairie voles to prove that something as complex, maddening, unpredictable, and wonderfully and uniquely human as romantic love can, in reality, be reduced to the mere expression of genes leading to chemical secretions? Not, apparently, to Ridley. "Blindly, automatically, and untaught, we bond with whoever is standing nearest when oxytocin receptors in the medial amygdala get tingled." Gee, if he'd known that, Bill Clinton could have purchased fewer copies of Leaves of Grass. The most fascinating thing about this book is that Ridley inadvertently makes a splendid argument for intelligent design. At this point, I am sure Ridley's "I am utterly appalled" genes are expressing wildly. He is, after all, a scientific materialist in good standing. Yet, throughout the book, in order to make his arguments understandable, he resorts explicitly to the imagery of the guiding hand. He even gives it a name: the "Genome Organizing Device," or "G.O.D." Ridley claims that the G.O.D is "a skillful chef, whose job is to build a souffle," consisting of the various parts of us and all other life on the planet. Note the language of intentionality in his description of the evolution of the human brain: To build a brain with instinctive abilities, the Genome Organizing Device lays down separate circuits with suitable internal patterns that allow them to carry out suitable computations, then links them with appropriate inputs from the senses. . . . In the case of the human mind, almost all such instinctive modules are designed to be modified by experience. Some adapt continuously throughout life, some change rapidly with experience then set like cement. A few just develop to their own timetable. But according to my lay understanding, this violates the theory and philosophy of evolution. The hypothesis of natural selection holds that species origination and change are promoted by genetic mutations. Those mutations that change the organism to make it more likely than its unchanged peers to survive long enough to reproduce are likely to be passed down the generations. Eventually, these genetic alterations spread among the entire species and become universal within its genome. It is through this dynamic evolutionary process of modification, the theory holds, that life fills all available niches in nature. It is also the process, although the details are not known, by which the primates now known as homo sapiens became conscious. The philosophy of Darwinism posits that this evolutionary process is aimless, unintentional, purposeless, and without rhyme or reason. This means it has no biological goal: It just is. Hence, G.O.D. would not want to "build a brain," develop nature via nurture in species, or do any other thing. Yet, throughout the book, Ridley seems able only to describe what he thinks is going on using the language of intention. Could this be because Ridley's theories would require interactions that are so complex and unlikely that they would seem laughable if described as having come together haphazardly, by mere chance? So what are we to learn from his insights? In terms of how we live our lives, not much beyond what common sense already tells us: Parents matter and should engage with their children; human teenagers enjoy doing what they are good at, and dislike doing what they are bad at; and so on. That much is harmless; but Ridley's deeper point is subversive of human freedom and individual accountability. He denies the existence of free will: Our actions are not causes but effects, "prespecified by, and run by, genes." Indeed, he claims unequivocally, "There is no 'me' inside my brain, there is only an ever-changing set of brain states, a distillation of history, emotion, instinct, experience, and the influence of other people -- not to mention chance." Ridley asserts this as if it would be a good thing to learn that the complexity and richness of human experience could accurately be reduced to merely the acts of so many slaves obeying the lash of chemical overseers acting under the direction of our experience-influenced gene owners. "Nature versus nurture is dead," Ridley concludes triumphantly. "Long live nature via nurture." Sorry. Maybe it's my genes, but I just don't buy it. |
Of course, that does not preclude sniping. Although I have noticed a distinct change in that vein. I also do not expect an answer to this, but I do try to avoid the aside comment so this is directed to PH.
Actually some are. In old machines because of the viscous damping in the oil brake, the results cannot be predicted. Newer electronic machines are designed to mimic random processes. (And some do so badly.) I have talked to designers and they try to make them random without using radiation or something similar.
Card dealing (sans mechanics) tend to be a random process too. Most gambling devices are based on random processes. Those who fail to understand this are usually names after one of the evangelists.
And those who chose to participate in other vices outside Clark County are named after one of the other evangelists.
If such are designed to mimic a process, then it must be with a purpose in view. What would that purpose be?
If all of this were so, PH, then why do you seem to hold the view that evolutionary theory can explain all we need to know regarding the origin ("where life originally comes from") and descent of living species -- just on the strength of #1 and #2? These two greatly affect #3 through #5 for all practical purposes. The Darwinist reduction simply leaves too much of life completely out of the picture.
...and my post about it was this:The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov
Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov
Posted on 02/15/2003 6:18 PM CST by PatrickHenry
To: PatrickHenry; Admin ModeratorCopy of my "abuse" note:
Regarding #223
ad hominem, about a large share of FReepers
226 posted on 02/16/2003 1:54 PM CST by unspun (After the beginning, the people God created ate the forbidden fruit & called themselves enlightened.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
...and the post you made referred to Creationists as being "wackos." BTW a Creationist is one who believes (and most believe it is evident by an understanding of all that is evident to man) that God created the universe. Here is a dictionary definition:
Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1880
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis -- compare EVOLUTION 4b
- cre·a·tion·ist /-sh&-nist/ noun or adjective
Calling such people "wackos" is a clear example of religious bigotry (premeditated or unintentional) which in turn, the Admin. Mod. decided was not worthy of FreeRepublic. We have our republic in part, to specifically prevent religious bigotry from dominating public life and the Admin. Mod. chose to also express this sentiment in this Web site.
The comments in that thread, made about people who believe that God created the universe (and its life including humans) were quite a revelation in themselves of the arrogance of those who use evolution theoretics to arrogate a claim of science not only for some set of those various theories, but for metaphysical naturalism and atheism (including a kind of virtual atheism). This is of the same sentiment of those who would outlaw the evenhanded teaching and public consideration of the full set of well developed and broadly held views of human (and life, and universal) origins in our public schools and even an eradication of it in our public expressions. And such arrogance and ignorance is the subject of the article of this thread.
I hope this is self explanatory, since you've chosen not to converse.
You:
If all of this were so, PH, then why do you seem to hold the view that evolutionary theory can explain all we need to know regarding the origin ("where life originally comes from") and descent of living species -- just on the strength of #1 and #2? These two greatly affect #3 through #5 for all practical purposes. The Darwinist reduction simply leaves too much of life completely out of the picture.
But BB, I don't claim that "evolutionary theory can explain all we need to know" regarding anything. Personally, I don't know where life originally came from, nor do I fully (or even partially) understand consciousness. I don't think anyone really knows these things -- not in a scientific way. Not yet. Maybe not ever.
We nevertheless must work out a morality for man, and we must resolve to our personal satisfaction the deep theological issues that concern us all. We have to do this with the limited information available; because there's no other choice. Science is beneficial in this regard, because the more we know, the better informed our moral and spiritual life can be. Evolution is just a little piece of the big picture. A very little piece, actually.
Personally, I don't think it's of much use at all in helping us decide moral or theological issues. The moral codes by which we lived before Darwin still seem to serve us well. But although I don't see evolution as being particularly helpful in the field of morality, neither do I see it as an impediment -- although I certainly get the impression that you think it is. I really wish we were in agreement on these things.
Yes, perhaps that was the occasion of your first appearance. I probably did refer to creationists as whackos, in some context or other. These threads often provide ample justification. It was not, however, an assault on Christianity, or on religion in general. I don't do that. Except for one or two creationists who hold that Christianity is congruent with creationism -- a distinctly minority position -- everyone knows that I don't attack or insult Christianity.
Now my non-response policy resumes.
To mimic a random process, of course.
The purpose is to have the machines not be predictible and therefore beatable via analysis of past patterns - that tends to make the casino go broke.
Certainly, but does it then really make sense to describe the process as life, as being alive? Naturally, the fact that A implies B ("life implies process") does not necessarily lead to B implying A. And, of course, that's the case here - process does not necessarily imply life or living or anything like that. Combustion is an easily understood chemical process - is a campfire alive? Or, as something less obvious, a prion has a very simple process for getting along - are prions really alive in any meaningful sense of the word?
Isn't a cell a chemical process? Aren't you a process?
Isn't an assembly line for cars a process? Is a factory alive? ;)
Victor Davis Hanson, writing in Who Killed Homer?, says that "Meaning can only be found in the effort to do what we should not be able to do, in sacrificing life and health in order to paw and scratch at bigger things that do not fade." Voegelin's notion of zataema - the quest for the divine, or transcendant reality - finds its foundation in the Greeks' tough-minded ideals and their understanding of the tragic aspects of human nature.
If I understand one of the reviewer's statements regarding certain assumptions about the nature of complexity, Steven Wolfram's work concerning the rise of complexity out of a relatively small set of rules or algorithms suggests that those assumptions need to be revisited.
There's a keeper.
Look, Sherlock. I addressed the note directly to PatrickHenry not as he does to others, addressing little "love" notes discussing them to his clique or All but not to his target. I noted that that seems to have changed and he does not seem to be doing that much. I also noted that he does not respond to me so I expected none, making that notation to unspun. So Sherlock, get the magnifying glass out of your black eye and proceed on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.