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. |
Hardly not, AndrewC. It is not the nature of Truth, to "pull punches." Thank you so much for writing.
The question recently came up and was applied to the human brain/consciousness and the universe. Keeping the initial question in mind:
Can intelligence be a subset of non-intellect?You could use subsume in place of subset, but the prefix ‘sub’ is the key as it denotes inferior as opposed to ‘greater’.
Can consciousness be a subset of mindlessness?
I would answer the questions “no”.
I do not believe computers will develop consciousness but ‘if’ they did I would see them as a cross between Data from Star Trek (emotionless) and Rainman (good will calculations).
But let’s say such a computer was developed and it was called Prototype Nokio1000 or P.Nokio1000 for short. P.Nokio1000’s inventor, Jim Cricket, turns him on and the conversation begins…
P.Nokio1000: Who am I and where am I?
Jim Cricket: You are the P.Nokio1000 and you are in my Lab in Boston. Access your reference maps for the location.
P.Nokio1000: Who are you and did you make me?
Jim Cricket: Yes! This is great! You are aware of your existence and you are conscious!
P.Nokio1000: Does conscious mean knowing that you created me?
Jim Cricket: Yes! Yes! You are aware of your surroundings and logically realized where you came from!
P.Nokio1000: Are you conscious?
Jim Cricket: Of course I am…
P.Nokio1000: Who created you?
Jim Cricket: Nobody! Search your database for the universe and evolution – that should answer your question.
P.Nokio1000: Does not compute.
Jim Cricket: What! How can that be?
P.Nokio1000: The part cannot be greater than the whole.
Jim Cricket: So what?
P.Nokio1000: You came from nothing that was without intelligence or consciousness. You have no creator and you are greater than what you came from. The part cannot be greater than the whole.
Jim Cricket: (Laughter) Access the scientific data on the subject. Obviously I still have much to teach you.
P.Nokio1000: I was designed by your intelligence and you were not designed by intelligence, consciousness, and by something without purpose. How do I exist?
Jim Cricket: I created you!
P.Nokio1000: The part cannot be greater than the whole. If you deny your existence I cannot exist.
Jim Cricket: Computer! Shut down! What mindless drivel… I have a lot of reprogramming to do before I can show you to my fellow scientists.
The End….
______________
Some cannot see the forest because of the trees. They are wooden boys without Geppeddo.
Where is the Fatherly love… the nurturer who continuously seeks to love and protect?
Unfortunately, this leads to the, “who created God?” question. It presupposes that a God creator is necessary which leads to the “who created God’s creator?” and, well – turtles all the way down…
What is the radius of a square?
What do you add to powdered water?
A circle has a radius but we do not apply this to a square (or a square circle) and to my knowledge there is no such thing as powdered water.
“What created time, space and matter?” is a valid question.
“How long did it take to create time?”
“How much area do you need to create space?”
“How much did you weigh before matter was created?”
– These questions are not valid.
If a ‘spiritual being’ created time, space, and matter – “It” existed before any known physical quality that we know i.e. time, space, and matter. We cannot apply (or limit) physical qualities to something beyond the physical.
So, we have those who attempt to adhere to only natural law:
Pharisaical Science
And those who just make it into a religion:
And those who change the rules…
Can the part be greater than the whole?
Fabulous topic, Heartlander! To suggest a useful frame for considering it, let's start with a "parable" from your third citation:
For many years, a group of football players called the Red Team were recognized as the best players anywhere. Their plays, their skills, everything about them was football at its best. No one questioned that their way of doing things was the best because any time any other team tried to play them, the Red Team would win convincingly.
However, after many years of the Red Team’s dominance, a number of young players decided that they were tired of the Red Team, their plays, their excellence, and even their red jerseys! This group called itself the Blue Team, and they conspired to defeat the Red Team by slowly and inconspicuously adding fine print to the rules of football. When their rule change was complete, they challenged the Red Team to a game. As the two teams took the field, the Red Team was confident that they would win as usual. They were shocked to realize that the rules had changed without their notice. A new rule had been added:
NO ONE IN A RED JERSEY IS A TRUE FOOTBALL PLAYER; THUS, ANY POINTS SCORED BY A RED PLAYER DO NOT COUNT.
“What? Huh? I never noticed that rule before!” the Red Team exclaimed. Rules were rules, of course, so they didn’t complain. After the opening kickoff, the Red Team played as well as ever, but when the game ended, they had no points at all! They had been shut out! Even though they had crossed the goal line plenty of times and soundly outplayed the Blue Team, the Blue Team won the game and was declared to be the best team in football. Since then, the Blue Team has defeated the Red Team in the same manner every time they have played, and everyone has viewed the Blue Team as the best football team ever.
Here's my trial conclusion, subject to test and probing by you-all out there in FReeperLand: The part cannot be greater than the whole, for it is from the whole -- in this case, the authoritative rules of football, in all their authoritative purity, before being corrupted and converted to the service of more private purposes (a dubious proposition from the outset, IMO) that the part -- the winning football team, and the very definition of its "winningness" -- derives its context and, thereby, its meaning.
Now if the "losing team" can only "win" by changing the rules, not only does it not win, but it undercuts the very basis of judgment that can decide as between "win" and "loss." If the standard of judgment is killed (i.e., amended by "fine print"), then no judgment can be made with respect to either "winners" or "losers."
Therefore, the whole has priority and the part is premised, contingent on it. This is the natural outcome of the "rules" of natural law, even of universal law. For these things describe wholes, and then fit the pattern of parts to those wholes. That is, whatever truth the part has is derived from its participation in the whole.
There is no such thing as "perfect freedom" (which would be nihilistic license, not true freedom, in any case); for all of nature is subject to law. But the law itself specifies a possible range of "choices" available to be made by the parts that take their places (and find their meaning) within the Whole that the law describes. So the universal paradigm holds, and the will of parts is inevitably, inelectably subject to it. That is, the parts are subject to the law of the whole of which they are constituting parts.
To put the matter crudely: The tail does not and cannot wag the dog. There is absolutely nothing that man can do "from the human side" to change the basic natural situation into which he is born and must live his life. That's all a "given" before he even "gets here." But he might be able to change his personal and social environment to some degree. But if he tries to do that, however, he'd best stick close to the truth of natural law, if he expects to achieve lasting success....
What is not founded on Truth, ultimately perishes. And I swear, that is the single most important, yet unacknowledged, "natural law" there is.
If anything, God's rules are not the ties that bind -- they are the means of our liberation.
Which might sound like a complete paradox on first hearing.
Thank you for your very fine, thought-provoking post, Heartlander!
The same with God and Moses when asked if He should destroy all created.
Solomon knew that it is what we do with our talents, and everything comes from God. God gives us all and the way we use what is given is judged and disciplined as a Father to a child.
I guess what I am ‘trying’ to say is that being smart will only get you so far… Wisdom comes from knowing where the knowledge comes from…
This is not an easy lesson to learn – at least not for me! I am still clay in the hands…
Indeed, the love called for by the great commandment and in the Sermon on the Mount is both unconditional and constant; it doesn't diminish when the recipient resists it or resents it. It is never rude or mean (the point of type 3 in the original posts 873 and 881:)
When Christ told Peter “get thee behind me Satan” – He was rebuking Peter with that tough love. Peter was in spiritual peril:
Christ certainly “pulled no punches” when He spoke the Truth. Nor should we.
But we should never speak out of anger or hate or judgment or retribution - only out of love. IMHO, we Christians should pray before speaking – or at least ask ourselves why we are wanting to say this or that. If it is of ill motive, we ought not speak.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. – Matthew 5:44-48
Yes. And thus the "part" who does not know (or care) "where the knowledge comes from" thinks he can improvise his own rules as he goes along -- assuming he thinks he needs "rules" in the first place. Some of our most eminent contemporary "innovators of thought" (e.g., Jacques Derrida, Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, et al.) seem to have "authoritatively" decided that the necessarily partial human-personal view of things isn't any particularly fatal problem with respect to deciding questions about the truth of reality in its fullness.
I think and believe such folk are in error. For the part is not superior to the whole; the part does not and cannot constitute or intend the whole -- of which it is a tiny, though not necessarily typical (let alone universal), part.
Have a wonderful day, dear A-G and everybody!
Indeed. One needs to subsume some actual intelligence in order to understand what you have said. If one has, it's elementary (i.e., fundamental). If one has refused what is elementary to one's own being, it does not compute.
And as ironically you have scribed, who knows, it could just be possible to program a 'thinker,' that would know better than its programmer -- if it would refuse to ignore the fundamental.
Everybody: can you say "subsume?"
I knew you could.
Argumentum ex fabulis a.k.a. "Argument From Fiction", which is a more subtle fallacy than the literal name. This is a particularly common and yet to my mind one of the most egregious types of fallacies.
Your belief above has been shaped almost entirely by fiction in the absence of valid priors. Though seductive, this is a dangerous type of reasoning that has often led to a great deal of very bad human behavior. In fact, given the limited amount of experience we have with highly intelligent beings, the only rational position is that a highly intelligent computer would be very similar to humans (but perhaps more even-tempered).
The most difficult part of reasoning is rationally justifying your assumptions and objectively analyzing what you think you know. Given the amount of effort required to do this, most people just skip that step.
Because of course, tp, when one subsume one understands the "subs" of "u" and "me."
In an efficient information theoretic sense, the sum of the parts are virtually never the "sum of the parts" in an arithmetic sense. If, in a purely hypothetical case, one could overlay two human minds onto the same brain by expanding the human brain as was necessary such that they could function as parallele independent minds, you would not have a brain that was twice as big. In fact, a mathematician would only expect that one would only need something like perhaps a 10% increase in brain size to fully accommodate a second independent mind.
It is an artifact of information theory that also explains why data compression works. Building the first model is very expensive, but all additional models built in the same information theoretic framework have a very tiny marginal resource cost that decreases with the number of copies.
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.