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. |
you can't simply deptict the universe and the life in it based upon finding the most fundamental building blocks and stacking them up
Unreal - Events that cannot be explained using processes contained in the set of real possibilities.
Belief should be impugned immediately. Belief without factual or clearly stated logical basis is founded on wishful thinking, and is not a reliable tool for determining truth.
Science does not require unfounded "belief". Science is a process whereby phenomena are observed, conclusions are drawn from them, and hypotheses are extended to explain the phenomena, and provide predictions that can verified by testing. Tests are proposed that contain the potential to refute the hypothesis, and if possible, provide even further insight. Hypotheses that fail this verification process are discarded. Those that survive are strengthened, and eventually grow up to be theories.
Science is littered with dead theories. At the same time, men use theories that are wrong is detail, but sufficiently accurate to provide useable results. Hence, the targeting of the Voyager probes to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptue was done using Newton's and Kepler's Laws of Gravity and planetary motion, even though confirmation of Einstein's General Relativity has superseded the earlier theorists.
The problem with religion (belief without "real" basis, wishful thinking, gut feelings, and inner voices, etc), of course, is that it introduces unverifiable forces into the explanation. And hence the introduction of religion into the explanation ends instantly it's claim to science. The two methods are mutually exclusive and incompatible.
I'm perfectly willing to argue as a hypothetical construction the yes, indeed, God could very well have created the Earth and Universe in six microseconds, and rested on the seventh. (If some people can pretend a "day" in God-time is 1000 years, I can pretend a "God-day" is 1000 nanoseconds, right?)
But then the questions of mechanics still exist, ie, how. Evolution describes a process of random change, and selection of succesful changes via the breeding lottery. Depending on where a person stands in the belief scale, God either created the plants and animals as they are today (Genesis 1 repeatedly uses "after his kind"), or he presumes some degree of planning in the evolutionary tree or in some other way deny the veracity of the Bible. No matter, unless you can identify the mechanism of the alleged planning, you're dabbling in unfounded believe in what you cannot prove to be real.
This is one reason why Evolution disdains Intelligent Design. The other reason is that causes of mutation are known, and those cause are indeed random alterations in genetic material, hence the theory uses observed events (real, therefore) to constructs it's paradigm.
Other aspects of religous based creation scenarios are that one is left with the question of Why? The question of How still must be answered. If the Creator is playing with Intelligent Design, It must effect material DNA to make it happen. How? Science would dearly love an answer for that. After it is actually observed to happen, of course.
So, to wrap this up, the scientist seeks what is real because only the real can be verified. If, in the end, a scientist manages to catch God in the act, and repeated observations of God altering genes for Design Purposes can be made, then, and only then, will God become a useful part of the Real. As it stands, God is a tool for some to impede progress, for whatever reason they may possess, but God is not a tool for Truth until She survives the same process of refutation and verification any other Theory has.
A fine example of circular reasoning. Your premise is that the mind cannot exist unless it is contained within another mind. You then illustrate a scenario on this theme. And you use your conclusion as part of your proof.
Confucious say that a dog that chases own tail never retrieve ducks.
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).You:
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 statement; “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)”, is an argument from what?
Alan Mathison Turing posed an argument from what?
If I presented a theory of bat to whale evolution, this would be an argument from what? (or would it even be an argument and why) Heck, I might even receive research money for this as I actually have a theory – although fictional.
We are both conscious and intelligent and if someone posed a theory stating otherwise, this would be an argument from… well fiction because we would have a fictitious state of mind.
BTW -
I don't go about tipping sacred cows without a good reason.
I hope you don’t mind if I use it…
Confucious say that a dog that chases own tail never retrieve ducks.
Initial question:
Can the part be greater than the whole?Follow-up questions:
Can intelligence be a subset of non-intellect?
Can consciousness be a subset of mindlessness?
(NOTE: Heartlander should not be confused with Confucious nor should any third person entity be confused with you when speaking of I and this includes myself)
Thank you!
"I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him."
"Subsume" and A-G's "qualia" have been excellent vocabulary words -- haven't seen them enough in my life thus far.
I would say that to make life impersonal is to take away what life is…Well, as far as metaphysical naturalism goes.
It’s not how far science should go as much as, to what degree it should reduce what is – in order to reject what it excludes.
I mean if science as currently defined is:
1. Metaphysical naturalismWhat does science do when the two go opposite ways?
2. Impartial investigation
A Question to ProseA question to prose
As enlightenment grows
Yet the riddle of life still exists.
Our being begs ‘why, we live and then die?’
Our soul existence must mean more than this
Can our sentence lie,
The how and the why,
In the writings and speeches of man?
And if the answer is maybe it can
It must now be juxtaposed
With a ‘just suppose’
And ‘I think and therefore I am’
Look how truth now exits the stage
Left with the hypothesis
Of the solitary sage
And his soliloquy
of what might be
Another man in another season
Who revels in revelations without reason
Lest this reason be
Mans’ own divinity
It’s a raffle of thoughts won by whatnots
Who cling to transcending verbs and nouns
Creating a literal mind with their bounds
Can it be that our own lexis
Sets limits, blinds,
And has verbally vexed us?
Gaze long and hard in one’s sacred heart
Forego the mind not wise but smart
Love exists there for you and for me
It’s where ‘our Author’ wrote it
To set us all free-Heartlander
An argument from priors, and therefore nominally rational. In truth, I don't particularly like my argument because I don't think it tells us much of anything, but it is the best I can do in the complete absence of solid priors other than humans. Some days you just have to go with what little you've got, even if it doesn't give you much in the way of answers. In time, that will probably change but I have to recognize the limits of my information in the mean time.
Alan Mathison Turing posed an argument from what?
Turing made an argument from reasonable priors, but most of the flaws in his thinking turned out to be definitional, which are among the most benign kinds of flaws. Turing made many important contributions to the field of computational theory. However, many of his ideas about intelligence were somewhat simplistic and inadequate, from the hindsight of a better part of a century of mathematical research in that field. He definitely gets a pass for developing some of the first constructive ideas in that area. I think modern theoretical folk in that field view him like physicists view Newton; not strictly correct, but it provided a critical foundation upon which a more correct solution could be found. There are no perfect minds, even among the best of us.
If I presented a theory of bat to whale evolution, this would be an argument from what? (or would it even be an argument and why) Heck, I might even receive research money for this as I actually have a theory ? although fictional.
It depends on what the argument actually is. Simply asserting "bat to whale evolution" isn't much of a theory of anything; you have to be able to make a reasonable argument for every step of the process. It is those arguments that determine the quality of the theory.
When I said an "argument from fiction", I was referring to a peculiar fallacy where, rather than making an argument from a null prior (a very, very common fallacy) one makes an argument from a fictious prior. Null priors lead to certain kinds of fallacious arguments. Even though arguing from fiction is essentially the same thing, the argument tends to be different because a "valid prior" exists even if it is merely the construct of another person's mind. In a sense, there is evidence for the prior, but it is fabricated evidence, whereas an argument from a true null prior has no evidence. But then there are really only a few core fallacies; the myriad of named fallacies are just variations on one of those themes. Argumentum ex fabulis was coined by someone I know when trying to describe a particularly annoying argument by a friend of ours who was using a fictional book as a prior for his argument.
I hope you don?t mind if I use it?
Not at all. :-)
I seem to be proofreading challenged lately, again.
Different defines not equal in absolute measurements doesn't it? Mathematics is the language of thinking in numbers. Whether you call them mean numbers, same consequencial value, aren't you still using some sort of variable that is not absolutely equal? When you say assert does that mean beyond doubt or subsume? Is that the right context U?
All we can assert is that they are different, not what the difference is.
Amen.
Well, I'd say that we cannot have knowledge of something in this universe without a subsumption somewhere along the line (after all, when we have knowledge, we have knowledge of something which exists in a context, including all four dimensions at least, and something which is an effect of another thing). I'd be careful about asserting things beyond a doubt, but I'd be pretty confident that if I assert anything that is true, it would be some kind of subsumption in some way.
As for tortoise's deptiction of 1 and 0 sometimes having the same function, there I'd put on my cap poetic and say isn't that like God, to allow us the choice and give a picture of how he both is, and is not, to this world and how he is, he is in a standalone way even if enjoined.
Others pinged just in case they happen to want to go back a couple posts.
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.