Hmmmm... tpaine, the idea of dysfunction implies some sort of original purpose, does it not? It's a notion for which evolution can give no adequate accounting.
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. |
It is much much more than that. People are the only creatures that consider their plight. They are also the creatures that have aesthetic feelings (explain that in light of natural selection!), and the only spiritual creatures (no animal has the capacity to worship). You also need to explain the conscious self in light of materialistic neodarwinism - provide scientific evidence that shows that morality, emotions, and even the self have material causes. I guarantee that you can't do it - therefore, you are making metaphysical faith statements not grounded in empirical science - that is called self-refutation.
Your bias is showing when you say "foolish religions" without any science to back that up. Besides, foolish is a value judgment - what part of the brain produces those?
Hmmmm... tpaine, the idea of dysfunction implies some sort of original purpose, does it not? It's a notion for which evolution can give no adequate accounting.
Which looks healthier, Roseanne Barr or Pamela Anderson?
Symmetry and elegance are indicators of health and fitness. You may note that humans are the only primate with exagerated mammary glands, and that the male of our species is heavily dependent on visual cues to judge reproductive fitness and readiness.
The "spiritual capacity" is principally an outgrowth of consciousness, not vice versa. Men have an ego that cannot comprehend it's own non-existence, and refuses to try. So it invents the concept of "life after death" for self-comfort and convinces the rational part of the mind to buy it.
Morality: that act of self-interest that recognizes the "Golden Rule" as the optimal means of maintaining existence in an organized society, the only sort of existence likely to enhance survival of a individual evolved to be in such societies.
Emotions: Fear, anger, - primordial responses to threats. Survival benefits obvious. Love - a bonding emotion tying parents to offspring and each other to ensure the survival of the offspring.
Self- a recognition mode of time, as stated. Useful to ensure the survival of the individual.
People defeding religion against the encroachments of science shouldn't object to metaphysical argument. Not unless they've earned a medal in Viet Nam for a wounded big toe.
I don't know - maybe Roseanne is healthier than Pamela - I'm not a doctor. Where does the feeling of beauty come from? Explain it in light of science, not value judgments.
Symmetry and elegance are indicators of health and fitness. You may note that humans are the only primate with exagerated mammary glands, and that the male of our species is heavily dependent on visual cues to judge reproductive fitness and readiness.
What is healthy and fit about a pretty sunset or a piece of artwork in a museum?
The "spiritual capacity" is principally an outgrowth of consciousness, not vice versa. Men have an ego that cannot comprehend it's own non-existence, and refuses to try. So it invents the concept of "life after death" for self-comfort and convinces the rational part of the mind to buy it.
Really - got some empirical scientific data to back up that statement? If you don't, then you are making a faith statement. You are making metaphysical assertions that have no basis in scientific observation. You really need to address this problem.
Morality: that act of self-interest that recognizes the "Golden Rule" as the optimal means of maintaining existence in an organized society, the only sort of existence likely to enhance survival of a individual evolved to be in such societies.
Too simplistic. Moral decisions begin with a "sense of ought". Again, you are making metaphysical statements that are far outside the realm of science. I'm not interested in your "opinion" - I want data.
Emotions: Fear, anger, - primordial responses to threats. Survival benefits obvious. Love - a bonding emotion tying parents to offspring and each other to ensure the survival of the offspring.
Are these chemical reactions in the brain?
People defeding religion against the encroachments of science shouldn't object to metaphysical argument. Not unless they've earned a medal in Viet Nam for a wounded big toe.
I object when a materialistic darwinist makes metaphysical statements since materialistic darwinists claim that all that exists is material and that even our thoughts, emotions, morals are just matter in motion in our brains. You are your brain, in effect. But it is self-refuting becuase they exempt their own ideas, thoughts, etc. from the rules of materialism, and if my ideas are matter in motion, then so are the materialist's. If you are dealing in metaphysics, then you can only state your opinions and you can't provide any scientific evidence. In the metaphysical arena, logical reasoning rules.
I'm always amused by the anti-evolutionists who ask for a "film" of early events on Earth before they'll believe anything science has to say on the matter (never mind all the *other* ways historical events can be reconstructed from the evidence), and yet who never seem to have a problem with the glaring lack of any home movies of God waving his hands for six days.
That looks like a pretty blatant double standard.
You clearly don't have a dog.
God said, "I am", meaning He always was and always will be. His purpose was to give the gift of Life. That's why He created, or caused the universe to exist. See.
" they have no ability to give the Putative Creator a reason for Her Urge."
The Creator came to teach. He gave the reason, to extend the gift of life.
"Men have an ego that cannot comprehend it's own non-existence, and refuses to try. "
I have an ego. I can and have also comprehended my own nonexistence. So this is false.
"So it invents the concept of "life after death" for self-comfort and convinces the rational part of the mind to buy it."
No, I am well aware of my limitations.
"Morality: that act of self-interest that recognizes the "Golden Rule" as the optimal means of maintaining existence in an organized society, the only sort of existence likely to enhance survival of a individual evolved to be in such societies.
Part of what God came to teach and what He was killed for.
"Love - a bonding emotion tying parents to offspring and each other to ensure the survival of the offspring."
The purpose of creation.
Rolls his eyes...
I disagree, I've seen plenty of animals "consider their plight" when they are in situations that they understand do not bode well for them.
They are also the creatures that have aesthetic feelings
Again, I disagree. I have seen many animals show that they have clear preferences for certain arrangements of their surroundings which have no functional purpose. For example, a friend's cat will purposely make anything vertical, horizontal -- if you stand something up, like a candlestick, the cat will demonstrate clear annoyance until it is allowed to come over and shove the candlestick until it falls flat, at which time it sits down and purrs. My parrots have very particular preferences about the arrangements of objects in their cages, and even which objects should be ejected entirely.
(explain that in light of natural selection!),
Preference/aversion for certain patterns/colors/sounds/sequences will arise due to evolution "recognizing" that some things signal safety and some signal danger (red=blood=danger is one of the more obvious), and thus over time creatures will develop elaborate "aesthetics" by which certain types of visual or audio cues will elicit pleasure, and some will elicit revulsion. A good example is the sound of fingernails on a blackboard, which some researchers showed is very similar to a danger cry in certain African primates.
Not all esthetics has to be tied so directly to a natural cue, however. Once creatures have developed an instinct to prefer some patterns over others, they have gained the ability to use this mechanism "recreationally" -- experimenting with the creation of different patterns just to see how they tickle the instinctual pleasure/aversion pattern recognition parts of their brains (which orginally arose for more practical purposes).
Note that I'm not claiming that I've proven that the esthetic sense *did* arise in exactly this way -- in order to do that a number of careful research studies would have to be performed. But my point is that you were expressing doubt that there would be *any* "reason" for evolution to select for an esthetic sense, and thus I've laid out one plausible survival-based reason that evolution *would* drive such preferences to arise.
and the only spiritual creatures (no animal has the capacity to worship).
I repeat my earlier comment about dogs. And no, I'm not kidding.
You also need to explain the conscious self in light of materialistic neodarwinism - provide scientific evidence that shows that morality, emotions, and even the self have material causes.
That's an easy one -- various drugs, targeted electrical stimulations, and many kinds of physical brain damage (e.g. tumor, chemical damage, gunshot or falling damage, etc.) can directly affect "morality, emotions, and even the self". In short, physical alterations of the brain produce changes in the very things which you consider to be "metaphysical", strongly indicating that they're rooted in the physical after all.
Similarly, PET scans and other types of activation scans of the brain show clearly physical activity occurring in different characteristic parts of the (physical) brain when subjects exercise "morality, emotions, even the self".
I guarantee that you can't do it
You guarantee wrongly.
- therefore, you are making metaphysical faith statements not grounded in empirical science - that is called self-refutation.
On the contrary, it appears your position is the one that's currently lacking in evidence from empirical science (although I've joined this thread late -- if you posted some earlier which I've missed, please let me know).
I'm not talking about "fight or flight" - I'm talking about "where do I come from?" "Where am I going?" "Why do I exist?" "Do I exist?" "What is real?" If you have any scientific evidence (other than your biased opinion) that animals ask themselves these questions, let's have it. Otherwise, you are outside of the realm of science.
Preference/aversion for certain patterns/colors/sounds/sequences will arise due to evolution "recognizing" that some things signal safety and some signal danger (red=blood=danger is one of the more obvious), and thus over time creatures will develop elaborate "aesthetics" by which certain types of visual or audio cues will elicit pleasure, and some will elicit revulsion. A good example is the sound of fingernails on a blackboard, which some researchers showed is very similar to a danger cry in certain African primates.
Haha. Give me the empirical evidence for this statement. You have none. Another assertion. Do you follow your own rules of science or not?
Not all esthetics has to be tied so directly to a natural cue, however. Once creatures have developed an instinct to prefer some patterns over others, they have gained the ability to use this mechanism "recreationally" -- experimenting with the creation of different patterns just to see how they tickle the instinctual pleasure/aversion pattern recognition parts of their brains (which orginally arose for more practical purposes).
EVIDENCE? Where is it? Either produce evidence for your assertions or admit that they are your opinion and are not grounded in scientific fact.
You guarantee wrongly.
Then let's have the evidence. I don't accept assertions from people who claim to have a monopoly on science. I want data. Give.
or
The universe came into existence through some as yet unidentified cataclysmic cosmic accident.
Those are the only available options for the beginning of our universe.
Haha. I'm not the one who uses "empirical science" as my basis in fact. Since neodarwinists do, therefore, when they go outside of empirical science, as you have done here, you are contradicting your own scientific epistemology. Can't you see that?
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.