I was speaking in a Thursday night chat with Meme Wars about the role of philosophy in the modern world when, as is our usual custom, we arrived upon the topic of the selfish gene. According to Dawkins, Meme Wars argued, the theory of the selfish gene puntuates the era of philosophy with resonant finality. All the confusing and confused labor of the philosophers to discover the nature of reality and man's position in it, was in vain. To this I retorted that it does not surprise me that Dawkin's would make such a claim and encouraged him to continue. If evolution occurs at the level of the gene, then the individual organism is merely the medium through which the gene propagates itself--a grand environment so to speak. With this much, I could agree, and had already accepted as much in my own reading of Unweaving the Rainbow. Religion, philosophy, even consciousness, are merely illusions by which the gene indirectly affects its own perpetuation. That is, consciousness and its secondary products are the result of a long march of selfish collaboration at the level of genes. To this I responded, then would not advocating science and the appetite for wonder be the equivalent of substituting one illusion for another? If the human organism and all associated appurtenances are merely some elaborate vehicle for genetic proliferation, what difference does it make what we believe. I don't give a damn about the success of my genes. Meme Wars agreed and indicated that this very issue is what Dawkins sought to address in Unweaving the Rainbow.

Quote:

---

But such very proper purgin of saccharine false purpose; such laudable tough-mindedness in the debunking of cosmic sentimentality must not be confused with a loss of personal hope. Presumably there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos, but do any of us really tie our life's hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway? Of course we don't; not if we are sane. Our lives are ruled by all sorts of closer, warmer, human ambitions and perceptions. To accuse science of robbing life of the warmth that makes it worth living is so preposterously mistaken, so diametrically opposite to my own feelings and those of most working scientists, I am almost driven to the despair of which I am wrongly suspected. But in this book I shall try a more positive response, appealing to the sense of wonder in science because it is so sad to think what these complainers and naysayers are missing.

Unweaving the Rainbow - Preface

---

As I read the book, I was vaguely aware of this motive all along, but when I read Meme Wars words, I realized the full implication of the need for Unweaving the Rainbow. I suppose that had I first read The Blind Watchmaker or The Selfish Gene, I would have been more aware of the situation, but without that background, my appoach to Unweaving was limited.

With this new understanding, I find myself sympathizing more and more with Dawkins' critics. What room is there for a meaningful humanistic worldview if the human individual is merely an instrumental illusion of the gene? Dawkins spends so much time condemning those who allow their lives to be influenced by superstition and delusion, but it seems to me that the model of the selfish gene implies that human life is inextricably linked to delusion and that the value of science is just one possible illusion of many. I feel that his critics have raised an important question: a question that Unweaving the Rainbow has failed to satisfactorily address.

What are your thoughts?

It is perhaps unfair to judge a scientific worldview by the consequences it has on our moral and spiritual ideals, rather than on the accuracy and adequacy of its treatment of the facts. Dawkins' view has proven of considerable value to the study of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, and seems at present best fitted of all known views of evolution to explain the facts as we currently know them. However, this is not the main reason I disagree with Tim. The main point of my disagreement is not that we should disregard the moralistic and spiritual consequences of Dawkins' views, but that these consequences are nowhere near so bad as his critics (namely Gould) would like us to believe. Although his theories do spell the doom of some forms of philosophy and ethics, but only those forms which rested on an insecure foundation to begin with. Selfish genes do not equal selfish people, and deterministic genes do not imply programmed people. A naturalistic view of ethics, free will, psychology and philosophy can be rebuilt on our improved understanding of human origins and nature, as is demonstrated by Pinker and Dennett in The Blank Slate on one hand and Freedom Evolves and Darwin's dangerous Idea on the other.

One important thing to keep in mind is that Dawkins doesn't do any philosophizing in his books. All he does is explain how he views the scientific nature of the world. His only comments on things like free will and ethics are to say that these disciplines may have to reevaluate their stances if their doctrines were based on a naive interpretation of the nature of the self. Dawkins' view may seem devoid of "meaning", but this is only because, as a scientist, he tries to avoid imparting it with such biases. Philosophers like Dennett and Pinker (as The Blank Slate is more philosophy than anything else) seek to find the meaning in a "Dawkinsian" universe, and find more than you might expect. After this "reconstruction" of sorts, all the pieces of our mental lives are still standing, and though they may not be the "magical" varieties of free will or consciousness we wanted before, they are most definitely real, and stand on a far more secure foundation now that they are incorporated into our naturalistic understanding of the universe.

Timothy,

Let me start off by saying that I'm still a bit of a noob when it comes to understanding both biological and social evolution. I'll give my opinion of your statement based on my limited understanding of the subject, but I might be way off base here. So feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems to me that these are two separate issues that you are trying to combine into one. It's like when I have a discussion with someone about absolute morality or intrinsic human value. Just because I make the statement that there is no absolute morality or inherent value to human life does not mean that morality does not exist on a societal level and that humans do not value their own lives or those of other humans. Absolute morality and personal morality are two completely separate issues and great confusion develops when you start trying to combine the two ideas.

If I make the statement that rape is not absolutely wrong I'm talking about in an absolute sense. In fact, at times rape is beneficial or potentially beneficial from an evolutionary point of view. That doesn't mean that I think it's ok on a personal level for a man to go out and rape any woman he wants. These are two completely separate discussions. They may overlap a little, but the subject of absolute morality is more of a philosophical concept, whereas personal morality is a social concept.

I think that this discussion of selfish genes and the benefits of science is similar in nature. To the gene, nothing matters except survival and reproduction, and even that is not a conscious motive. It's simply natural selection. Genes don't care if they were created by a god or if they developed naturally. Your genes don't care if you believe in an almighty god, that you yourself are god or that there is no god. However, part of human evolution has been the development of thought, emotion, intelligence, and reason. Other animals possess these abilities to an extent, but humans are more capable of contemplating abstract issues because we have more advanced mental capability. Intelligence benefits our species and the likelihood of the survival of our genes because it makes us stronger and gives us an advantage as a species. As humans have evolved our less intelligent ancestors have become extinct.

Clearly these two subjects overlap, but they are distinctly separate. The selfishness of the gene is a very valid evolutionary argument on a genetic level. The value of science and reason over faith and mysticism is equally valid on a philosophical level. Because humans have evolved with a capacity for intelligence, abstract thought and emotion, these concepts are very important to our survival as a species, and therefore are important to the survival of our genes as well. Of course, our genes don't realize that on a conscious level.

As for a conflict between Dawkins' books, such as The Blind Watchmaker and Unweaving the Rainbow, I have to say that I see none. Rather it seems to me that Unweaving the Rainbow picks up where The Blind Watchmaker leaves off and I have been enjoying it immensely. When I first started having doubts about my theism The Blind Watchmaker was recommended to me. Though questioning the existence of a god for the first time in my life, I still strongly believed in one and I was still very active in my religion. Reading The Blind Watchmaker was such an eye-opener for me. Because of the fundamentalist nature of my religion and because my parents taught me at home and kept me sheltered from scientific material, the only exposure I had to the subject of biological evolution up to that point was from creationist sources and some reading that I had done at talkorigins.

The Blind Watchmaker really helped me to appreciate why intelligent design arguments are flawed and it was largely responsible for destroying my faith and belief in god. When I started reading The Blind Watchmaker I was still very much a theist and, therefore, somewhat skeptical of it. Had I found Dawkin's approach to the subject arrogant, extreme or dogmatic I would have dismissed it without finishing it. But I found the opposite to be the case. I thought that he treated the subject with great respect. He related to William Paley and agreed whole-heartedly with his awe and fascination for life. He acknowledged that before Darwin atheism, while still rationally sound, would have been extremely lacking in appeal. But with the understanding of evolution and natural selection an atheist could feel intellectually fulfilled.

He then went on to give a detailed description of how evolution works on a microscopic level. It made so much sense to me that I simply couldn't understand how people could read that book and still decry evolution. He also explained some theories regarding abiogenesis which made a lot of sense to me. They may or may not be an accurate description of how life evolved from non-life, but understanding how natural selection works even in the absence of life helped me to appreciate that our origins could be natural rather than supernatural. I was still a theist when I started reading The Blind Watchmaker, although I was already having some doubts, but I was an atheist when I finished reading it a couple months later. It had a huge impact on my thinking and was an instrumental part in the destruction of my faith.

I appreciate that immensely and hope to one day thank Richard Dawkins for writing such an incredible book. He helped me wake up to science and reality. Even still, that awakening has left something of an emotional void in my life. And this is where I think Unweaving the Rainbow picks up. Timothy, you and I have had some discussions about the emptiness that can be felt after losing one's religion. It can cause periods of depression and disillusionment. It can even leave a sense of purposelessness and worthlessness to life. I've certainly felt that way over the past year and a half.

In my opinion, Unweaving the Rainbow (at least what I've read of it so far), speaks to that void. It addresses the emotional emptiness that is inherently a part of atheism. As silly as this may sound, the first part of Chapter one had me in tears.

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here....

The lottery starts before we are conceived. Your parents had to meet, and the conception of each was as improbable as your own. And so on back, through your four grandparents and eight great grandparents, back to where it doesn't bear thinking about....

How it feels to me, and I guess to you as well, is that the present moves from the past to the future, like a tiny spotlight, inching its way along a gigantic ruler of time. Everything behind the spotlight is in darkness, the darkness of the dead past. Everything ahead of the spotlight is in the darkness of the unknown future. The odds of your century being the one in the spotlight are the same as the odds that a penny, tossed down at random, will land on a particular ant crawling somewhere along the road from New York to San Francisco. In other words, it is overwhelmingly probable that you are dead.

In spite of these odds, you will notice that you are, as a matter of fact, alive. People whom the spotlight has already passed over, and people whom the spotlight has not reached, are in no position to read a book. I am equally luck to be in a position to write one, although I may not be when you read these words. Indeed, I rather hope that I shall be dead when you do. Don't misunderstand me. I love life and hope to go on for a long time yet, but any author wants his words to reach the largest possible readership. Since the total future population is likely to outnumber my contemporaries by a large margin, I cannot but aspire to be dead when you see these words. Facetiously seen, it turns out to be no more than a hope that my book will not soon go out of print. But what I see as I write is that I am lucky to be alive and so are you....

As I said, the story asks for too much luck; it would never happen. And yet, isn't that what has happened to each one of us? We have woken after hundreds of millions of years asleep, defying astronomical odds. Admittedly we didn't arrive by spaceship, we arrived by being born, and we didn't burst conscious into the world but accumulated awareness gradually through babyhood. The fact that we slowly apprehend our world, rather than suddenly discover it, should not subtract from its wonder.

Of course I am playing tricks with the idea of luck, putting the cart before the horse. It is not accident that our kind of life finds itself on a planet whose temperature, rainfall and everything else are exactly right. If the planet were suitable for another kind of life, it is that other kind of life that would have evolved here. But we as individuals are still hugely blessed. Privileged, and not just privileged to enjoy our planet. More, we are granted the opportunity to understand why our eyes are open, and why they see what they do, in the short time before they close for ever.

After sleeping through a hundred million centuries we have finally opened our eyes on a sumptuous planet, sparkling with colour, bountiful with life. Within decades we must close our eyes again. Isn't it a noble, an enlightened way of spending our brief time in the sun, to work at understanding the universe and how we have come to wake up in it? This is how I answer when I am asked

It was not my intention to critique Dawkins' theory qua scientific theory, rather my intention was to evaluate the effectiveness of his response to the critics which claim that his view is deleterious to a humanistic worldview. It would indeed be unfair to judge a theory on the basis of its ethical consequences, but it would be equally unfair to exempt that theory from the formulation of an ethical response to those consequences. Yes, the theory stands alone, but when that theory eradicates the moral foundations upon which society rests, its is obligated to provide a new framework in which to ground ethics. My entire purpose in post was to discover - what is that framework.

Unweaving the Rainbow was ostensibly the answer to this very question, but while fascinating, it has left me quite dissatisfied. Dawkins appeals on one hand to sentimentality and on the other hand to the objective value of science. Sorry, but I need more than sunshine and flowers to drape a standard of ethics and science, as Hume tells us, can never exceed the scope of its own technique. That is, the choice of the purposes that a technique is to serve will always lie outside the scope of the technique itself. Moral and political values cannot be derived ultimately from scientific knowledge and so the belief in the value of science is really no better than the belief that causes the monk to tonsure and flagellate himself in terms of justifiable values. This debate has been extant for nearly 2500, and I cannot help but be skeptical towards those who claimed to have the answers.

Tim,

I do not think Dawkin's intention in writing "Unweaving the Rainbow" was to provide us with a grand purpose in life, or a moral foundation to replace the one destroyed by modern science. His point, as far as I can tell, was simply to show how science can generate it's own awe and facination. The realization that there is no ready-made moral code or purpose to our lives does not mean that we are doomed to a life of melancholy. You see, I am convinced that the true scourge of religious thinking is the idea that we are owed a purpose in life;that someone or something else is responsible for directing us toward happiness. And that if we are not happy it is because of something that someone else did. Poppycock! We are, each and everyone of us, responsible for determining our own purpose in life and our own means to happiness. It just happens to be easier if we live in reality.

You are mistaken in thinking that religion is responsible for engendering in the minds of men the desire to for purpose. This pursuit is symptomatic of secular and sacred societies alike and has been so since antiquity. On the contrary, I would say that religion is the result, and not the cause, of this human condition and to think otherwise is in a sense putting the cart before the horse, as it were.

At least before Dawkins, you could think of the human individual as more or less fundamental in a given system of values. Value, whether you believe it to be inherent or ascribed, is the object of the individual's desire and consequently exists as ethical ends. We still have to deal with the issue of the universality of values, but at least from the perspective of the self, value is absolute, because the self is fundamental. Unfortunately, as it turns out the self isn't fundamental at all. It's just a replication mechanism, one of many, characteristic of certain configurations of genes existing in a larger environment of other genes, resources, and limitations. From this point of view, the self isn't really even a self, it just somehow experieces itself as such. Choice and free will are just illusions by which a particular configuration of genes determines between alternatives. We don't choose, 'deliberation' (greatly reduced) is just the output of a nervous system processing input in the context of prior input and present biological imperatives. I don't know how the nexus of perception is experienced as being, but this experience of choice doesn't mean that we actually choose in any meaningful sense of the term. Without choice, there is no moral responsibility, no ethics, no right and wrong, not even utility. I find this knowledge depressing. I probably feel this way because the illusion of purpose, egocentrism, is an effective survival mechanism. Belief in a god works for some people, belief in the self works for others, the value of science may work for Dawkins, but for me...well, I feel that my mechanism is broken and I don't know how to fix it.

Edited by: Timothy Schoonover at: 6/6/03 6:06 pm

Tim,

I will respond to the intellectual content of your post when I am sober. Util then, Hiccup, I will limit my response to proposing the we consider Dennett's latest book "Freedom Evolves" for our next months.....book.

Wait, maybe I should post this in the suggestion thread. Will post...tomorrow....must sleep...room spinning....theres the bed...no....there it is....no...there....

Posted this in the wrong thread - here it is in the right one.


The fundamental contradiction in Dawkins' position is that, as he noted from the outset of The Selfish Gene, he formulated this as a "what if" rhetorical position - but then went on to treat it as if it was a fait accompli - as indeed it has subsequently come to be understood by the reading public. It is also generally understood as a rationalization of selfishness, mapping onto an increasing narcissism in the population, and indeed, could be argued to be responsible for it in some measure.

It seems that Dawkins is substituting the teleology of religion for the teleology of genes. How can genes have will? And if we are at the mercy of their will, then what explains childless people?

The fact that we have genes makes us lumbering robots? This is what he calls us in River out of Eden, and this is why he and Dennet have earned the reputation of ultra Darwinists, who go far beyond what Darwin himself ever intended for his theory.

It seems to me that Dawkin's position is inherently misanthropic, and that he creates straw men out of imaginary creationists to disguise this.

Edited by: sqwark at: 6/8/03 6:57 pm

Wmmurrah

Lol - you lush!

Sqwark

Hm, I've never considered that Dawkins' position might be responsible for an increasing tendency of Narcissism. It's an interesting point, and as you suggest, it is certainly arguable. Ethical egoism, or enlightened self-interest, has been around for some time as a philosophy, but it hasn't been my perception that Dawkins has contributed to its promulgation, although I can see how both views might seem sympathetic. It seems to me that misanthropy and narcissism are fundamentally at odds however, but I assume that you use the term to generally mean selfish behavior and not the psychological condition.

The subject of teleology came up in another thread (Universal Symbiosis) earlier during this session. The general consensus was that a blind process like natural selection working on the level of genes does not necessarily need to be seen as an invokation of teleology. While it is true that Dawkins is liberal in his use of anthropomorphic metaphors in his writing, I do not think that he is suggesting that there is some end towards which genes aim. Sometimes the line between process and teleology gets blurred, but I see no need to equate them. On the point of misanthropy, my response to Unweaving has been similar. A lot of people here find him encouraging, but I just don't see it. Perhaps his position is a sort of tactical condesension, and if so its validity is arguable, but I don't sense much compassion for people in his writing.

An interesting, non-sycophantic post. I'm glad to have read it and hope all of us can discuss the various positions and reactions in a reasonable and respectful manner. = )

(Cheryl is so rude sometimes!)

Errata:

It has been brought to my attention that certain of my statements in this post border on ad hominen and I feel that I need to clarify.

I stated, in agreement with Sqwark, that Dawkins' writing in Unweaving is somewhat misanthropic. That is a strong word and perhaps I used it to liberally, but my view is that misanthropy with respect to the present state of human society is not necessarily a invalid perspective, nor a negative characteristic in an individual. I you will recall, I disagreed with Sqwark, and still do, on the point that misanthropy is synonymous with narcissism. I believe such a position is repudiated, again and again, throughout history. Some of humankind's greatest minds have been misanthropists. Mark Twain comes immediately to mind.

Secondly, I stated that my reading of Unweaving did not communicate much in the line of compassion to me. It should not be concluded that a lack of compassion in a text infers a lack of compassion in the author of that text. There are many reason why such might not be the case. My first assumption was that Dawkins felt a position of sterness and condescention was necessary against the inveterate strains of superstitious activity prevalent within society. Whether or not this tactic is justifiable is open to argument, however, it was not the point I wished to make.

Edited by: Timothy Schoonover at: 6/29/03 11:15 pm

Narcissism and misanthropy are actually flip sides of the same coin, as they both embody a dysfunctional relationship with the self and others which negates the value of the other.

As to teleology, the entire neoDarwinist campaign is concerned with replacing teleology with strictly random processes (gene expression) followed by a functionalist type of selection which is nevertheless blind to its environment or what is required by the individual or population. But the teleology of the gene is surely established if one attributes will to them, and it has been taken beyond the metaphoric level by Dawkins, as I mentioned, to the point where we are merely in the service of our genes. You can tell this is false rhetoric by the fact that any resistance to it is deemed to be deluded.

You are also right in your perception of tactical condescension. I have yet to read Rainbows (it's on order) but he certainly employs this type of double back flip liberally in all his other work, reassuring us at the end of River Out of Eden that we can overcome the tyranny of our genes, yet without saying how this might be possible when their pre-eminence is his entire thesis.

NeoDarwinism has dispensed with the organism in favour of the gene, and yet this gene-centricism itself is not treated with proper scientific qualification, so hamstrung is the ideology by its own dogma.

The current research from molecular biology increasingly suggests that Lamarckian processes are at work as a direct response of the organism to its environment, and that neither organisms nor evolution are just a random collection of bits and bytes made intelligible by an all-seeing natural selection (which after all is an abstract term to describe something which has worked - it doesn't actually 'explain' anything).

Here is an article I wrote on the subject which goes into greater depth as to where we are right now: sqwark.com/Lamarckism.htm

You will sense from this that neoDarwinism is actually in serious trouble, and that its blind adherence to dogma must now either be justified or modified - but the picture is even larger than this, with scientists like Kaufman claiming an existing generic order independent of selection, and others such as Goodwin and Rose pushing strongly away from gene centricism towards a biology where the organism itself is the unit of analysis rather then gene populations. Group selectionism is now again in ascendancy, complex systems have invoked the autonomous agent as its unit, and right across the board there is a backlash taking place
against the notion that organisms are merely random strings of data in a random universe.

Edited by: sqwark at: 6/9/03 9:20 pm

Honestly, Dawkins' gene metaphors suggest nothing to me beyond a new perspective of reproductive fitness. To equate this to some genetic volition is reading way too much into his statements. Dawkins explicitly cautions against this fallacy in Unweaving and berates other scientists in their misuse of poetic metaphor. I wonder, if neoDarwinism is in so much danger, why resort to this level of argumentation?

I am not an ontogenist, nor a scientist, so I cannot speak to the meritability of your references, although others here are more equiped to address those challenges, than I. It seems to me, however, that your time would be best spend producing arguments rather than rebarbative accusations. I hope that is not too much to ask. Please consider the differing levels of understanding present in the community.

Sqwark

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of a discussion community. If you have something to discuss you are welcome to create a thread and address whatever issue is on your mind, but I think you will find that hi-jacking a popular thread with hostile and off-topic rhetoric in order to promote your personal beliefs is an excellent way to earn a rather unsavory reputation.

It may surprise you to discover that I, as well as most of the community, simply do not have the time or energy to thoroughly research the claims of every poster's "extensive research." I do not think it is unreasonable or characteristic of laziness to request that you make a case for your point of view by participating in our discussions. That is what we're here for afterall.

What I find most amusing is the defensive nature of your responses given that I have yet to express opposition to Larmarkism or Epigenetics. In fact this thread wasn't even about the validity of selfish gene theory, it was about its compatibility with a humanistic worldview. Apparently you missed that point, and barged in, issuing provocative language and looking for a scuffle. You'll have to forgive us simple, ignorant, and lazy folk if we do not buy into your "dogma" act.

So my advice to you is to create your own thread with your own topic and discuss it there with those individuals not driven away by your rebarbative badinage (whoops I said it again). That is assuming you are able to tolerate discussion.

Tim,

While I agree that your argument presented in post 197 is speculative to some extent I must say that I feel the same way. Human consciousness is a result of evolutionary processes. Humans have evolved the ability to makes choices. This is most likely a better strategy for survival, for both the genes and the individuals. Just as sexual reproduction in many ways was more adaptive than asexual reproduction and proliferated the planet

Also, I think many of us are caught up with this free will vs. determinism concept. Both these ideas were created by humans to understand the world. But our level of understanding the world has developed to the point that maybe these concepts are outdated. IOW, maybe the answer to the question "do we have free will or are we merely pawns to determinism?" is "neither." Maybe reality lies outside these two concepts. I remember in graduate school the big debate being nature vs nurture, how much do each influence who we are. But I believe this dichotomous concept is also misleading. Both play an integral role. THey are two ways of looking at the same thing. (I'm sure we can discuss this more while reading next months book )

My point is that when concepts are no longer useful we must be willing to give them up. And such concepts as those we are speaking about are only useful if the describe reality. So maybe the question should be "is reality a free will vs determinism dichotomy?" I personally suspect not.

Sqwark,

I do not understand how selfish gene theory is incompatible with the idea that humans have free will and can control their destiny. Could you please explain this to me?

wmmurrah

Sqwark seems to have dropped off the radar, so here's my two cents worth:

I think that most opposition to the selfish gene idea (theory is perhaps a strong word) is based on an unresolved cognitive dissonance dating back to around the mid 1800s. This dissonance is present in almost all modern educated people, with a few exceptions (these exceptions are mainly weirdos who participate in online book discussion forums), and it goes as follows:

1) I know that I am an organism belonging to a species which arose through millions of years of selective evolution, and that every aspect of my phenotype is in fact simply an adaptation that allowed my ancestors to survive the conditions they lived in.

2) I also know that I am capable of rational thought, and that the decisions I make are "free", in the sense that I could always have done otherwise. I know that my education allows me to consider these decisions in a rational way, and to arrive at objective conclusions.

Although it may not seem so at first, these two ideas are incompatible. If I am a genetically determined organism, I should be designed to make decisions in the most cost-effective and survival-ensuring way, which is certainly not an expected characteristic of the purely rational moral agent of Kant's fantasy. There is in fact no plausible adaptationist rationale for a Kantian moral sense to ever evolve (although the moral philosophies of Hume are perhaps more accessible to natural selection.) The real dilemma most educated people face is between what psychology and genetics are telling them that they are and what their subjective intuitions would seem to indicate (I say educated people because uneducated people are usually either unaware of or willing to discount the psychology and genetics, and are also not so wrapped up in the Kantian ideal of a perfect rational agent.)

Efforts to reconcile this discontinuity have recently begun to surface, with some claiming that free will is an illusion and doesn't actually exist, and others (such as Dennett) have argued that free will can arise as a product of culture (more or less, I won't reproduce his argument in full, since it essentially occupies his whole book.) I, for one, find these arguments unconvincing so far, but perhaps that is only because so much of the science is still missing. We'll probably get to go over these ideas in much more detail when we read Pinker's latest.

That's the long answer...the short answer is that Dawkins isn't the most restrained writer there is, and passages such as this one may contribute to misinterpretations of his idea:

"Now they [the replicators] swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, [...]"

Anyway, just a thought, really

Edited by: Louis42 at: 6/22/03 9:10 pm