Ch. 4 - The gene machine
Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:50 am
The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
Ch. 4 - The gene machine
Ch. 4 - The gene machine
I'm not sure this wording is quite right, as it reads a bit like asking someone for directions and being told to contract your muscles. In any event, genes are purposive and intentional, causing specific effects.the main way in which brains actually contribute to the success of survival machines is by controlling and coordinating the contraction of muscles.
Comparing decisions to the way a steam regulator modulates the pressure of a boiler, he downplays human freedom, suggesting our genes control our behaviour like a computer programmer setting the parameters for a user.purposiveness has evolved the property we call consciousness.
The point is that “all its instructions had to be written in advance because of the inviolable 200 year barrier” caused by the distance from Andromeda to Sol, and that genes similarly need to program in advance - set and forget.“the computer was well on the way to dictatorship over the world before the hero eventually finished it off with an axe.”
This statement is problematic, as it suggests human consciousness and imagination have made evolution obsolete.Consciousness...can be thought of as the culmination of an evolutionary trend towards the emancipation of survival machines as executive decision-takers from their ultimate masters, the genes. (p63)
Children will deceive their parents, husbands will cheat on wives, and brother will lie to brother. (p70)
When you say that evolution cannot account for the brain, you are obviously not implying that the brain is somehow miraculous, but rather that the rational capacity of thought cuts the moorings from instinct. The ‘mixed blessing’ of this separation of spirit from nature is our capacity for good and evil – good through recognition of universal truths and evil through corrupted alienation from our natural essence.Interbane wrote:I think more of human behavior can be attributed to genes than most people realize. At the same time, there are emergent properties of the human brain that evolution alone can't account for. He touches on this in the chapter about memes. In other words, our genes can give us the power to act on reasons, but there is no control over where those reasons will lead us. Examples are contraceptives and suicide. The question is then how valuable the power to act on reasons actually is. I believe it is our primary evolutionary advantage, but it comes with mixed blessings.
Perhaps Dawkins did not intend to imply that the "emancipation" is complete, but rather that it is an ongoing struggle, thus not (yet?) rendering evolution obsolete. However his choice of words, "culmination of an evolutionary trend", would seem to imply so, although I find this idea somewhat confusing because I don't think Dawkins would argue that consciousness is somehow attempting to overthrow evolution as executive decision maker of the survival machine.Robert Tulip wrote: ...
Dawkins notes that genetic determinism is more complicated for conscious humans. observing thatComparing decisions to the way a steam regulator modulates the pressure of a boiler, he downplays human freedom, suggesting our genes control our behaviour like a computer programmer setting the parameters for a user.purposiveness has evolved the property we call consciousness.
The most interesting comment in the chapter picks up this theme of human imaginative freedom:This statement is problematic, as it suggests human consciousness and imagination have made evolution obsolete.Consciousness...can be thought of as the culmination of an evolutionary trend towards the emancipation of survival machines as executive decision-takers from their ultimate masters, the genes. (p63)
Question: Do you think Dawkins should have included a weasel-word here, the “seeming” emancipation from our genetic masters, given that in the long run human life is determined by the natural framework of evolution?
I'm not so sure that evolution is providing a meaningful framework for human development any more. Consider that we control our environment to a large degree. Our technology in food production and transportation means we can live just about anywhere and make our own food and be comfortable and still have lots of free time on our hands. We're also wildly successful in terms of procreation which, after all, is our genes' prime directive. In a very short time span (at least geologically) we've firmly established ourselves as the dominant species on this planet. If procreation is the goal of evolution, our work is done.Robert Tulip wrote: The most interesting comment in the chapter picks up this theme of human imaginative freedom:This statement is problematic, as it suggests human consciousness and imagination have made evolution obsolete.Consciousness...can be thought of as the culmination of an evolutionary trend towards the emancipation of survival machines as executive decision-takers from their ultimate masters, the genes. (p63)
Question: Do you think Dawkins should have included a weasel-word here, the “seeming” emancipation from our genetic masters, given that in the long run human life is determined by the natural framework of evolution?
Emergence is a thought that should be held and discussed at greater length. Emergent properties are important also in the sense that natural selection doesn't account for what emerges from the forge of creation. There is a slight mystical quality here for me. Kauffman says that the creativity of life is partly beyond explanation of natural law, though it violates no natural laws.Interbane wrote:Evolution created the brain. What I said was that there are emergent properties of the brain which evolution can't account for.
I think that's a very good thumbnail of the difference between transcendence-prone thinking and the scientific outlook.I don't think the capacity for good and evil is relevant. An emergent property of the mind which evolution can't account for is our classification of our actions. The actions themselves are objectively neutral, morality is only a useful notion to us sentient beings. A tree does not see a logger as evil. Such notions are a lens through which we understand our world, and there is nothing universal about them.