geo wrote: Yes. I am being tongue-in-cheek, but isn't it amazing to think about evolution from this perspective—the gene's? Disturbing in a way, but also very compelling to think how we came to be in such a purposeless fashion. ... Looking at evolution from the perspective of the gene, I think, stretches your mind just a tiny bit, enough to make you say 'wow!'.

Stretching your mind is exactly the right metaphor to use. If we can manage to stretch our minds (takes effort and imagination; I haven't achieved it yet), we can then wrap our minds around the concepts Dawkins is teaching. Just like physical stretching, mental stretching can be uncomfortable, as you say, and this is partly why so many people would prefer not to do it.

Robert Tulip wrote: Jean Paul Sartre, in his book Being and Nothingness, founded existentialism on the false theory that only the present moment is real, summarised as 'existence precedes essence'. Dawkins' frame of reference, in an entirely empirical way, shows how the existential attitude is ridiculously arrogant. Dawkins is really opening us to true wonder - as Blake put it

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

Robert, the post answering Bryamon above, may explain why I used the word reductive. I'm not sure about your put-down of existentialism, will have to think about it. But your use of the Blake quotation is very apt for what Dawkins is doing.

DWill wrote:

Robert Tulip wrote: Jean Paul Sartre, in his book Being and Nothingness, founded existentialism on the false theory that only the present moment is real, summarised as 'existence precedes essence'. Dawkins' frame of reference, in an entirely empirical way, shows how the existential attitude is ridiculously arrogant. Dawkins is really opening us to true wonder - as Blake put it

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

Robert, the post answering Bryamon above, may explain why I used the word reductive. I'm not sure about your put-down of existentialism, will have to think about it. But your use of the Blake quotation is very apt for what Dawkins is doing.

Bill, I've always regarded the word reductive as a put-down of science by mysticism. You might recall we discussed Unweaving the Rainbow here at Booktalk, in which Dawkins argues that Newton's reduction of light by the prism to its rainbow components is a more expansive way to understand than Newton's critics who said scientific understanding detracts from the mystery of the whole.

I don't agree with your earlier characterisation of Dawkins and de Waal as seeking to shoulder philosophy aside with zoology. It is not about 'reducing' ideas to facts, but rather more a recognition that true ideas are based on facts, so philosophy should be based on zoology. They are providing a foundation for systematic thinking, not asking people not to think. Sartre is a good example of a philosopher who was ignorant of zoology, and who produced an idealist vision which responded to his context but was not well grounded in reality. Zoology provides the 'shoulders of giants' (in Newtons' term) upon which philosophy can be constructed. Who Dawkins is 'shouldering aside' is not the philosophers but the creationists and others who refuse to base their opinions on evidence.

Robert Tulip wrote: Bill, I've always regarded the word reductive as a put-down of science by mysticism. You might recall we discussed Unweaving the Rainbow here at Booktalk, in which Dawkins argues that Newton's reduction of light by the prism to its rainbow components is a more expansive way to understand than Newton's critics who said scientific understanding detracts from the mystery of the whole.

I don't agree with your earlier characterisation of Dawkins and de Waal as seeking to shoulder philosophy aside with zoology. It is not about 'reducing' ideas to facts, but rather more a recognition that true ideas are based on facts, so philosophy should be based on zoology. They are providing a foundation for systematic thinking, not asking people not to think. Sartre is a good example of a philosopher who was ignorant of zoology, and who produced an idealist vision which responded to his context but was not well grounded in reality. Zoology provides the 'shoulders of giants' (in Newtons' term) upon which philosophy can be constructed. Who Dawkins is 'shouldering aside' is not the philosophers but the creationists and others who refuse to base their opinions on evidence.

I wasn't around when Unweaving the Rainbow was discussed. I'll put it on my (long) list, though, and I do agree with Dawkins' view. When I said that De Waal and Dawkins wanted to shoulder philosophy aside (as De Waal stated), I was thinking of philosophy as it has existed, not philosophy as it "should" exist, a philosophy grounded in the facts of zoology and other natural science. I'm far from being able to accurately characterize current philosophy, but my impression, for what that is worth, is that philosophy pursues a largely independent agenda. You might be more up to speed on this than I.

People might like to read this review of Unweaving The Rainbow I posted at Booktalk in 2003.

DWill wrote:

bryamon wrote:I think that Dawkins explains his survival machine theory in such a way that it should not be viewed as reductionist, nor should it offend those that would take exception to his point of view.

Right, I used the word "reductive" in order to avoid the more negative connotation of "reductionist." As I understand the method of science, it does seek to reduce explanations of phenomena to the most elemental units and is therefore reductive--but this is a strength. The compact summary or theory that results from all the scientific work can then be unpacked to reveal its actual richness of content. This is what Dawkins is doing for us throughout the book.

Thanks for the clarification DWill. I misinterpreted what it was that you were trying to say; That by "reducing" an explanation to its more basic or elemental parts you can expand (and in fact are expanding) your understanding.

Sorry, I posted about memes here instead of the Chapter 11 thread, where you can find the post now.

Some amazing facts in this chapter: there are "over six thousand million million million" hemoglobin molecules in the human body. "Hemoglobin thornbushes are springing into their 'preferred' shape in your body at a rate of about four hundred million million per second, and others are being destroyed at the same rate."

LanDroid wrote:Some amazing facts in this chapter: there are "over six thousand million million million" hemoglobin molecules in the human body. "Hemoglobin thornbushes are springing into their 'preferred' shape in your body at a rate of about four hundred million million per second, and others are being destroyed at the same rate."

This kind of thing blows me away. It also makes me wonder about a bias that people seem to have against physical processes, as opposed to things they think of as spiritual or immaterial. Why are physical things 'only physical,' whereas the supposedly spiritual are 'higher'? We don't even begin to truly comprehend what is physical, as the fact you quote demonstrates. I guess that's the way we are designed, though, to be unaware of what's happening with our bodies. We couldn't carry on with whatever we're purposed to do if we had to be constantly aware of our metabolism. I wonder if our consciousness isn't in fact a barrier to experiencing more of our bodies. I wonder if other animals 'live their bodies' more than we do.

I like the irony RD brings out in this chapter, that we exist only because, as the popular evasive phrase states it, "mistakes were made."

DWill wrote:Why are physical things 'only physical,' whereas the supposedly spiritual are 'higher'?

Spiritual understanding relates to considering things as abstract concepts. It brings together what is similar in many physical instances, enabling universal generalisation and prediction about observation. The explanatory power of language is spiritual in nature, with words a rendering of knowledge by the human spirit. This is how I understand it, with spiritual effectively a synonym for conceptual. This is the sense in which we say science is one of the great achievements of the human spirit.

We don't even begin to truly comprehend what is physical.

The merely physical is apprehended by sense perception, while the spiritual is comprehended by reason.

I wonder if our consciousness isn't in fact a barrier to experiencing more of our bodies. I wonder if other animals 'live their bodies' more than we do.

Spirituality presents great scope for false consciousness. False spiritual faith (eg the dogma of the Virgin Birth) claims access to a higher miraculous comprehension that is not available to ordinary perception, but with this claim it separates itself from reality.

Your observation about animals 'living their bodies' relates to our previous conversation about instinct, and how reason separates humans from instinct. The irony is that it is only through conscious reasoning (ie spirituality) that we know how many haemoglobin molecules there are.