Dawkins

05 Mar 2009 at 14:13

tastyrerun

Darwin DV election Esther Evolution goals IPhone Nature

The stupid Wordpress app for the iPhone needs landscape mode. What is wrong with them?

Anyhow, I rode my bike to the bus stop for the first time of the year this morning. I can’t believe how tired that made me. I’m pooped and I only traveled about 3/4 of a mile. It’s amazing how bad my conditioning gets in the winter. I get very heavy and slow and tired. So for me, at least, I’m declaring the winter over. Sure there is a little spring snow but big whoop. Time to start riding the old bike and working in the yard and getting life in order.

Last night we saw Richard Dawkins speak over at Northrup Auditorium. The title of his lecture was The Purpose of Purpose. The main questions he addressed were:

- Why Darwinian natural selection would create a mind that sees purpose and goals everywhere
- What it is about our minds that causes us to subvert our basic biological gene-survival purpose

The concepts are actually pretty deep if you think about it. If we exist because evolution has shaped us to be this way, and evolution only truly rewards the survival of genes, what possible explanation could there be for us using birth control, for example. The answer was interesting.

His illustration was a goal-seeking missile. A self-guided missile flexibly adapts it’s behavior in pursuit of the goal of striking a moving target. This ability to flexibly adapt to goals is a strength that allows it to do it’s job. However, flexibility and adaptation are a double-edged sword. If the missile falls into the wrong hands, it can be given a new goal and it’s strengths intact, be used to attack the one who made it in the first place.

Now, our minds are not created artifacts in quite the same way that the missile is, but they have been shaped by million of years of evolution to be flexible in the pursuit of goals, altering course intelligently, creating sub-goals, etc. Those are the very strengths that allowed us to survive and pass genes on. However, the invention of advanced language and civilization changes our environment allowing other people (and sometimes ourselves) to subvert those evolved goals for other reasons that are actually contrary to our evolved goals.

Sex gets subverted, fillial devotion gets subverted, tribal and family allegience get subverted. We take a perfectly valid genetic goal and redirect it into religions, raising pets, all sorts of things that make no sense in light of the evolutionary imperative to propogate our own genes. Our very power and flexibility make us susceptible to goal subversion quite unlike that which happens in nature.

There is more to the story but that’s the summary. His Q&A period after was really interesting too. That covered a fair amount of ground. Esther particularly enjoyed it.

After the lecture we hit Jun Bo for late night dim sum with Es’s brother Paul, Josh Paro and Josh’s dad. That was sweet. All in all, an enjoyable and thought-provoking evening just as I’d hoped.

Also we all love the new HighTV record!

More From Ryan Sutter

Dan Michener

I liked your review of Dawkins. I am sorry I missed him speak; I would have liked to see him. I've read The Blind Watchmaker and enjoyed it, although I found several criticsms of the book. I think it is important to remember there is "Darwinism" and then there is "Dawkinism." I think Dawkins tends to put to much into intent. Darwinism doesn't really address intent. The idea that there is intention or will behind evolution. Still, Dawkins is a force to be reconed with. Regardless of your beliefs he needs to be read and understood in the same way Humes Critique of Natural Religion, Darwins Origin of the Species and the works of St. Augustine need to be read. Great review, Sir! Also, I am feeling your pain about not riding. I can't wait to get back to Lebannon Hills when the ground thaws!

tastyrerun

Hey Dan,

I plan to hit Lebanon Hills myself. Maybe we'll run into each other there. I also like to go around Alimagnet as it's a bit closer to me.

As far as "intent" in Dawkins, I think that's easy to read into what he says because he uses language like "the selfish gene" but he made pretty clear in his lecture that it is more of a metaphorical linguistic thing than any suggestion of conscious intent. There is clearly no intent there on the part of the genes that are acted upon and being selected for survival. He explicitly said that in his lecture. The only place where there is intent is when a particular species intentionally selects traits they find desirous in another species. For instance, a bee selects the flowers it likes, a human selects the flowers it likes, the flowers wind up reflecting the intentions of the selectors through a blind, unintentional, process on their part.

Thanks for coming over and joining in the conversation man. Hope to see ya on the trails!

Ryan

Erock

Phew! You guys already worked this out before I could get all defensive about my main man Richard D.

Here's Sam Harris on the subject from Letter to a Christian Nation (I couldn't say it better):

"Your qualms about embryonic stem-cell research are similarly obscene. Here
are the facts: stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments
in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic break-throughs
for every disease or injury process that human beings suffer-for the simple
reason that embryonic stem cells can become any tissue in the human body.
This research may also be essential for our understanding of cancer, along
with a wide variety of developmental disorders. Given these facts, it is
almost impossible to exaggerate the promise of stem-cell research. It is
true, of course, that research on embryonic stem cells entails the
destruction of three-day-old human embryos. This is what worries you.

Let us look at the details. A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of
150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more
than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are
destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons.
Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their
destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembering, in this context,
that when a person's brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to
harvest his organs (provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury
him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has
died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat
a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in this universe,
killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than
killing a human blastocyst."

Zing. I agree. Dawkins is one of the leading biologists on Earth so I doubt he'd make such a ridiculous slip as saying fetuses can't feel pain.

This dude taught biology at Oxford.

Chadly

Thanks, E, for stepping in on the Sam Harris quote. That was exactly what I was looking for, but I forgot where I had read it. :)

Jennifer

Yeah, I'm not a fan, so I wasn't familiar with the fact that this was an established recurring argument and I was supposed to fill in the blanks and just know what he was talking about. Makes sense now that the blanks have been sufficiently filling in.

Chadly

It's good to see you blog again. Perhaps the blog black-out ends with the winter? *hint*nudge*smile*

I shoulda gone. But I had to work. Plus LOST was on. hahaha.... But it sounds really interesting. I'll be eager to catch that lecture online.

I used to be highly critical of Dawkins just because he was such a cultish personality. And while his devotees sometimes give me cause for skepticism, the man himself has consistently earned my respect. Being a fully indoctrinated servant of science--especially one that is as public and given to criticism--he tends to stay away from saying things that can easily be proved wrong. Like the fetus issue. I've read that the state of development of the nervous system of a fetus is a controversial and disputed claim. Children's nervous systems are still developing quite a bit even after birth, but a full grown bovine would be at it's full capacity for pain. So his point is sound, even if the pain capacity of a fetus is disputed.

Sounds like it was fun. And I would have loved to Josh's dad again. Glad you had a good time.

Jennifer

Chadly,

What, so I'm not allowed to question Dawkins ;-) Hmm, that seems to remind me of something...

It has been long thought in our society that newborns can't feel pain, don't have emotions, and thus wont be affected by mistreatment or suffering infringed on them. Well, that is a load of crap, and the fact that it is not a well established scientific fact by now is astounding. We know that a newborns nervous system is well developed enough to feel pain, because they respond with a different cry as well as other forms of distress when presented with painful stimuli. So the nervous system develops sometime in utero. Fetuses also move away from painful stimuli, and they even have been observed crying in utero. Of course, there is a point where a fetus is a conglomeration of cells, and there is a point where it is a fully formed fetus that responds to it's environment, and I realize there is a gray area there as far how quickly they get from point A to point B, but we do know that at some point a fetus can feel pain, because we know that a newborn can feel pain, and they feel it profoundly - not in an underdeveloped nervous system sort of way. Dawkins didn't clarify the age of gestation he was speaking about, and perhaps that was his error, however, I don't understand how a scientist can claim to quantify a beings pain.

Chadly

Of course you're welcome to question him. That's how you respect a scientist; you call him on everything. I was merely pointing out that he's a pretty thoroughly researched debater and not often given to making hazy claims that can easily be refuted. Not saying he never does, but the guy is a consummate scientist and covers his points well. But I agree that that hardly makes him infallible and as such should be called out on any discrepancy.

What James said was exactly my point. I've heard Dawkins make this point before, and he was definitely referring to blastocysts. And like you said, the point where they do begin to feel pain is a merky area, and that was exactly the area I was referring to. I wholeheartedly agree that fetuses have an incredible amount of input that they are registering. But blastocycts haven't yet developed the nerves to feel being aborted. (As is my understanding, at least. I am a layperson who has only heard smart-sounding people with flashy credentials explain it. ha)

Jennifer

Blastocysts aren't ever even aborted, as you wouldn't even get a positive pregnancy test if you were hosting a blastocyst. I totally agree that they don't feel pain or resemble anything human yet. He didn't make it entirely clear (at least to me - and maybe I just wasn't paying close enough attention) that he was talking about a bastocyst. He said embryo, not blastocyst. As for making "hazy claims" his saying that animals don't adopt orphaned infants of their kind unless they are tricked into doing so seems sort of hazy after just watching a couple documentaries on animals.

James

I'll have to watch his speech online to be certain, but I am sure he preceeded his comment about in utero pain by discussing blastocysts. So, when he compared cows to unborn humans, I assumed he was still talking about the blastocyst stage; i.e., during the fist week after conception and prior to implantation.
I am sure, if we asked him, he would agree that, say, an 8-month old fetus is just as capable of feeling pain as an adult cow.
Oh - and I would like to question Dawkins, too. unfortunately, too many people are too eager to run up to the microphone ahead of me just to hear themselves talk.

Jennifer

You may be right, now that I think about it I think he said "embryo" and not "fetus". Then he must have been referring to stem cell research and not abortion, which to me is an odd comparison, so I jumped to thinking "fetus" and not hearing "embryo". I'd be interested to see his talk again online too to clarify what his point was there.

tastyrerun

Speaking of all this... does anybody know when/where the talk will be online?

Ryan

Erock

The new HighTV record loves you too.

Also, wish we could have been there! All hail Dawkins!

Jennifer

I thought it was good and interesting overall, but I did raise an eyebrow at a few of the things he said. Like when he said that people get upset about killing a fetus, but not a cow, when the cow can actually feel pain. Aside from the fact that the cow isn't going to carry on our genetic material and keep the human race alive, fetuses do feel pain. They are actually highly advanced at a very young age of gestation. He talked about how large our brains have evolved to be, yet seemingly failed to see that this would make smarter more advanced fetuses. It sounded like he was spewing political propaganda and not true science in that instance. I also thought his points about adoption being a subversion was just not totally accurate. He said that animals don't adopt unless they can be convinced that the offspring is their own. That just isn't true, many animals routinely adopt babies that are not their own, some even adopt babies of another species. Animals like elephants and gorillas live in a cummune of sorts, and babysit other's offspring, and if the mother dies the baby is adopted by other females. The strong maternal instinct often overrides evolutionary goals, and this is true for many kinds of animals, not just humans. In those instances he seemed to trying to bend science to fit into his agenda, and not allowing it to speak for itself. Other then that though, I found his speech highly interesting, and I loved the way he handled the questions at the end. He seems like a very smart guy. I wished that they had preselected the questioners though, instead of allowing just the first people who could get to the microphone. Some of those people were really annoying.

ryansutter.net

Dawkins

More From Ryan Sutter

Related posts

Meta

Archives

What I'm Doing...

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Meta