Richard Dawkins on the evolutionary origins of altruism

[Paul Mawdsley]

The problem with the orthodox atheist view is they carry evolution too far with many denying thought.

Theodore,

I'm struggling with this statement. Taken literally, it makes no sense to me. However, there is a way the spirit of the statement resonates with my own sense of there being something missing in the neo-Darwinist view.

I don't think anyone denies thought. What is denied is that individual thought plays a direct role in shaping our evolutionary development as a species. Indirectly, thought is recognized as contributing to our individual fitness, which increases the chances for individuals, who have randomly mutated better thinking genes, to survive and pass on their genes to the next generation. Our actual thoughts can also influence the survival of our genes by contributing to our family's culture and the culture of the larger groups that support our survival. I have no argument with this if random mutation and natural selection are accepted as the only possible mechanism driving evolution. I have a deep sense, however, that this is not the only mechanism for driving evolution. Evolution feels incomplete to me because it is built on too simplistic a view of causation that can account for how the parts of a system can contribute to the whole but can't account for how the whole system contributes to shaping the nature and behaviour of the parts.

We stand here in the 21st century trying to make sense of the complexities of our universe with a 19th century model of causality shaping the lens through which we view our world. Quantum mechanics grew, in the early 20th century, from the reality that whole physical systems influence the behaviour of the parts from which they are composed. It clearly demonstrated that 19th century notions of causality were insufficient to account for quantum systems. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle told us there is a point beyond which we cannot observe or measure reality. The conclusion drawn by physicists, lead by Bohr in the Copenhagen interpretation, was that the uncertainty principle defines a physical limit to what we can know about the universe and that causality is an illusion. This essentially crippled any further thought in this area. So, instead of developing a more evolved view of causality that can shape our models of possible underlying realities of complex systems in our universe (in quantum physics and in other domains), we are stuck with worldviews built on a 19th century model of causality that physics has shown to be incomplete at best or completely inadequate at worst.

It is this incomplete model of causality that evolution theory, based on random mutation and natural selection, is built from. It sees only how parts interact to form whole systems but is inherently blind to any mechanism where the whole system influences the nature and behaviour of the parts. Thus, it is inherently blind to any mechanism where the state of the whole organism feeds back to shape the nature and behaviour of the genetic parts...the very principle discovered in quantum mechanics but not applied elsewhere because we did not use it to develop our causal lens. In evolution theory we find ideas held to dogmatically along neo-Darwinian lines allowing nothing but random mutation and natural selection as the driving principles. In quantum mechanics we find theory held to equally dogmatically along neo-Copenhagen interpretation lines. Step outside of either interpretation and be prepared to be attacked. This is politics, not science.

The irony of all this is that natural selection and quantum mechanics are both prime examples of how the whole system influences the nature and behaviour of the parts but we are crippled to generalize these principles into a more evolved view of the nature of causality. I suspect that the dogmatism that developed around these theories arose from the battle grounds which emerged as natural selection and quantum mechanics were presented. Natural selection grew in a context of creationist dogma. Quantum mechanics grew in a context of linear and local causation dogma. The early dogmatism had survival value at one time. Now it is simply impeding growth.

[BaalChatzaf]

The irony of all this is that natural selection and quantum mechanics are both prime examples of how the whole system influences the nature and behaviour of the parts but we are crippled to generalize these principles into a more evolved view of the nature of causality. I suspect that the dogmatism that developed around these theories arose from the battle grounds which emerged as natural selection and quantum mechanics were presented. Natural selection grew in a context of creationist dogma. Quantum mechanics grew in a context of linear and local causation dogma. The early dogmatism had survival value at one time. Now it is simply impeding growth.

You are behind the current state of the art.

Look up epigenetics to see how the whole system can affect the process protein construction by the genes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Paul Mawdsley]

Thanks Bob. I do recall reading a little on this just before I left the planet a few years ago. I'll check it out.Just read briefly on epigenetics. Interesting that it is suggestive of the possibility of a conservative form of Lamarckism where even DNA can be changed through feedback mechanisms and past to future generations. Although I do get the sense that this sort of idea is pushing the envelope of the evidence, it fits well with my own model of causality...satisfying.

[BaalChatzaf]

Thanks Bob. I do recall reading a little on this just before I left the planet a few years ago. I'll check it out.Just read briefly on epigenetics. Interesting that it is suggestive of the possibility of a conservative form of Lamarckism where even DNA can be changed through feedback mechanisms and past to future generations. Although I do get the sense that this sort of idea is pushing the envelope of the evidence, it fits well with my own model of causality...satisfying.

Mammalian inheritance is nothing like the simple combination tables we learned in high school outline Mendelian genetics. Epigentics has put history back into the formation of our protein production machinery. And what is NOW know is just the start. Only the surface has been scratched.

Charles Darwin guess some of the processes in the same way that Mendele'ev guessed the makeup of atoms. The REAL science is just now happening. Some of the latest accomplishments consist of demethylating DNA and RNA and pushing specialized somatic cells back to their pristine state as stem cells. And that is just the start.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

As far as being meat machines.... This meat machine may have much in common with a dog genetically, however I am not a dog, and my grey matter is much more complex than a dogs.

Not a lot more, though.

[Theodore]

Orthodox Atheism carries over Christian epistemology thinly veiled as science in its world view. This world view shapes the theories of the Orthodox Atheists. I do not believe that thought is supernatural, I do not believe that it is somehow connected with some higher or alternative universe. The crude materialism of the orthodox atheists however leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I say crude because they speak of nature as Christians speak of god. If you can stomach it Paul I recommend "A moral animal" the author explicitly denies thought, and free will. The basic premise of the orthodox Atheists is that matter cannot think, because we are composed of matter we do not think. They ignore that the specific organization of the matter.

I am not denying that epigenetics is real or legitimate, it is however stretched beyond its bounds. Because someone may be genetically more prone to substance abuse does not mean that they cannot make a conscious decision against actions which would lead to addiction. Again I point to mindfulness based cognitive therapy especially in the areas of addiction, and OCD. Specifically in the case of OCD mindfulness therapy has proven far more successful than the Pavlovian/Skinnarian alternative.

The difference between a dog and myself is massive, we are both made of matter yes. However the specific way in which that matter is organized gives me a much greater range of abilities, especially in the area of thought.