Back in June, my fellow bloggist, Jon Eastgate, (Painting Fakes) challenged me to read a book that he reviewed called "The Selfish Genius" by Fern Elsdon-Baker. In my normal temperate manner, I fairly laid into Baker, accusing her of fleaism - that tendency to feed off the fame of others to promote your work or cause.
Naturally, Jon reminded me that one ought not criticise what one has not read. In a more contemplative moment, I saw his point. I decided to read it. I must add a few caveats. Although I am a flea, feasting on the blood of the great for my own sustenance, I count myself as a comfortable flea, giving no irritation. I am also, I think, a flea who will always be tiny in proportion to the host and have no desire otherwise.
I suspected that Baker was not one of these fleas, but a flea who hoped it might one day evolve into the dog and be famous itself. I do not support these fleas financially. So I borrowed the book from the library - no mean feat in a country area.
What is absolutely clear from her book is that Baker is very clever, very learned, very lucid and very flea. Not for a long time have I read a book which spends so much time name dropping. Certainly, if you are a historian it is important to mention a lot of people. But frankly, Baker's book could not possibly do justice to those theories it visits because there are so many. It appears that the mention of many names is about proving that she supposedly knows what she's talking about.
But in the end she just sounds whiny. "Oh, poor Lamarck - so misunderstood. Poor Gould, so berated. Poor Christians - so mercilessly badgered by Dawkins. Poor social scientists - so badly treated".
By the end of Part 1 I was beginning to see what this was. As a post graduate student, Baker was unimpressed with one of Dawkin's pronouncements on Darwin. As an eager little beaver, she felt it necessary to "put him right" - even wrote a thesis about it. Perhaps jealous that it did not get enough recognition, she was driven to find Dawkin's foibles at any cost and thence her little number.
The Selfish Genius is tedious. Where I hoped to get a real challenge to Darwinian theory, natural selection in particular, what I got was a very long history lesson with not much that I had not either read elsewhere or could not predict would have been the case.
My original thesis that perhaps Baker had not read Dawkins widely was flawed. The real problem is that the straw man she sets up as Dawkins just isn't the one I see. Dawkins is at times as clumsy as he is confident; he is often left speechless and one can see him struggling to form his thoughts. He is equally magnanimous as he is vitriolic. In fact, most of his opponents are far more socially inept in the way they handle his atheism than he is of their Christianity.
As far as I can see, this book poses no threat to the notion of natural selection as the primary mechanism driving evolution. Even if there is change in the understanding of this concept as scientific knowledge progresses it will continue to have explanatory power.
Putting aside the "red herring" of atheism, Dawkin's latest and fattest tome "The Greatest Show on Earth" finally puts paid to Baker's criticisms, expanding on all the areas she mentions as weaknesses.
Baker's call for us all to be nice to one another does not add anything to the debate about the role of science or religion in our society. In the end I hope she's one flea that falls off.
Just to go to a few points that Baker seems to have missed.
Darwin was not aware of the genetic basis for passing on characteristics - so much more the genius of his work. Dawkins' focus on genes or genotypes does not render Darwinian natural selection invalid - it simply makes it more credible. Even if genetics is found to be simply a tool of a more fundamental physical process of information transfer, this will not make genetics wrong.
Dawkin's maintains a position, most often articulated in his interviews, that science without atheism is essentially dishonest or bad science. Much of his criticism of religion sounds like incredulity, not invective. If the Almighty can skew experimental data, then the science is, at best, broken or, at worst, futile. We do science so we know the bogey man doesn't exist and so we can safely go out in the dark. This is its historical purpose - it enlighten.
Fruitless, then, to admit God just so you won't be seen as acerbic.
Atheism isn't an argument about whether religion is open to empirical or logical methods because by definition it admits neither. Its actually about whether religion adds to understanding or obfuscates. Its whether religion has explanatory relevance and thus is useful in guiding our actions.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
The evolutionary function of blindness
Catalyst on ABC ran a story on study of illusionists by neuro-scientists. It appears that there is more to illusions than just misdirection - the art of attracting attention to something else while you engage in trickery. What the story "Magic Lab" revealed was how an illusionist can exploit a saccade - that time when, during movement of the eye, sight is deliberately suppressed. In this period (about 20% of the period in which your eyes are moving), you are effectively blind.
Saccades have been known about for at least a century and can be tested by looking in a mirror and moving your attention from one eye to another - you cannot see your eyes moving but others can. During scan of the horizon or the landscape outside a moving car, saccades provide stability in the image.
By observation and practice, illusionists have learnt to move their hands in paths that are less "predictable". Movement in a straight line from one point of interest to another affords the suggestion to the eye of returning to the original point. A less predictable path, such as a curve, does not provide the same affordance (the suggestion to the mind of the next place to look), causing the mind to have to guess where the next point of interest will be, slowing tracking. If the illusonist speaks, appropiate social behaviour suggests the speaker's eyes as the next point of interest.
In this way, saccades, misdirection, "poor tracking" and social expectations of where to look conspire to provide lengthy periods when the eye is either blind or resolving elsewhere - plenty of time for practiced movements to go unnoticed.
Which leads to the question. What can possibly be the evolutionary function of blindness? A clue may lie in animals which do not experience saccades - notably some frogs. They cannot see still objects. Movement, however, triggers a reaction that appears out of proportion to both their demeanor and size. Their prey never see them coming, so fast is their attack.
We can speculate that unnecessary response to stimulus is wasteful. If the frog sees everything, the movement of prey may be less noticeable and thus their attack less effective. So why do we see everything by using saccades, but have this 20% blindness?
Anticipation may be the answer. Humans seem to have the best ability of all species to guess the future. Experiments show that, even at a young age, we can anticipate where something will end up if it is moving. We automatically create a trajectory. It is possible, that once we have this trajectory, we do not need frequent visual updates to know where something is going. The sheer waste of processing images to know where a fast moving object will be could be a basis for simply shutting it off, thus allowing selective updates only.
So, maybe there is a good evolutionary reason for blindness.
Saccades have been known about for at least a century and can be tested by looking in a mirror and moving your attention from one eye to another - you cannot see your eyes moving but others can. During scan of the horizon or the landscape outside a moving car, saccades provide stability in the image.
By observation and practice, illusionists have learnt to move their hands in paths that are less "predictable". Movement in a straight line from one point of interest to another affords the suggestion to the eye of returning to the original point. A less predictable path, such as a curve, does not provide the same affordance (the suggestion to the mind of the next place to look), causing the mind to have to guess where the next point of interest will be, slowing tracking. If the illusonist speaks, appropiate social behaviour suggests the speaker's eyes as the next point of interest.
In this way, saccades, misdirection, "poor tracking" and social expectations of where to look conspire to provide lengthy periods when the eye is either blind or resolving elsewhere - plenty of time for practiced movements to go unnoticed.
Which leads to the question. What can possibly be the evolutionary function of blindness? A clue may lie in animals which do not experience saccades - notably some frogs. They cannot see still objects. Movement, however, triggers a reaction that appears out of proportion to both their demeanor and size. Their prey never see them coming, so fast is their attack.
We can speculate that unnecessary response to stimulus is wasteful. If the frog sees everything, the movement of prey may be less noticeable and thus their attack less effective. So why do we see everything by using saccades, but have this 20% blindness?
Anticipation may be the answer. Humans seem to have the best ability of all species to guess the future. Experiments show that, even at a young age, we can anticipate where something will end up if it is moving. We automatically create a trajectory. It is possible, that once we have this trajectory, we do not need frequent visual updates to know where something is going. The sheer waste of processing images to know where a fast moving object will be could be a basis for simply shutting it off, thus allowing selective updates only.
So, maybe there is a good evolutionary reason for blindness.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Stuff and Nonsense?
The ABC News reported that Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen told his congregation atheism is not the rational philosophy that it claims to be.
Apparently, Dr Jensen told the congregation that atheism is as much of a religion as Christianity.
They quote him as saying, "It's about our determination as human beings to have our own way, to make our own rules, to live our own lives, unfettered by the rule of God and the right of God to rule over us," he said.
Elegantly put, indeed. Not extraordinary, in the least, that rational humans should reject the concept of supernatural supervision.
However, Jensen's first claim is extraordinary. If religion is premised on belief (ie. you believe something and this then manifests itself in a moral position, a practice or a spirituality), then the belief is central.
If belief is not central to religion, then the religious could simply abandon it, as, apparently, it sheds no light nor influence on their pracitces or moral codes. Is Jensen actually admitting what many suspect about Anglicans - that belief in God is optional?
If not believing something and believing something are equivalent (ie. belief = unbelief), then, of course, the Anglican Church must accept my application for a position in their church, as an atheist.
I applaud the Archbishop for articulating the new reformation within the Anglican church - abandonment of belief. Long live the cultural icon!
Apparently, Dr Jensen told the congregation that atheism is as much of a religion as Christianity.
They quote him as saying, "It's about our determination as human beings to have our own way, to make our own rules, to live our own lives, unfettered by the rule of God and the right of God to rule over us," he said.
Elegantly put, indeed. Not extraordinary, in the least, that rational humans should reject the concept of supernatural supervision.
However, Jensen's first claim is extraordinary. If religion is premised on belief (ie. you believe something and this then manifests itself in a moral position, a practice or a spirituality), then the belief is central.
If belief is not central to religion, then the religious could simply abandon it, as, apparently, it sheds no light nor influence on their pracitces or moral codes. Is Jensen actually admitting what many suspect about Anglicans - that belief in God is optional?
If not believing something and believing something are equivalent (ie. belief = unbelief), then, of course, the Anglican Church must accept my application for a position in their church, as an atheist.
I applaud the Archbishop for articulating the new reformation within the Anglican church - abandonment of belief. Long live the cultural icon!
Rowan disappoints again
The news is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has virtually retracted his statement that the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland is losing all credibility following the surfacing of child-sex-abuse allegations. This while Benedict remains silent.
The papal reaction is predictable. Why would the head of such a corrupt, soulless and evil institution be ready to draw attention to its "frailties" (quote from a catholic emerging from an Easter service).
But what of Rowan? His first reaction was bold, appropriate and moral. Stand by that morality, Rowan.
Or have you been sucked so surely into the vortex of ecumenicism that you can no longer criticise the obvious immorality of others? Do you feel so under siege from atheism that any enemy of my enemy is my ally?
At a moment when the Anglican Church could have differentiated its morality and faith from the mob, it has lost its nerve.
The papal reaction is predictable. Why would the head of such a corrupt, soulless and evil institution be ready to draw attention to its "frailties" (quote from a catholic emerging from an Easter service).
But what of Rowan? His first reaction was bold, appropriate and moral. Stand by that morality, Rowan.
Or have you been sucked so surely into the vortex of ecumenicism that you can no longer criticise the obvious immorality of others? Do you feel so under siege from atheism that any enemy of my enemy is my ally?
At a moment when the Anglican Church could have differentiated its morality and faith from the mob, it has lost its nerve.
Conversation on moral well-being
She: What makes you think that science will ever be able to say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong?
Me: Because I think that right and wrong are a matter of increasing or decreasing well-being—and it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating or killing them if they refuse, is not a good strategy for maximizing human well-being.
She: But that’s only your opinion.
Me: Okay… Let’s make it even simpler. What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out her eyes at birth, would you then agree that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human wellbeing?
She: It would depend on why they were doing it.
Me: Let’s say they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition. In their scripture, God says, “Every third must walk in darkness.”
She: Then you could never say that they were wrong.
(Sam Harris)
Me: Because I think that right and wrong are a matter of increasing or decreasing well-being—and it is obvious that forcing half the population to live in cloth bags, and beating or killing them if they refuse, is not a good strategy for maximizing human well-being.
She: But that’s only your opinion.
Me: Okay… Let’s make it even simpler. What if we found a culture that ritually blinded every third child by literally plucking out her eyes at birth, would you then agree that we had found a culture that was needlessly diminishing human wellbeing?
She: It would depend on why they were doing it.
Me: Let’s say they were doing it on the basis of religious superstition. In their scripture, God says, “Every third must walk in darkness.”
She: Then you could never say that they were wrong.
(Sam Harris)
Saturday, November 17, 2007
The Very, Very Selfish Gene
The Very, Very Selfish Gene
Some of the most enlightened thinkers of our day, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet and Christopher Hitchens are deeply troubled by the influence that religion has on some many people in a world where religion appears to be entirely irrelevant. They paint religion as dangerous and evil and are “crusaders” for rationality.
The fact is that they, like Don Quixote, have taken on something that is far more formidable than they imagined. It is most ironic that the author of “The Selfish Gene” should be so unaware of just how selfish the human gene can be – it pays his rationality meager respect, allowing him the indulgence – in a sense, humoring him.
The fact is, it is the selfish gene that has given us religion. In plain evolutionary terms, if it were not so (that religion provided some measure of selective advantage), then it might be a variety of cultural practices that was lost very early in the "evolutionary" tree of possible practices.
To comprehend the extent of the selfishness of genes in subjecting us to religion, we must first contemplate human behaviour generally.
It is clear, from casual observation, that human life is governed in the main by habitual and instinctive behaviour. If it were not so, we would exhaust our energies through a daily analysis of the best way to behave in every situation we encounter.
So, as we went to clean our teeth, we would be forced to contemplate the various methods of teeth-cleaning and their long-term effectiveness and we would need to have long discourse on the data before breakfast. Clearly, life cannot go on like that.
Fortunately, we are able to suspend our skepticism about the merits of teeth cleaning and go on as if the evidence was clearly in its favour. We have an innate probability mechanism which advises us that “9 out of 10 dentists can’t be wrong” – that, despite the obvious benefit to many parties financially of you engaging in teeth attention activity daily – the dentist (yes, you are reminded every day of their product), toothpaste and toothbrush manufacturers, health professionals and so on.
When rationality is allowed an indulgence, it is usually fairly superficial. Which route should I take to work today to arrive on time? This is not “rocket science”. The drover’s dog could probably work it out with a bit of trial and error. Systematic rationality – science – is almost entirely absent from our daily operation. Sure, it was imperative in the development of so much that we depend upon. But it has so little bearing on our daily routine – governed by whim, fad, fashion and self-deceit.
Who would be a scientist? Not only must a scientist defeat their own innate desire for irrational behaviour, but when they do work something out, they receive no credit until they are subjected to a thorough workover by their peers and then they are ignored by nearly everybody in the world. The return on investment is meager indeed.
Truly, scientists only do science because they are obsessive. The selfish gene has allowed a certain proportion of population to have minds that thrive on little else but the hope of discovery or the satisfaction of finding that what they guess at is right. Were it not so, humans would have little advantage over their evolutionary brethren and a big brain would be a waste of energy.
In the main, however, the very selfish gene would prefer that many remain ignorant and tied to behaviour predicated on crude rules of thumb rather than rational contemplation. Further, it finds that too much thinking makes the individual arrogantly suppose that their comfort and well-being are important and makes them attempt to hijack the natural process of reproducing the gene.
It serves the very selfish gene better if a person is so brain-washed that they believe that sex is for procreation, not pleasure. It works even better if the male of the species believes the female to be of so little worth that rape is institutional. It works even better if the female is bound to a counter-intuitive contract of monogamy. It works even better if promiscuous females are killed, since they will dilute the gene pool and threaten survival of the very selfish gene. It works even better if the offspring are inculcated with this value system as young as possible, to reduce the possibility that they will harbour heretical (rational) notions that work to bring it undone.
This describes what religion is all about. In “Letter to a Christian Nation”, Sam Harris ponders the Christian Right’s preoccupation with sex in the face of massive human suffering. He wonders about the morality of religious teaching on sexuality that causes so much suffering. Clearly, in terms of humanity, it is immensely immoral and only the very blind will not see that.
But morality does not come into play in religion. Religion is a system of thought impervious to moral thinking, as this simply blurs the clear imperatives to reproduce as efficiently as possible.
Religion condemns masturbation. Clearly, masturbation is an individual engaging in satisfaction of itself, not the imperatives of the very selfish gene. Condemning the practice on rational grounds would be stupid. Only myth provides sufficient fear and self-loathing to be effective. “Don’t do that or you’ll go blind” is just a secular version of “You will rot in hell if you do that.”
The very selfish gene is a fascist and its propaganda machine is religion. It cares not a fig for truth or rationality. It cares only for its own survival, no matter how much the individual must suffer. But it has, perhaps, become victim to its own experiment. The mind that can generate religion is just as capable of dreaming of a civilisation that could exist (despite the evidence around it to the contrary) for the pleasure and comfort of human beings.
It is this civilisation, with human values as the centerpiece, which threatens to overthrow the fascist selfish gene. We have only to observe how prolific pornography is on the internet to realise that there are a good many people who don’t give a damn about meeting real people, copulating and reproducing when virtual sex is on offer. Virtual sex is not embarrassing, does not involve assault, and is not binding or restrictive, but, most of all, it carries not implication of responsibility for off-spring. It is no wonder the “moral” campaigners of the religious right are so set of Internet censorship.
In "Letter to a Christian Nation" Sam Harris provides some disconcerting statistics on the Islamisation of developed countries. But his observations have a most disconcerting conclusion of which he is no doubt aware. The religious of the world are out-reproducing the rational. The very selfish gene is winning.
The fleas are multiplying.Friday, November 9, 2007
The burka goes English
I was staggered to hear that Rowan Williams, The Archbishop of Canterbury, had dragged the Anglican church, that nice respectable and very English institution into the arena of fundamentalism. Of course, the reports may be a pack of lies, but you have to worry.
Apparently, Williams was cross that a fellow theologist had claimed he didn't believe in walking corpses and he was adamant he did. Makes you wonder, doesn't it! If he wants a literal translation of this part of the Nicene Creed and then of it all, how long will it be until he gets to a 6000 year old earth and 6 x 24 hours for creation, in a literal translation of the Bible?
And, thence, to the bitter and logical end. Out with the burka for you pleasant, tea-sipping English ladies and the vicar will berate your daughters as "bits of meat" (a la certain religious leader of a certain religious group who will remain nameless) because they expose their ankles and implore your sons to be suicide bombers in the hope of a sensual massage from Mary in heaven.
What is behind this abandonment of pleasant liberality? Is it the reaction to the soft core porn skankism that the English see played out on their streets. If so, whatever is wrong with that age old repost "Ignore it. They'll grow up." or a more contemptuous "What a fat arse!"
Or, is it that our poor Christian brothers have lost the argument to the New Atheists? Have Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris won the day? The final nail in God's coffin?
Well, here, my poor harangued brethren. I have the ultimate apology. If those nasty New Atheists come pounding on your door, send them packing with:
"I like the sense of community, I like the singing, I like the drama, I like the spirituality. I have no idea if its God in the midst, but who cares, its something. Now bugger off and let me be."
Much shorter than the Nicene Creed, Rowan. And wouldn't the congregation love it when they got to "bugger"?
Scratch that.
Apparently, Williams was cross that a fellow theologist had claimed he didn't believe in walking corpses and he was adamant he did. Makes you wonder, doesn't it! If he wants a literal translation of this part of the Nicene Creed and then of it all, how long will it be until he gets to a 6000 year old earth and 6 x 24 hours for creation, in a literal translation of the Bible?
And, thence, to the bitter and logical end. Out with the burka for you pleasant, tea-sipping English ladies and the vicar will berate your daughters as "bits of meat" (a la certain religious leader of a certain religious group who will remain nameless) because they expose their ankles and implore your sons to be suicide bombers in the hope of a sensual massage from Mary in heaven.
What is behind this abandonment of pleasant liberality? Is it the reaction to the soft core porn skankism that the English see played out on their streets. If so, whatever is wrong with that age old repost "Ignore it. They'll grow up." or a more contemptuous "What a fat arse!"
Or, is it that our poor Christian brothers have lost the argument to the New Atheists? Have Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris won the day? The final nail in God's coffin?
Well, here, my poor harangued brethren. I have the ultimate apology. If those nasty New Atheists come pounding on your door, send them packing with:
"I like the sense of community, I like the singing, I like the drama, I like the spirituality. I have no idea if its God in the midst, but who cares, its something. Now bugger off and let me be."
Much shorter than the Nicene Creed, Rowan. And wouldn't the congregation love it when they got to "bugger"?
Scratch that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)