David has an annual “Darwin’s birthday” event at his home that my wife and I attended. He gave me the plastic "Darwin Fish" that occupies an honored place on the bookcase in our master bedroom (see photo - it is like a “Jesus Fish” but with feet and the word “Darwin” on it).
I first met David in the mid-1990's, when he became interested in System Science and attended meetings organized by Howard Pattee, Chairman of my PhD committee. I found his knowledge and attitude extremely appealing and attended many of his lectures and seminars. David, in turn, invited me to present my "HexLife" computer simulation of biological life, evolution, and natural selection to his Biology seminars.
Famed Biologist Richard Dawkins, in his popular 2006 book "The GOD Delusion" (page 170), credits David Sloan Wilson with being “the American group-selection apostle”. (See my discussion and mostly favorable review of Dawkin's book at https://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2008/03/god-delusion.html).
In the video, David acquits himself extraordinarily well, showing great humility and respect for "His Holiness" the Dalai Lama, as a guest in his "den", "His Holiness's" home territory.
I found this reminiscent of the Biblical story of "Daniel in the Lion's Den" (Chapter 6 of the Book of Daniel). Throughout the video, David stays true to Biological science, and his own view of multi-level "group" selection. He never directly challenges the Dalai Lama's sometimes simplified or misapplied level of understanding, and he copes well with the Dalai Lama's interruptions and his limited ability to understand and speak English.
The "Dalai Lama", according to Wikipedia "is a title given by the Tibetan people for the foremost spiritual leader of the Gelug or 'Yellow Hat' school of Tibetan Buddhism, the newest of the classical schools of Tibetan Buddhism." The current Dalai Lama is Tenzin Gyatso, who lives as a refugee in India.
In the linked video, he comes across as a surprisingly approachable fellow. He appears totally genuine and worthy to be called "His Holiness" by his followers and guests at his "Mind and Life Institute" in Dharamsala, India.
The Dalai Lama speaks and understands English at a level sufficient to support most of the conversation between him and David Sloan Wilson without need of translation. Indeed, he often interrupts David with comments and questions in English. However, it is obvious that he is not fully fluent in English, nor in Biology.
Fortunately, there is a Translator, who, in addition to being fluent in both English and the Dalai Lama's language (Tibetan or Hindi), seemed to be quite knowledgeable about Biological Sciences as well as David's academic work in this area.
I got the impression that "His Holiness" is fully aware that many of his supporters accept what he says as infallible, similar to when the Pope speaks ex cathedra. Indeed, when you are famous many members of the general public "think you really know" (paraphrasing the line from Fiddler On The Roof that "when you're rich they think you really know").
I believe "His Holiness" is aware that his personal knowledge of the Biological Sciences is limited. Yet, to meet the expectations of his "true believers" he must speak with absolute conviction, as if the Buddha (or Whoever or Whatever is the Source of True Knowledge in his version of Buddhism) is speaking through him. After watching the full two hours of the video, I think he does this quite well, and with good humor.
David Sloan Wilson's Main Points. Although I generally agree with David on the substance of multi-level selection, I find it difficult to summarize exactly what he intended to convey about this complex subject to the Dalai Lama. Therefore, you should really take the time to view the entire video, and not just accept the following brief summary! (Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcgcFbPTwys)
Basic Biology
David summarizes Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection in three words: 1) Variation, 2) Selection, and 3) Replication.
Evolution of Altruism and Compassion
Evolution is not blind. We can control it to some extent because Groups of individual Organisms that Evolve beneficial levels of Altruism and Compassion can out-compete Groups that do not.
Example of Group Selection
David cites a series of experiments undertaken to optimize egg production. As I understand his brief description, there were a number of cages, each housing a number of egg-laying hens. Since a given hen has a limited lifetime of high production, the farmer must select eggs for the next generation of hens. Two different strategies were compared:
- Identify the highest producing INDIVIDUAL HEN in each cage and use her eggs for the next generation of hens, or
- Identify the highest producing CAGE of HENS, and use their eggs for the next generation of hens.
According to David, it turned out that Strategy #2 (GROUP selection) produced better results than Strategy #1 (INDIVIDUAL selection).
Strategy #1 (INDIVIDUAL selection) had poorer results because the best producing hens tended to be more aggressive and they disrupted the egg production of the other hens in their cage. Successive generations of high-producing HENS amplified aggressiveness and, ultimately, overall production declined.
Strategy #2 (GROUP selection) had better results because it tended to select hens with better cooperative skills, which encouraged egg production by the other hens in their cage. Successive generations of high-producing CAGES amplified cooperativeness and, ultimately, overall production increased.
BACKGRUND INFORMATION ABOUT DAWKINS, WILSON, MEMES, and RELIGION
Prior to his 2006 "The GOD Delusion", Richard Dawkins wrote "The Selfish Gene" (1976) where he introduced the word "meme" (from "mimeme" derived from the Greek "mimeisthai" which means "to imitate"). The word "mneme" was used by others in a similar way as early as 1927 (from the Greek mimneskesthai" which means "to remember").
A meme is the cultural analog of a gene. Dawkins wrote: "DNA is a self-replicating piece of hardware. Each piece has a particular structure, which is different from rival pieces of DNA. If memes in brains are analogous to genes they must be self-replicating brain structures, actual patterns of neuronal wiring-up that reconstitute themselves in one brain after another."
The etymology of the word "meme" itself is an excellent example of the evolution of the cultural equivalent of genes. “Meme” is one letter shorter than “mneme” and far easier to pronounce. A challenge arose in 1980 when E.O. Wilson introduced a new word, "culturgen" for the same concept. That word has all but died out as “meme” survived and replicated in the natural human selection process. Clearly, the word “meme” is the “fittest” (best fits into the human cultural environment and brain structure).
A Personal GOD IS a Delusion – But is it a Useful Myth?
Although I agree with Dawkins that the concept of a personal God, external to the Universe, is, strictly speaking, a delusion, I am surprised by the vehemence with which he attacks it. About half-way through the book, he finally acknowledges, however grudgingly, the facts. He writes [pg 163 …166]:
David Sloan Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Group Selection
Dawkins searches, in vain, for rational explanations for the survival of the God delusion. He mentions David Wilson [pg 170] who he rightly calls “the American group-selection apostle”.
Dawkins ultimately rejects group selection and is left with the only remaining alternative, that religion is an unintended byproduct of something else. What is this “something else”? Well, he concludes [pg 174-176] it is “obey the tribal elders … For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child brains need to trust parents, and elders whom parents tell them to trust.”
Religion as a “Mind Virus”
Religion, Dawkins asserts, is a mind virus that feeds on the need for a child to obey elders without question, just as computer viruses are based on the need for a computer to follow instructions. The implication is that all societies of the past have had the mentality of children. With the advent of the age of reason we have the opportunity to grow up and reject religion once and for all. I find that “logic” kind of haughty and simple-minded.
Scientists who Invoke "God" - Is such Belief Genuine Religious Feeling?
Dawkins knocks Stephen Hawking [pg 13] for ending his A Brief History of Time with a reference to God. Hawking wrote:
Dawkins includes Einstein’s famous references to religion and God [pg 15]:
Dawkins, in a statement worthy of Anne Coulter, dismisses [pg 19] the metaphorical use of the word “God” by scientists as “intellectual high treason” because it deliberately confuses the distinction between the personal God of “supernatural religion” with the Pantheistic God of “Einsteinian religion”.
It is amazing to me that the originator of the idea that memes evolve in a way similar to genes can be so blind to what is happening! Memes evolve by building upon previous memes. The pagan “rebirth of the Sun” winter solstice meme evolved into Christmas when early Christian authorities co-opted that time period for the birth of Jesus, and, later, when Jewish authorities glommed onto that same time period and elevated Chanukah to a higher significance than it originally claimed. Similarly, IMHO, the traditional supernatural God meme is evolving into a more naturalistic Pantheistic meme. Perhaps the Gaia idea that the Earth biosphere has developed some sort of Global Consciousness will ease the transition. Perhaps it is even true!
Dawkins Quotes Carl Sagan:
Dawkins Agrees “Chance is not a solution”
On the positive side, Dawkins [pg 119] realizes that, given those first primitive biological cells, subsequent evolution was anything but a random process.
Dawkins Belief there is “A generalized process for optimizing”
He goes on his apparently subconscious defense of pantheism [pg 139]:
A meme is the cultural analog of a gene. Dawkins wrote: "DNA is a self-replicating piece of hardware. Each piece has a particular structure, which is different from rival pieces of DNA. If memes in brains are analogous to genes they must be self-replicating brain structures, actual patterns of neuronal wiring-up that reconstitute themselves in one brain after another."
The etymology of the word "meme" itself is an excellent example of the evolution of the cultural equivalent of genes. “Meme” is one letter shorter than “mneme” and far easier to pronounce. A challenge arose in 1980 when E.O. Wilson introduced a new word, "culturgen" for the same concept. That word has all but died out as “meme” survived and replicated in the natural human selection process. Clearly, the word “meme” is the “fittest” (best fits into the human cultural environment and brain structure).
A Personal GOD IS a Delusion – But is it a Useful Myth?
Although I agree with Dawkins that the concept of a personal God, external to the Universe, is, strictly speaking, a delusion, I am surprised by the vehemence with which he attacks it. About half-way through the book, he finally acknowledges, however grudgingly, the facts. He writes [pg 163 …166]:
[W]e should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection originally favoured the impulse toward religion. … Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste. …no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion.
David Sloan Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Group Selection
Dawkins searches, in vain, for rational explanations for the survival of the God delusion. He mentions David Wilson [pg 170] who he rightly calls “the American group-selection apostle”.
Group selection makes the claim that groups, including religious associations, which promote cooperative, altruistic behaviors, survive at the expense of less religious groups. While I accept multi-level selection (gene level and meme level), I am not sure that true, pure altruism exists and have gone round and round discussing this with Wilson. I agree with Dawkins that what appears to be altruism is actually kin selection (favoring those with common genes) or reciprocal altruism (helping others of the same or different species in return for a benefit).
In complex human society it is often difficult to know who is kin or who may provide a reciprocal benefit, so we generalize the concept and indoctrinate our children to help all older people, cooperate with all neighbors, and so on. That is an “accidental” side-effect of kin- and reciprocal altruism, but it never-the-less benefits those societies who imprint generalized cooperative behaviors, so long as altruism is not taken too far.
Dawkins ultimately rejects group selection and is left with the only remaining alternative, that religion is an unintended byproduct of something else. What is this “something else”? Well, he concludes [pg 174-176] it is “obey the tribal elders … For excellent reasons related to Darwinian survival, child brains need to trust parents, and elders whom parents tell them to trust.”
Religion as a “Mind Virus”
Religion, Dawkins asserts, is a mind virus that feeds on the need for a child to obey elders without question, just as computer viruses are based on the need for a computer to follow instructions. The implication is that all societies of the past have had the mentality of children. With the advent of the age of reason we have the opportunity to grow up and reject religion once and for all. I find that “logic” kind of haughty and simple-minded.
Scientists who Invoke "God" - Is such Belief Genuine Religious Feeling?
Dawkins knocks Stephen Hawking [pg 13] for ending his A Brief History of Time with a reference to God. Hawking wrote:
However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God.” [Emphasis added]Dawkins, quoting only the phrase I have highlighted, criticizes Hawking for being "dramatic (or was it mischievous?)".
Dawkins includes Einstein’s famous references to religion and God [pg 15]:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.Is Scientific Pantheism “Intellectual High Treason”?
I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists ….
God is subtle, but not malicious … God does not play dice …
Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?
I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.
What I see in Nature [notice uppercase “N”] is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”
Dawkins, in a statement worthy of Anne Coulter, dismisses [pg 19] the metaphorical use of the word “God” by scientists as “intellectual high treason” because it deliberately confuses the distinction between the personal God of “supernatural religion” with the Pantheistic God of “Einsteinian religion”.
It is amazing to me that the originator of the idea that memes evolve in a way similar to genes can be so blind to what is happening! Memes evolve by building upon previous memes. The pagan “rebirth of the Sun” winter solstice meme evolved into Christmas when early Christian authorities co-opted that time period for the birth of Jesus, and, later, when Jewish authorities glommed onto that same time period and elevated Chanukah to a higher significance than it originally claimed. Similarly, IMHO, the traditional supernatural God meme is evolving into a more naturalistic Pantheistic meme. Perhaps the Gaia idea that the Earth biosphere has developed some sort of Global Consciousness will ease the transition. Perhaps it is even true!
Dawkins Quotes Carl Sagan:
A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe [note upper case “U”] as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Dawkins Agrees “Chance is not a solution”
On the positive side, Dawkins [pg 119] realizes that, given those first primitive biological cells, subsequent evolution was anything but a random process.
... the greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means. But the candidate solutions to the riddle of improbability are not, as is falsely implied, design and chance. They are design and natural selection. Chance is not a solution, given the high levels of improbability we see in living organisms, and no sane biologist ever suggested that it was.” [Emphasis added]
Dawkins Belief there is “A generalized process for optimizing”
He goes on his apparently subconscious defense of pantheism [pg 139]:
It is clear that here on Earth we are dealing with a generalized process for optimizing biological species, a process that works all over the planet, on all continents and islands, and at all times. … if we wait another ten million years, a whole new set of species will be as well adapted to their ways of life as today’s species are to theirs. This is a recurrent, predictable, multiple phenomenon, not a piece of statistical luck recognized with hindsight. [Emphasis added]Dawkin’s “generalized process for optimizing” is Omnipresent (“all continents and islands … all times”), Omnipotent (“whole new set of species”) and Omniscient (“as well adapted to their ways of life as today’s species”). Change it to “Generalized Optimizing Device” and we have our familiar Pantheistic “GOD”. QED :^)
Ira Glickstein
No comments:
Post a Comment