Genes as computer programmers

Parallels between brains and computers have been very common. Dawkins in this last chapter pretty much explains that genes work as the programmers for the computers. The key distinction here is that genes do not directly control our actions, but instead give our brain parameters like a programmer gives the computer. Still ultimately genes control our actions, just not directly, it's like a deal going on between the brain and the genes. Genes are like "we give you decision-making and simulation, you stay alive for us, and propogate us" and they shake and voila, you have autonomous survival machines. Cool concept.

Best part of this chapter is his recognition of consciousness. I don't know if he's bought into Dan Dennett's crap by now, and I know he doesn't care too much, but he says it does seem bizarre that consciousness arose and it is hard to see a function for it as far as genes and survival goes. He even makes the distinction between computers creating simulations without consciousness, and how we do have consciousness. Though now that I think about it, he probably at least rolls with the Dennett view a little bit because as it turns out consciousness is not physical, and there's no room for a non physical thing in a closed physical world (supposedly). I don't know, this is the only book I've read by Dawkins, so I don't know if he recognizes any view of consciousness at all, or really cares. My bet is he ignores it. Not his field of expertise anyway.

He is extremely focused on behaviorism, though this makes sense because his actual field of study is ethology: the study of behavior in animals (particularly, instead of specific animals, specific behaviors as the occur in different animals). But I'm not convinced something isn't lost when describing something purely in terms of behavior. All I can say right now is that it bothers me, but that's just an intuition. It makes sense that we would describe life by the way it acts and then use that as an explanation. That is pretty much all we can observe, I think right? We'll have to come back to this.

I'd just like to say I've been thinking about perspective a lot recently. One of the things I really like about Dawkins is that he can shift the perspective really well. Particularly from us feeling like we are the main entities on the earth to making genes the central entities of the earth. And then shifting back and explaining how the brain becomes a new secondary perspective. Then again, reading and watching interviews with Dan Dennett, where he will also shift perspectives to give you an interesting (though I believe often circular) argument about whatever he is talking about.

But the one thing this always brings me to, is the difference between first person and third person. Science is done exclusively as a third party. And the common belief is that finding the truth means truth is something objective out there, observable third party. The problem is that all observation is done first person. We assume third party status because we believe we are not involved, but everything we experience is a construction that occurs in our brain. These constructions lead us to believe that it is based on information from the outside garnered by our senses, but no matter what the test is or theory, there will always be a subjective lense to it. We only have what our brain, what our consciousness gives us. Furthermore, "objectivity" is merely an agreement between subjective parties. And this could easily be flawed communication. Ok I'm digressing. What I'm trying to get at is there is this trend of believing that we are observing the absolute truth in the third person. And I believe that this is jumping to conclusions. [/end rant

The Godfather, genes style

Dawkins has painted an awsome picture so far of the kill or be killed world of the genes. Alleles, rivals, compete for spots to replicate. And Dawkins' fascination with intricacy and interworkings has created an explanation that works from the microcosm to the macrocosm. The key is the refocusing. While we focus on us, and birds and plants and fish and on the different entities of the world as possibly the purpose, or even inhabitants, as the center of life if you will, Dawkins brings the focus to the genes. This is a really interesting and cool perspective shift, that gives the genes all these intentions and just leaves the different species of the world as throw away objects like coats you bought at walmart. Like a toy you play with too much and it breaks. Or even like computers are for us, we constantly upgrade them and throw away the defunct outdated ones. That's how genes treat our bodies.

In doing this it's like Dawkins has added a new property to the world as a true out there reality. He calls it "moving towards stability" but really it's more like "competition." In Dawkins world competition is like a real out there in the world principle. The constant struggle of existence as a force, like gravity and magnetism. This certainly could be true too. I mean even us as a species (or at least I) get an incredible thrill from competition. Sports are incredibly enjoyable because of the possibilities being reduced to 2: win or lose. And we get excited when we see the best competitors at any given sport, well at least sports fans do. But these are situations where we can feel competitiveness. The only problem I have with competition as a real force is it has a lot of subjective properites. It seems like the human brain pattern and Dawkins' poetic account of struggle are adding properties of our interpretation. Though on the other hand it is probably impossible to disentangle "what is truly there and happening" from "what is added by our interpretation." Seperating the two would be like trying to seperate cream from coffee after you've poured it in, or maybe even the cofee ingredients from the water in the coffee drink itself.

One more thing, Dawkins deffinition of gene is good, but is almost too flexible. I'm not totally comfortable with it. It is extremely fuzzy on distinction. Dawkins explains that a gene is a pattern in the DNA that lasts for generations. He gives lots of examples to explain it but overall it ends up being this semi-vague deffinition. Truthfully you have to give him credit because of the way DNA works genes are not a cut and dry matter. But if they are the answer he claims them to be, you'd think they might have more distinction. I mean, is a gene as small as a two chain pattern? That wouldn't seem very useful. But he does say that when plants and animals do non-sexual reproduction that a chromosome is pretty much synonymous with a gene. It's verging on that line of the gene is a pattern in the DNA that lasts for generations that works for him. Because otherwise the gene almost explains itself away, like it's a fake arbitrary unit. Then how could it be so selfish? But on the otherhand, the amount of DNA preserved every time it is copied is utterly astonishing and points towards some kind of information pattern. Considering every human is 99.9 something percent alike genetically. and apes are like 98 percent the same genetically as us.

I guess I'm mostly splitting hairs, I'm still uneasy with his deffinition, but I'll take it for the sake of his argument. I'm looking forward to see what comes next.

New Reading: The Selfish Gene

I'm going to start to reacting what I'm reading currently. And since I just finished Biocentrism, which has totally reignited my love of philosophy, I am on a tear and what to read thought provoking books. And it was especially exciting because it seemed like serious progress on the arguments of David Chalmers, who just plain rocks.

Not sure why the next book I've chosen is Richard Dawkins. I think part of it is that he's super popular, and I'd like to know what all the fuss is about. Another part is, I think I'll learn a lot about evolution from this book, because he is an expert. Also, this seems to be the bedrock on what all his later works are based on (especially the bold ones), so I'd like to be informed when arguing about this stuff.

Alright, so first chapter done. He wants to take survival selfishness down to the level of the gene and it makes a lot of sense. Most of this chapter is a disclaimer not to misinterpret what he's saying as well as articulate exactly what he means semantically. That's the best way to start any new argument, he's covering his bases firmly. He also does an excellent job of keeping things interesting, his style of writing keeps you with him I dig it. I can already see what a bit of the fuss is about, so far deffinitely a good read.

Some observations:
The first statement is hilarious. "If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization is: 'have they discovered evolution yet?'" Evolution was certainly a huge discovery for our species and has been unbelievably important in helping us make strides in biology and medicine. And clearly this statement is purely made to point out the importance of understanding evolution (And really I'm just taking a pot shot that's irrelevant to the book, but like I said this is an observation). But we have no clue what a higher being could understand about the universe. The line certainly got me thinking about all the possibilities that higher being could bring to the table as far as "level of civilizaton." The truth is, the possibilities are infinite. Even with humanoids, or alien creatures with the exact same brain and thinking structure as us (i.e. logic/rational) they still could have discovered something about the nature of our existence that we haven't even thought of that equals the profoundness of evolution. Just a thought.

The opening paragraph is a bit of a duzy. It seems Dawkins believes that evolution is the very meaning of life. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I don't know what else to take from "we no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life? What are we for?" Granted he could mean "there is no meaning to life," but either way, evolution has nothing to do with these questions. The whole statement seems irrelavent to me. Evolution is a "how" theory, not a "why" theory. The answers that it gives are all processes. Now it's possible that his selfish gene theory in this book may have some "why" answers in it, but as far as Darwin's theory's go, they merely say "this is how it has happened."

Given all this, I think this book will be a fun read, and a very interesting perspective. I'm anxious to see what comes next, and I like his style of writing. More to be posted when more is read.