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