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.

purpose

It seems that things come around in the end. That sometimes Karma exists and that there are certain patterns of benevolence that seem to work in conjuction with, but seperate from the closed world of physics. I think their may be a pattern, but that labelling it Karma, or assuming things happen for a reason (reason's not necessarily physical), though this may work for some, does not work for me. I think there's a hair to be split here.

I do see that there are patterns that can be noticed, but I think looking at them as good or bad is a constricting view. These patterns are better noticed as things. If this attitude is takin towards them, a sort of neutral understanding and acknowledgement, then goals and understandings can be reached easier. However, I think one of the most important patterns to understand is that goals are an illusion. We look at them as an ending, a sort of unit of measurement. But really they are just a moment that comes and passes, that we talk about a lot. Things continue always. So maybe the goal should be to enjoy the path that we are on, and let it take us where we need to be. Take joy in the processes of existence. If some turn does not go the way we expected, instead of becoming furious, roll with it, enjoy it. We give ourselves a lot of expectations, but in the end they are just illusions. Sort of like when you root for your favorite sports team. You get into it, and want something to happen, you yell and you cheer, you get excited you get sad, you feel like your fandom will help the team win, when in fact, you are quite irrelavent. This is very much what expectations are like. Time, people, things, keep moving, the control you have over it is minimal if any.

Clearly the influence of my current toaist reading is coming out right now, however I think those texts are full of wisdom. They are so mysterious and contradictory and yet, they hit home so well. The hardest part however, is the truth of it is not something that can be put into words. You can talk and talk and talk about it all day, but the only true knowledge and understanding of taoism is through practice and experience. This is why most of it comes out in such contradictory terms, because it is not based on logic, but merely is trying to describe noticed truths.

In the end the point is, to take events as what htey are and think about how you can give them purpose in your life, instead of letting them decide things for you. And in a typical taoist fashion: the more you try to control the events, the more they decide for you, the more you just let them be and roll with them, the more you control them. Just something to ponder...

Just had my mind blown

This entry is a complete reaction to something I just read. I haven't cooled down yet, I'm running on all cylinders. So if it's a little intense, or scatterbrained, or bizarre I apologize. Bare with me, my head just exploded and I'd like to express how that happened.

So I picked up "The Conscious Mind" by David Chalmers after months of not reading it because I was stuck, or not in the mood or whatever excuse, I haven't really read anything in a while to be honest. Nothing real sit down, more like just short poems and things or chapters from the Tao Te Ching. Little did I know I was on the verge of stumbling upon an insane hypothesis.

The premise of the book is that consciousness (the qualities of experiencing things, the idea that experience does happen) is a very real thing. That it is in fact the one thing we can be most sure about in our lives, because it is the most immediate. Very Descartes, yes I know.

Anyway, the chapter I was reading he was discussing the problem that consciousness may be epiphenomenal. In other words, it is effected by the physical world but is in fact irrelevant to the real world itself. So Chalmers was explaining several ways that consciousness could be more than just a strange occurrence tacked onto the real world.

The argument he found most compelling was this: physics describes every thing in terms of it's extrinsic qualities. For example mass exists only in relation to energy and other mass. Distinctions between different types of elements are made purely in their relation to other elements, and how energy effects it. So what if there is an intrinsic quality to mass? What if that intrinsic quality is the proto-type for conscious experience and mass and energy and they are all related by that primordial beginning quality.

If you think about there's really no explanation or knowledge of what mass is. I mean, it does seem impossible that there would be all these relationships between things without any actual things to have relationships to, right?

Well it's certainly a thought, there is a lot that could be discussed on this. I just needed to get this out, and sit and think about it for a little while before I go back to reading more, or something else or thinking about something else. Just needed a bit of stewing time. It certainly fascinates the hell out of me.

From the Blueline Pt. III: The Tao

"A Way that can be followed is not a constant Way"

The first line of the first chapter of the Lao Tze's writing. This line is brilliant in so many avenues. But it is also brilliant for hockey. In fact many true statements about life are useful for hockey, I feel, because hockey reflects the ever changing nature of life, just on a more compact scale.

While playing hockey you want to concentrate on what you should do and what is important, but you have to respect how quickly the game changes. And you need to change with the game, because you cannot force the game to change around you. There are 12 people out on the ice at one time all effecting the flow of the game, but that flow is much larger than any of those 12 people. That's why to be an effective hockey player you need to tap into that flow as much as possible. This is not as simple as it sounds.

Because the flow is created by those on the ice, including you, you must do what you can to shape the flow in your favor, though in a very taoist manner, not shape it at all. Describing these things never comes out quite right through language, but when you're on the ice you'll understand it much better. In hockey, if you work hard your time will come, but it may never come when you expect, however you need to be ready. When it passes you by, it is over. But when you capitalize, you celebrate.

And therefore just do your thing, stay focused, feel the flow, shape the flow, but you cannot change the flow, only direct it. You can't follow it, only float in it. "A Way that can be followed is not a constant Way."

From the Blueline Pt. II: The Strange Medium

One of the most difficult parts of hockey, is getting your mind in the right place. It is truly an incredible mental balancing act on a knife's edge, and the things you have to balance can easily get in eachothers way. Not to mention, there are several things you have to balance. You can't juggle them either, they need to exist simultaneously in your mind every moment you are on the ice.

The first thing is pure intensity. Most of the time you spend on the ice you are either sprinting or hitting or battling somebody. All of these require fierce intensity and you can never give up an inch. The game is so fast that you need to be tenacious every moment. If you are not you will miss your moment when it comes, because it is a team sport and you can't decide when it will come, and it comes so fast, you may not realize it until it is gone. That is why hockey requires a constant fierce game. When you're battling for the puck along the boards, or racing to a puck, or racing from someone with the puck, there is no time to slow down.

The next thing is being relaxed on the ice. This may seem completely contradictory but it is in fact essential. The game is so fast and so intense, if you get caught up in it, you'll be caught out of position, or caught in a penalty, or just confuse the hell out of your own team. You need to take things in stride, not allow the other team's antics get to you. Breathe. Allow the play to flow through you instead of trying to force it. That almost always leads to bad plays and turnovers. Relaxing on the ice allows you to take everything in and evaluate it, otherwise there is just panic. Not to mention you want your hands to be relaxed so you can stick handle and pass with ease and finesse.

The last part of the balancing act is focus. It is extremely important to be aware of everything you are doing and everything everyone else is doing on the ice. Focus keeps you in the game so you don't get lost and you know where to pass when you get the puck. Also focus is extremely important in keeping you in the moment, not getting ahead of yourself or dwelling on the past in the game. Just being right there where you are in the game. A clear understanding of what needs to be done.

What makes the balancing act so strange is that it's less about keeping the three parts even, and more about maximizing all three of them as much as possible. The more you have of each, the better you will play, but if you don't have one of the other ones your play will quickly fall apart. If you just have relaxation, you will become complacent and you will revert to auto pilot. If you are just going through the motions, you might as well be a pilon, you will contribute nothing to the game or your team. If you only have intensity you will lose sight of the game, your position, the team aspect. You will begin to run around like a lost mouse. Essentially a complete waste of energy. If you only have focus, you'll stay out of the mix too much and get caught standing back from the play. You may second guess your actions instead of just doing them.

However, if you maximize all three, therein lies the true hockey player mind. You can control the play and get your nose dirty. Never give up an inch, but be able to read the play once you've gained control of the puck. Opportunities will arise from hard work and the culmination of your skills. You can have finesse and power. This is how you can really step your game up. This is what I strive for every time I step on the ice.