Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
- Rayliikanen
- Posts: 136
- Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 10:31 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
- Location: British Columbia
- Contact:
Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
But I don't think that Dawkins is saying there is definitely no such thing as consciousness and free will. He is possibly saying that their 'might' be no such thing as consciousness and free will (and he's not the only person ever to suggest that). For me though I don't think he is denying consciousness and free will. I would say he is saying that some things are unconscious and that other things are a combination of unconsciousness and consciousness (to which degrees ratios are possible I am not sure). For me this explains human behaviour well and seems pretty logical. But as I understand it it's far from proven, and I don't think Dawkins would say that it was? It's more of an invitation to look at the world a certain way which aligns with known empirical evidence and is logically consistent. It's not really presented as the 'truth'. I believe if some mechanism were shown which discounted this model of a gene centric viewpoint then Dawkins would be happy (well maybe not happy, but at least accepting).
Perhaps you could send him an email and actually ask him?
-- Updated July 10th, 2017, 6:28 am to add the following --
Oh and sorry I've not read Blackmore's book, so I can't comment. For me the analogy is being taken too far. But it does raise a lot of interesting questions.
For me consciousness is not an illusion. But we also aren't perfect conscious beings.
For example some people may see a criminal act and consider the act done by a free conscious agent and therefore entirely 'their' fault. Others may take the opposite extreme and perhaps argue (as Blackmore) that consciousness is some illusion and no 'blame' should be placed on the criminal. Personally I would say in reality that the criminal must take some, but not all, of the 'blame'. And it's pretty complicated to work out in which proportion.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
I think the concept of the selfish gene is indeed a metaphysical idea, but then, in my view, so are the laws of physics.
I personally don't think there is any incompatibility between determinism and free-will, and I therefore don't think there is any incompatibility between free-will and the notion that our genes' inherited success at reproducing themselves (their "selfishness") successfully describes our behaviours. I think that it is incorrect to say that an understanding of how genes work might mean that there is no such thing as consciousness or free-will. It simply gives us a better understanding (though it will never give us a complete understanding) of how consciousness and free-will work.
By analogy: I've heard it said that a knowledge of atomic and molecular structure shows that solid objects are not solid; that they're mostly empty space and are therefore not really solid. I think this is incorrect for the same kind of reason. It shows no such thing. Solid objects were solid before the discovery of their molecular/atomic structure and they didn't suddenly change when that discovery was made. What happened was that our understanding of what it means to be solid deepened.
Back to selfish genes: One thing that confuses the issue is the use of the value-word "selfish". Anthropomorphising terms like this are often used in science and it sometimes leads to confusion if they're taken as meaning literally the same thing as they mean when applied to whole human beings. I don't think that word is intended to be taken literally, as if it were possible for genes to be altruistic or as if genes should be chastised for their selfishness with the hope of changing their behaviour. It is simply a way of describing the observed fact that genes are descended from, and have therefore inherited the characterises of, parent genes that accurately reproduce themselves. As far as I recall from reading it a long time ago, I don't think there is anything in "The Selfish Gene" that does not follow pretty logically from the basic facts of Evolutionary Biology.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
I think it calls it into question (or doesn't, depending on your view) in the same sense that the idea that our brains are composed of atoms whose behaviour is subject to deterministic laws calls it into question. i.e. it's the old free-will versus determinism discussion. Despite the possibly misleading use of the value-word "selfish", the concept of the selfish gene is essentially about molecules behaving in accordance with the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. So their "selfishness" is the deterministic side of the argument.Dawkins describes an interesting parasite called the lancet liver fluke. It burrows into the brain of ants, which causes them to change their behaviour and climb tall grass. Which in turn causes them to be eaten by sheep, which is what the fluke 'wants'. It could be argued that genes act in exactly the same way within humans. That they change our behaviour to suit their 'needs'. This obviously calls into question things like consciousness and free will.
I hope you didn't take it on the plane. It might push you over your weight limit! (I have it in hardback.)I was bored at an airport
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
Totally agree. My personal opinion is that consciousness is 'real' but at the same time I have no idea how you can go from apparently deterministic to apparently non-deterministic. It is certainly an interesting scenario.I think it calls it into question (or doesn't, depending on your view) in the same sense that the idea that our brains are composed of atoms whose behaviour is subject to deterministic laws calls it into question
Actually I believe Dawkins regrets that title. He has talked about it and what it means and what it doesn't meanDespite the possibly misleading use of the value-word "selfish",
Actually it's odd, I remember it being quite a large book but it must have a large type face or something as it's quite a quick read.I hope you didn't take it on the plane. It might push you over your weight limit! (I have it in hardback.)
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
The way I look at it is this:...but at the same time I have no idea how you can go from apparently deterministic to apparently non-deterministic.
First of all, in discussing determinism we usually put to one side the whole issue of quantum randomness and talk about about a Newtonian-style deterministic universe. Dealing with quantum randomness later.
In that universe, what does it actually mean to say that it is deterministic? What it seems to mean is that the same set of initial conditions always results in the same final condition - the same outcome. But what does that mean? What do I mean, in that sentence, by the phrase "...always results in the same..."? I can only possibly be talking about rewinding time and "replaying" the universe. But of course it's absolutely impossible to do that. And it's absolutely impossible to ensure precisely the same initial conditions. There is literally no such thing as 100% accuracy. And, even in a non-quantum Newtonian universe, vanishingly small differences in initial condition are quickly magnified (see Chaos Theory).
Therefore, the proposition that the universe is deterministic is entirely untestable, both in principle and in practice. Therefore, arguably, as a proposition about the real world (as opposed to some piece of abstract metaphysics) it is meaningless, despite the fact that, as a piece of language, it appears to make sense.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
You set a high bar for determinism in our macro world I might argue that the world is deterministic enough to build a modern computer for example, and that that is good enough. But can I prove 100% determinism, then no Determinism as a concept may fail when compared with reality. Of course it might not too
-- Updated July 10th, 2017, 9:18 am to add the following --
I just noticed, that is far too many smilies.
- Rayliikanen
- Posts: 136
- Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 10:31 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
- Location: British Columbia
- Contact:
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
Forgive me for rambling. But certain statements made by scientists, such as Dawkins, need to be taken for what they are: Scientific attempts to explain everything. We need not only science, we need philosophy. Cosmology as a science takes us as far as it can--to the beginning of time 13.7 billion years ago. It's left for philosophers to take this picture science has given us, and push the regress back as far as logically possible--and this is just what Hegel did with his beginning. The problem with Hegel however is that he did not give us a rational explanation that connects his beginning with the reality that now exists. This is the point I brought up in my essay "Beyond Kant and Hegel," (Review of Metaphysics, March 2013).
I have Dawkins's books, but have not thought about writing him, maybe I should; as I also agree with his statement that the proofs hitherto made concerning God are as he states: "spectacularly weak." He also notes the other obvious philosophical flaw in the thinking of those who pose God as the premise--as a Being who has always existed. If we state that this Eternal Being is the reason for all things that exist, then how do we explain this Eternal Being. Where did this Being come from? Hume pointed out the logical error. If this Eternal Being is someone who has always existed, then the same can be argued for the cosmos--the cosmos has always simply existed, and therefore it as well requires no further explanation.
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
The free-will question is also still open. For all we know, the very mechanisms that give rise to consciousness also give rise to free will. This would not violate any law of physics. Reductionism does not always work, as there are numerous cases in science where we have emergent phenomenon at higher levels that cannot be fully accounted for by merely breaking things down into their component parts.
Dawkins, however, does often make some very lame philosophical arguments, as well as scientific ones.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
Again I believe Dawkins regrets this terminology. I do not think that he thinks humans are not human and are machines. I believe he is just making an analogy. You could probably google it and find it in his own words.Why else would Dawkins call us 'survival machines.'
Absolutely, I don't think any biologist meant to imply otherwise? Of course evolution cannot explain it's own beginning. God as always lives on in the gaps of our knowledge.As far as an explanation for the cosmos is concerned, natural selection therefore is itself in need of further explanation
What is philosophy without science? Philosophy needs empirical evidence otherwise it can make no truth claims. In my opinion if you want to be a great philosopher then you need to be a great scientist too.and so the question ultimately, is not a scientific one, it is a philosophical/metaphysical question.
I don't think of these as separate things. Relativity seems like great philosophy to me and great science. I can't think of any useful philosophy which doesn't incorporate scientific principles.We need not only science, we need philosophy.
Why did their DNA not 'tell' them not to have children? We are certainly heavily heavily influenced by our DNA. We make many and numerous unconscious choices. Our DNA defines what access we have to reality etc etc. I think it's fair to say that perhaps consciousness can transcend this. But it's also fair to say that how it transcends this is not known nor of trivial concern.The idea that science has shown us to be mere puppets to our DNA is nonsense. There are, for example, many financially, healthy people, who have chosen not to have any kids at all.
-- Updated July 10th, 2017, 12:51 pm to add the following --
Sorry I don't think I'm being clear enough. I would argue that philosophy gave birth to science. All the stuff about empirical claims and so on that is considered to be scientific I consider to be philosophical. It is merely the philosophy that has proven to be useful so far.I can't think of any useful philosophy which doesn't incorporate scientific principles.
- Rayliikanen
- Posts: 136
- Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 10:31 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
- Location: British Columbia
- Contact:
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
-
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
- Location: canada
Re: Richard Dawkins, Science or Metaphysics?
One needs to ask one's self would humanity advance if it gave up its delusions, its egocentric visions of what it is? To start with, life, in general, is different in form but NOT in its essence, it's a very big family tree. Becoming aware of what we truly are might be oppressive to many, but perhaps acceptance is maturation, and rather vital to an unfolding future. The essence of life being the same across the board is a start if humanity can embrace it. As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "We are cousins to the trees, made of the same stuff, arranged into a different order, or as Dawkins put it, a lot of different vehicles, whose essence is the genes. Remember Schopenhauer's blind will, it is the will to power, the will to live, life is a beautiful opera, except it's painful as hell. There is some hint of what we are not in the fact that upon being born we have no identity, and only acquire it through living in our given environment context, constitutions in various states of well-being measured against our given context. The reality of the gene is not metaphysics it is a hard science, the genes had to produce conscious forms to survive, not knowing the conscious form would eventually reflect upon its essence. The self I believe in is real and like life in general the same across the board, the same in all its forms. This too is not metaphysics if you connect the dots. Modernity has led us astray with the egocentric concept of free will, when in fact all organisms are reactive creatures to the earth and the cosmos, they are the cause of all our reactions, as our reactions, in turn, become the causes in the physical world. There is no such thing as human action there is but human reaction, that which is motivated is a reaction by definition, we are a functional aspect of something greater than ourselves, and reaction is how we belong.Rayliikanen wrote: ↑July 7th, 2017, 12:27 pm I've written an article and submitted it to Philosophy Now; titled "Socrates Talks With a Reverse-Solipsist." It's in dialogue form, of course. Socrates concludes that the character with whom he is speaking, and who is a disciple of Dawkins, had accepted a science (really a philosophy) of reverse-solipsism. He has in his hands copies of Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene," "The God Delusion," and Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine," with a forward by Dawkins. Blackmore has herself come to the conviction based on Dawkins's science, that she has no 'self' to speak of. At the conclusion of her book she states we live our lives as a lie, because the genes and memes have made us do it--their aim is merely to replicate themselves, and we are as Dawkins states: their survival machines. These selfish genes 'provide the ultimate rationale for our existence.' Thus, Dawkins is not advancing science. He is advancing a philosophical/metaphysic of reverse-solipsism. What do you think? To form a proper answer I think reading the above works by Dawkins, and Blackmore will help.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023