Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Rayliikanen]

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.

[Eduk]

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.

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.

[Steve3007]

I've read "The God Delusion" (well most of it) and "The Selfish Gene" but not "The Meme Machine". So I guess I'm almost 2/3 qualified to take part here.

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.

[Eduk]

God delusion also has nothing to do with evolution. It's Dawkins' least interesting and least well researched book by far in my opinion. His books on evolution are much better in my opinion.

[Steve3007]

Yes, I agree. I think I only read it because someone bought it for me as a present.

[Eduk]

I was bored at an airport

[Steve3007]

Eduk:

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 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.

I was bored at an airport

I hope you didn't take it on the plane. It might push you over your weight limit! (I have it in hardback.)

[Eduk]

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

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.

Despite the possibly misleading use of the value-word "selfish",

Actually I believe Dawkins regrets that title. He has talked about it and what it means and what it doesn't mean

I hope you didn't take it on the plane. It might push you over your weight limit! (I have it in hardback.)

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.

[Steve3007]

Eduk:

...but at the same time I have no idea how you can go from apparently deterministic to apparently non-deterministic.

The way I look at it is this:

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.

[Eduk]

Don't know the first thing about Quantum Mechanics. So what I'm saying could be total or near total rubbish, so please correct me But quantum effects (strangeness) could be explained and turned back into normal determinism by higher dimensions? Like I said I'm a noob on quantum mechanics but all the apparently contradictory and illogical behaviour might not turn out to actually be contradictory and illogical. Like you said, probably best to pretend it doesn't exist for now

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]

I take seriously certain quotes from Dawkins, such as (speaking of selfish-genes): "... they provide the ultimate rationale for our existence." Ref.: Last paragraph Chapter 2, "The Selfish Gene." He uses the word "ultimate." This is not an idle statement, and I believe this is why Susan Blackmore, in "The Meme Machine," states that we lives our lives as a lie. There is no true self to speak of, these selfish-genes have created us. Why else would Dawkins call us 'survival machines.' A machine is a machine. It is not a living human being. So what I gather from Dawkins is that he has pushed Darwinian evolution far beyond its intended scope (he has his critics in this regard). Darwin wrote a book called "The Origin of Species, by Means of Natural Selection." He did not write a book called "The Origin of the Cosmos." Yet another remark of Dawkins is to the effect that natural selection may help to explain the cosmos itself. He is aware of the gaps in the theory however and mentions them, for instance the leap from inanimate matter to animate (living) matter. But he misses the biggest question that can be asked by philosophers: If this is so, then it must be able to explain how matter/space-time/and consciousness came to exist. The universe itself at one point, did not exist. It came into existence. It, and everything in it, can be considered as an effect, and this includes processes such as natural selection. As far as an explanation for the cosmos is concerned, natural selection therefore is itself in need of further explanation for it is only a particular aspect within the universe, just as everything else is a particular aspect of the universe, and so the question ultimately, is not a scientific one, it is a philosophical/metaphysical question. The mistake Dawkins is making is that he overextends the explanatory scope of evolutionary theory. He might in a sense however be right, for if evolution can be thought of as a process that inexorably moves from the simplest states of existence to the more complex, this can give us a clue as to a beginning. As all things that exist can be questioned as regards their origin, the only thing that cannot be questioned is the Absolute Void at the very beginning. It seems a natural starting point for all things. Here we have Hegel's beginning, with what he calls, the absolute, the pure immediate; which he also associated with God. So by association, Dawkins has left science, and he has entered the world of philosophical/metaphysical thinking, though he might not wish to think so.

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.

[Fan of Science]

There is a field called sociobiology, which breaks down causal explanations for human behaviors into different categories. There are such things as proximate causes, which are involved in the immediate determination for why someone did an act. For example, a parent may have used their retirement money to pay for their child's college education. Why would a parent do that? Because the parent loves her child. The same behavior can be looked at as the ultimate causation, which refers to the evolutionary benefits to such behavior. By paying for the child's college education, that may lead to a more successful child, who, in turn, can be more successful in passing on his genes. It's not as if the parent is actually thinking about promoting genes down the road by assisting her child. So, part of the problem deals on what level we are focusing on. 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. It's just that to the extent this behavior can be inherited, it will not be selected for in these specific individuals' offspring, because no such offspring exist.

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.

[Eduk]

Why else would Dawkins call us 'survival machines.'

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.

As far as an explanation for the cosmos is concerned, natural selection therefore is itself in need of further explanation

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.

and so the question ultimately, is not a scientific one, it is a philosophical/metaphysical question.

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.

We need not only science, we need philosophy.

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.

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.

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.

-- Updated July 10th, 2017, 12:51 pm to add the following --

I can't think of any useful philosophy which doesn't incorporate scientific principles.

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.

[Rayliikanen]

The article I refer to in the above post, made some time ago, appeared in issue 122 of "Philosophy Now," under the title "Reverse Solipsism," the last article in the issue, titled under Fiction; and the brief Socratic dialogue can be read if you look up that issue on the Philosophy Now website. They allow you to read four articles for free. The dialogue amounts to a short Socratic critique of Dawkins's idea of Selfish Genes, and Memes, and Susan Blackmore's (she's in agreement with Dawkins) denial of our 'consciousness' ... as proclaimed very clearly in the closing paragraphs of her book "The Meme Machine" that can be seen as a counterpart to Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene". The point here is that Dawkins leaves the world of science behind when he advances his explanation of consciousness, and becomes what can be justifiably called a Reverse Solipsist. Descartes cogito ergo sum becomes cogitor ergo non sum ... according to Dawkins's thinking. This is brought out in the dialogue. It's very unfortunate however, that very little in the way of critical philosophical debate has arisen with this Dawksinian new philosophy ... parading around as 'scientific wisdom or advanced scientific understanding' which it certainly is not.

[popeye1945]

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.

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.