From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds by Daniel C. Dennett

Daniel C. Dennett’s From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds is an attempt to explain how human minds and the concept of consciousness came to be. This book is a hybrid of natural science, social science and philosophy. Dennett is both a philosopher and a cognitive scientist. I have also read his Consciousness Explained. That work was written in 1991. In many ways, this recent book builds on the earlier work.

This book consists of Dennett laying out and interpreting how he believes minds, both human and animal, evolved. The author covers the origins of life, the evolution of life, brains and cognition. Eventually, Dennett moves on and explores the theory of memes. For those unfamiliar with the theory behind memes, it postulates that human ideas and culture can be broken down into small ideas. Such ideas spawn new ideas, compete with one another, sometimes thrive, sometimes die out, etc. Memes evolve in a way that are similar to genes. Thus, human culture and ideas evolve in a Darwinian fashion. Dennett contends that much of what we consider the human mind and consciousness can be attributed to memes.

This book is very technical in some parts. I found some of it to be difficult to comprehend. The author presupposes a basic understanding of such concepts as evolution, basic biology and other aspects of basic science. I found that most of the science and other technical aspects of the book to be understandable. However, occasionally, the science and technical parts of the book became obtuse. For instance, at one point in the text the author delves into concepts related to Bayesian Probability. I went into this book knowing what Bayesian probability is, and I had a very basic understanding of the concept. However, this rudimentary knowledge turned out to be insufficient for me to fully follow all of Dennett’s arguments. With that, I understood the majority of the science presented in this work.

Where I was most challenged was in my ability to follow all of Dennett’s philosophy and reasoning. A reader more versed in modern philosophy would likely have done better here. With that, even when I had difficulty comprehending particular points, I was usually able understand the main arguments being made and compartmentalize the arguments that I could not understand.

It is important to note that this book comprises a lot of opinion. Dennett has all sorts of ideas on scientific and technical subjects that are not settled. To his credit, in an effort to refute arguments and theories that he does not agree with, the author often presents beliefs that counter his own with some detail. For instance, though many scientists and philosophers embrace the theory of memes, many do not. Dennett is a strong believer in the theory. Despite this, the author elaborates detailed augments against memes.   

Towards the end of the work, Dennett lays out his theory of the mind and consciousness. Dennett's approach is Materialist. He believes that most of what goes on in our brains are automated processes that we have neither access to nor control over. What we consider consciousness is but one “system” that came about though evolution of genes and memes. This conscious system exists primarily to communicate with others. Dennett reasons that we must be able to analyze our own inner mental processes in order to convince, cooperate, compete and interact with other individuals Dennett goes further and speculates that what we call consciousness is mostly illusionary and mainly consists of false explanations of our actions and hidden thought processes.

Dennett acknowledges that his ultimate theory seems difficult to accept. I agree that it is difficult to accept. With that, I think it is important to note certain things about Dennett’s argument. First, the idea that consciousness might be illusionary is somewhat popular with some, but not with all scientists and philosophers who are exploring the human mind. Second, Dennett has a scientific mind, and he admits that he has not fully proven his hypotheses and is making educated guesses based on evidence. He spends the bulk of the work building both evidence and arguments for his beliefs.  Finally, he spells out why, assuming that his model is valid, people would reject it based upon human bias. He writes,

“You might be a zombie, unwittingly taking yourself to have real consciousness with real qualia, but I know that I am not a zombie! No, you don’t. The only support for that conviction is the vehemence of the conviction itself, and as soon as you allow the theoretical possibility that there could be zombies, you have to give up your papal authority about your own nonzombiehood.”

“Zombie” is a term used commonly by scientists and others who explore consciousness. It more or less describes people, animals or machines that are not conscious. The above quote is referring to the fact that people might argue that they have free will and consciousness, but have minds that really only consist of automated process.

Though I am far from convinced that Dennett’s ultimate conclusions are valid, I acknowledge that he has built a compelling case. In addition, the book is filled with lots of real science and intriguing philosophy and insights that are worth exploring.

I have read several books and a lot of articles on the human mind and consciousness, and I think that it is important to keep in mind that there are many views and theories that relate to these issues. Many views are similar to Dennett’s, but many are different. For some alternate theories on the these subjects, I recommend David Chalmers's The Conscious Mind. Chalmers believes that there is something very special about consciousness that is embedded in the Universe itself. This approach is known as Dualism. His book is fascinating but difficult. 

I recommend this book to readers who are not afraid of challenging books. In my opinion, it works best as part of a broader reading plan dedicated to consciousness. At this point, it cannot be considered the final word on this topic. With all of this, in the right context, this is a fascinating read on one of the most intriguing and important of scientific and philosophical topics.

Astounded by Reality

I am astounded by reality. When I think about what I am, what everyone is, and what the universe is, I am amazed by the magnitude of it all. Of course we do not have all of the answers. However when I take a step back from everyday life and try to get an idea of the part of the picture that we seem to understand, I am in awe!

When I imagine that, the observable physical universe started with the seemingly bizarre event that we call the Big Bang (really a misnomer) and that it led to all THIS, I am overwhelmed with wonder. How all that we call energy and matter, and even time itself came to be in that instant.  How over immense periods of time stars and planets formed. How chemistry on Earth led to life. How life evolved from single cell organisms on to creatures of astounding variety and complexity. How humans came to be. How the great mystery of consciousness came about. How over a relatively short time period (but from my point of view a long time period), people developed culture, science, technology, civilization etc. The totality of it all is really beyond comprehension.

The way that the universe got from the Big Bang to the world today in our tiny piece of the Cosmos is a mind- boggling wonder of wonders that most people scarcely think about.  Often I stop to ponder how odd it is that in this little corner of the Universe it has thus far cumulated into cars, gourmet food, Shakespeare, bad television, Mozart, Da Vinci, pop music, war, politics, capitalism, communism, Nazism, morality, computers, on and on and on! The path that reality has taken seems so long and strange yet it is the fabric of our existence.

As I alluded to above, I find consciousness to be one of the most baffling phenomena of it all. What is this thing that we call “Self?” I have read a bunch of books and articles on it. It is still very mysterious.  A belief that seems common, though not universal, with both researchers as well as modern philosophers is that when a certain high level of information processing organization occurs, the phenomena that we call consciousness ensues. I believe that this set of theories and beliefs likely to be true. Yet as David Chalmers points out in The Conscious Mind, this is an extremely unsatisfying explanation if one is intuitively trying to get at the nature of what we call awareness!

No doubt there are wonders that are yet undiscovered. However, maybe in some areas our view of the big picture is nearly complete. Perhaps the above explanation of consciousness is pretty much all there is to it and science just needs to fill in the details. In regards to awareness and our minds, current theories just seem so inadequate. I feel a similar sense of not really intuitively understanding the seemingly paradoxical concepts relating to the Big Bang, Quantum Physics, Time, singularities, the nature of matter and energy and thus existence itself, etc.

Yet it may very well be that my brain, which evolved to mostly deal with hard practical problems of survival and reproduction on a tough planet whose rules are mostly governed by animal behavior, chemistry and Classical Physics, is just not capable of intuitively understanding concepts such as consciousness, the Big Bang, Time itself, etc. It is a wonder that we are beginning to get at these elusive truths in the form of scientific observation, theories, experiments and mathematics. Alas, real gut level comprehension may elude us forever.

Some will attribute much of this wondrous Universe to a God. Personally I see little evidence of the existence such a Being. However the reality of such an entity is possible. If there is a God I would guess it to be very, very different from that conceived by most religions and philosophies. There are so many rarely discussed possibilities that seem much more likely then those traditionally conceived. Just one example, a variation on Deism comes to mind. Imagine a super powerful intelligent entity that created the part of the Universe that we can observe. This Being is not omnipotent and needs to play by the rules and laws of a much larger Universe. It is extremely long lived on the order of tens of billions of years but not necessarily immortal. This Being cares little for humanity or what we call morality. I do not believe that this hypothetical entity exists. I do think it to me more likely then the traditional conception of God. I describe it just an example of many possibilities.

We humans in 2012 are traveling the cusp to time. We find ourselves awake and aware in an enormous Universe that has been here for billions of years. All the past has gone before. The future has not has happened yet (Many Physicists contend that there is nothing special about the forward movement of time and such may just be based upon our perception. I cannot claim to fully understand this concept and I find it near impossible to write a Blog from that perspective!). We are only able to look back at all that has gone before and wonder about what is to come.

I am hesitant to recommend too many books on these topics as advances in our knowledge quickly make information obsolete. I love all the writings of Carl Sagan. He combined astronomy, physics, biology, history, culture, philosophy, as well as a very humanistic and tolerant worldview to weave a picture of the universe that very much parallels my own. Of course Stephen Hawking’s writings on physics and the nature of the Universe are classic.

In terms of biology, evolution and what I call the philosophy of science and understanding I agree with much of the worldview espoused by Richard Dawkins. However, I find Dawkins to be too angry and disrespectful towards those whom he disagrees with for me to advocate for his writings too strongly. Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers have really good books and articles on the subject of consciousness.

There are many others thinkers of note, some that I have read of and I am sure some that I have not. There is much exploration available to the curious person. We live a great time to possess and inquisitive mind!

I think that if and when we discover extraterrestrial intelligence it will in the very least help and change our perspective on many of these issues. Imagine how such a discovery will impact upon our views concerning science, philosophy, our place in the Universe, and almost everything else! In the meantime, I urge everyone to take a step back and think about the ALL.

The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene is a landmark in popular science writing. Since this is a science work, I would consider it “older”, as having originally been published in 1976. Thus, I strongly recommend reading the up the 30^th anniversary edition, or any editions that will be subsequently published. The 30^th anniversary edition includes updated notes and additional material, written by Dawkins that help to bring this work up to date. Consequently, one should read all the endnotes; these are informative, interesting and sometimes funny. The notes serve as an extension and update to the text. If one does this, Dawkins’s work seems surprisingly fresh.

The main idea here is Dawkins’s interpretation of the theory of natural selection. Dawkins postulates that natural selection is not actually something that occurs on the level of species or individuals, as we often think, but happens for individual genes, or replicators. The fact that it is the genes that are driving replication of themselves, has interesting implications. For instance, evolution is not always aimed toward the survival of the individual, group or species. A gene that is contained in me, might push me to sacrifice myself, if that sacrifice helps to perpetuate the same gene in other individuals.

All plants and animals are just vehicles for these replicators. These vehicles, that we call organisms, or more specifically, ants, oak trees, cats, lizards, whales, people, etc. are described by Dawkins as “lumbering robots” designed to facilitate the spread of genes. In the process of explaining all this, Dawkins provides a tour de force of evolution, and its mind-boggling and sometimes bizarre results.

This is a marvelous work for many reasons. For me, the most enlightening point of the book was, as Dawkins’s points out, originally not one of his primary themes, but a moderately important side note.  Dawkins’s text points to the fact that in humans something other then genetics is influencing us. Human culture and ideas have become a driving force in our world that is partially independent of the effects of genes.

Dawkins revolutionary idea is that human thought is evolving through the process of evolution and natural selection, but genes are not the mechanism of this evolution. The Selfish Gene first proposed the now somewhat popular concept of the Meme. A Meme is simply an idea that evolves based upon the laws of natural selection. Dawkins’s argues convincing that human ideas, like genes, are subject to replication, competition and the laws of natural selection Some ideas are better then others at reproducing themselves at the expense of other ideas. Ideas evolve over time. Some thrive, some become extinct. Some work together in families or associations. The laws of evolution apply to Memes just as they apply to genes.

For instance, the Meme that “God exists” and related ideas, have been extremely successful in perpetuating themselves. Holders of these Memes spread it to their children, family and friends. Related Memes lead believers to pressure non - believers to accept this set of Memes. Throughout history, this “family” of Memes included the Meme that it was acceptable to kill and torture persons who did share these beliefs, thus eliminating competing Memes such as “God does not exist.” We can extrapolate some of Dawkins ideas to think about how these Memes have evolved over time. First there was ”there are many Gods”. This evolved into into “there is one God” which later became “there are three Gods who are really one God”. Before we know it, there are thousands of competing ideas on the nature of God and religion.

Memes are often a positive force. For instance, Dawkins’s speculates that some aspects of human altruism, such as donating blood, may not be connected to gene based survival strategies and are therefore driven by Memes that encourage us to help others, even when there is no benefit to ourselves.

 Dawkins is very persuasive in arguing that in some ways, Memes are acting independently and are evolving apart from our genes. The “God exists” family of Memes may have no survival benefit. These thought-based replicators are taking human evolution to a new level and in some ways transcending our gene driven behavior.

 All this may seem obvious to many. Perhaps I may have fallen too much into the mindset of “everything that people do is ultimately traceable to some survival strategy developed in the course of evolution” (This thought is itself a Meme!). It could be that this belief is too extreme. After all, if Dawkins, one of the worlds premier authorities on genetics based upon natural selection, believes that something else is going on, it seems likely that something else is going on. Humans may be partially moving beyond chemical based evolution to an evolution of thought.

I am also beginning to ponder the possibility that, because of Memes, people are special among the organisms of the earth. This is a line of generally accepted reasoning that I have been skeptical about. My thinking on this matter has been partially influenced by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, who argue against the idea of human “specialness” in Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. It does seem however that Memes are a characteristic that is unique to humans and that they are leading humans to behave in all sorts of unique ways.

We are still enormously influenced by our genes. Many aspects of our human behavior, good, bad and in between, can be closely or not so closely ascribed influence of these chemical replicators. Dawkins even points out that most instances of altruism are connected to animal and human survival strategies. Perhaps however, these newer replicators called Memes are taking us further.

Another worthy book, Daniel C. Dennett’s Consciousness Explained further develops the idea that Memes, in the form of human thought and culture have effectively created a new “software” that makes us who we are. This “software” of culture and learning is running on the hardware that is the human brain, which has been developed by millions of years of evolution.