Evolit: Week 5--Beyond Biological Evolution

Skyhooks and Cranes are metaphors that do not appeal to me in context to the course.  Skyhooks cannot be foundational and Cranes are foundational.  Skyhooks need to involve the galaxies in order to be foundational and Cranes just need the earth to stand upon.  I do not understand skyhooks as a foundation.  A foundation needs something to stand upon and skyhooks has none other than the galaxies.  And then which galaxy does it stand upon?

I was really interested by our conversation in our small group on Thursday.  Prof Grobstein's questioning of our feelings about things that it is okay to stomp on and not okay to stomp on provided an interesting problem to think about.  Where does all of this stop? Trying to follow many of these ideas logically through to an end is quite a mind-blowing experience. I've found that since this discussion I've been coming back to this idea that if we believe in evolution that means believing in the randomness of life on Earth. I've really struggled with this because, as we have discussed, we as humans tend to create "skyhooks" in our need for explanations for WHY things happen.   I have realized since the conversation how much this is a part of how I live my life and I've been quite struck by it.  I, like Prof Grobstein, think that evolution is quite a good story, but I'm not sure that I like it so much now that I am realizing all of its implications.

After departing from the classroom, I began to try to make as many analogies as possible. During dinner, while working at the library, frantically doing homework as the rush of Hellweek set in- thinking of logic, reason and life. Dennet seemed so certain on his analogy of the 'un-logical' as a hook dangling from the insubstantial clouds while logic and reason were firmly grounded in physics and those good ol' laws we all abide by. The more I tries to create analogies that stated this likeness, the more I realized that they weren't really all that far apart. Almost anything can be proven if it is proven in the right way. This just depends on how philosophical you want to get and how many hours you have to while away to the World.

Despite having talked to death the idea of truth, I am still incredibly fuzzy on the entire issue. It's almost like the more I delve into the idea, the more I feel like I am balancing on a tipping rock on the top of a precipice. It's dangerous, frightening, and odd. I want to be able to point to something and know whether it is real or not, whether it is, in fact, the truth. Yet now I am just revolving now in a desperate circle to even find the right place to point. The more we question reality, the more questions are formed that simply can't be answered with a Universal answer.

That is unless we build a super-computer to actually figure out what the question was in the first place.

p.s. I am also exceptionally proud of my horrible drawing of a crane. :)

In the reading for our next class Dennet writes about genes vs. memes, and the basic analogy that's been drawn between biological evolution and cultural evolution, which is the next major topic he tackles. His description of the argument over how alike these processes are or can possible be-- how far to take the analogy between genetics and "memetics"-- ended up highlighting for me a basic problem that I have with his arguments (probably not what he intended).

We've talked a lot about the many analogies that Dennet uses to describe different scientific theories for us, but how reliable are those analogies? He lets us know that he is writing a story, not a formal argument, but can I really allow myself to be convinced of a scientific theory by a book with so little science in it? The analogies may make scientific concepts more accessible, but I'm afraid that too much is being lost in the extra layer between the ideas themselves, Dennet's descriptions of them, and my own understanding of those descriptions.

I'm generally confused by this week, but the difference between truth and Truth left me especially confused. In class on Tuesday I felt as if I was supposed to already have a sense of what the difference is when in fact I have no concept of two kinds of truth.

I've always been willing to accept that truth doesn't (or might not) exist. I have an odd memory of crying as a young child while my mother tried to comfort me (I have no idea what I was upset about). She told me that I have her to support me no matter what, she'll always love me, etc. I responded by asking something along the lines of "How do I know you're real? How do I know anybody but me is real? Maybe I'm creating this entire world in my mind and in reality I'm the only thinking being that exists."  I think my mother was very surprised by this line of questions and said something along the lines of "because I do exist."  Basically she was telling me that her existence was a truth I just had to believe in. This story demonstrates why the idea that truth doesn't exist makes me uncomfortable.  I don't necessarily believe that truth (regardless of capitalization) exists, but it upsets me to think about it too much. This brings me back to my original point. How does capitalization change the meaning of the word truth? I don't think it does. I think the question is not about what type of truth exists, but about what truth is.

What I found really interesting during last Tuesday’s discussionis that we begin again by discussing the idea that there is no “Truth” and howwe should balance subjectivity and fact. This has been a major point of the class, not even science has definite answersor proven truths.  We talked abouthow we should not just believe things like the earth is round just becausesomeone told us.  However, as soonas this conversation was finished we moved on to talk about evolution and allof a sudden random “facts” were just given out.  The atmosphere started with no oxygen and the firstorganisms were single celled. Through all this I couldn’t help but think what if I raised my hand andsaid I don’t believe you, you don’t know that’s true.  But if we all always did that then no one would ever learnanything.  I think simply taking somethings to be true is necessary in order to accomplish anything.  There needs to be a very carefulbalance between subjectivity and truth. 

I just want to say that this week has been hectic and confusing to me. I don't understand really the difference between Truth and truth? I thought we had decided that truth doesn't really exist (or that could have been in my Neurobiology class). If we are thinking about truth as a conclusion to a question that will not change, then how can truth exist? Thinking about it from the loopy science perspective if we keep observing to find new observations, then truth whether with a 'T' or 't' should not exist. 

During the last class discussion we touched on the idea of Darwin's theory of evolution being like a universal acid, but I am not so sure that I buy that. I don't think that Darwin's theory overshadows all the previous theories and stories that are out there. I think that it can co-exsist with some of them and also just because it is currently backed up by scientific fact doesn't mean that is a more definite answer to the question. I mean what is a fact really. How can that truly be defined? I believe that we tried to define it earlier in the semester, but I was not satisfied with what was brought up. I think that Creationism can be just as valid an explanation for the past as Darwin's theory though I don't particular advocate it myself. I gues I find Dennett's condemnation of the ideas outside of Darwin's kind of horrible. No one person should be declared more correct than another person. Back to my original point, I think that relating Darwin's evolution to a universal acid is just not an acurate metaphor.

In our discussion on Thursday many pointed out the differences between the writing styles of Dennett and Darwin in their presentation of their ideas. I found Darwin to be dry and neutral in the presentation of his ideas with a sort of take it or leave it kind of attitude. However, Dennett strikes me as very passionate and opinionated - almost to a fault. It seems to be that some of his more contentious statements would be offensive to those who consider themselves as more religious. His statements exactly, "Anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant- inexcusably ignorant." Such adamant and assertive language is almost shocking after reading Darwin's more humble approach in Origin of Species.

Dennett also urges readers to see evolution as an algorithmic process. This confuses me- Isn't an algorithm a specific set of steps that lead to one and only one answer? If this is true then this is in opposition to the belief that evolution is a completely random process. I don't see how these could logically come together.

Skyhook and Crane examples from our Thursday small group, Vampires and Rabies – Glass Slippers and Stilettos (high-heeled shoes Prof. Grobstein), led me to think about the early days when my daughter seriously believed there were monsters in her bedroom. Because I could not convince her that they were fantasy figures from her mind, I chased them away every night and protected her by spreading potpourri in every corner of her room and just a pinch under the bed for good measure. About a year or so later she declared that I had chased them away forever. At some point we all have un-stomp-able fantasies, like her monsters, which  at a later point we recognize as  stomp-able fantasies - sometimes stomped by us and sometimes by others. If, as we discussed, the written word [and thought] can be divided into four categories: fiction, non-fiction, stomp-able fantasy and un-stomp-able fantasy and that under certain circumstances they can  and do change their value and place, why then can’t a skyhook become a crane and a crane become a skyhook?

The idea that Anisha brings forth about the algorithmic process preventing free will is one that does not sit well with me. If an individual knows that there is a set pattern of actions, thinking, etc then he/she has the power to change it if they choose to- its that simple. In some cases, I feel as though we are undermining the power of our free will. I think we are all familiar with the quote in which Randy Paush essentially says that the brick walls are there to see how badly we want something. The amount of free will that we put forth definitely has the possibilty of changing something that may originally be classified as unchangable. People, animals, among other factors all have the ability to change, even in a subtle or minute way, the course of something that thought of as "set".

During Thursdays discussion, what peaked my interest the most was the idea of evolution as an algorithm.  As we described in class, an algorithm is a pattered series of steps with guaranteed, repeatable results.  The process as a whole is invariant and somewhat mindless, as a fellow student described in class (I cannot remember who).  The parallel that I couldn’t quite grasp in class was how evolution and an algorithmic process were related.  In previous classes, Professor Grobsetin mentioned how evolution was non continuous and was a result of a series of random events.  If this is true, would we have to redefine the algorithm that Dennett states regulates evolution? I agree that it is a combination of algorithms that form one complex explanation of evolution.  As Darwin discovered, many of the algorithms that he observed during his research formed a relationship with one another which shaped his conclusions of natural selection and evolution.  However, these processes could be interrupted by many factors, for example by a natural disaster (the meteor that caused extinction of dinosaurs).  It is from these interruptions that evolution is observed in its truest form.  It is at these times that the algorithms are made and combined to recreate life through evolution.  

 

Another aspect of the algorithmic process that we discussed in class was that there is a possibility that algorithms prevent free will.  Since the process is so unyielding, there is no room for individuality and we cannot explain the variation that is seen throughout all organisms on the Earth.  

      I have been thinking a little bit more about Dennet's crane and skyhook idea, and more on an idea that came to me in Prof. Grobstein's Thursday class: perhaps subjectivity is the crane, while objectivity is the skyhook. I believe that all humans and organisms are only capable of being subjective, though at varying degrees of sophistication. Even when we think we approach a task 'objectively' or when we say a multiple choice test is completely 'objective,' I think it is possible in every case to identify something entirely subjective that the supposed 'objectivity' is founded upon. For example, in the case of a multiple choice spelling test, we would all agree there is exists a 'right' and a 'wrong' way to spell a given word. But, what we claim to be objectively 'right' and 'wrong' spellings for the given word are actually based on the man-made notion of HOW each word should be spelled. This required a subjective decision at some point in time.

      I think that for humans and organisms, every action at every moment in time involves some degree of subjectivity: choice, judgement, or instinct, whether conscious or not. I think that this could potentially be considered a feature of accumulated design, as the genre of subjectivity that a bird might employ would differ in complexity from ours, but the two forms of subjectivity both seem to be of the same Design. I also think that, as Dennett explains, this 'crane' of subjectivity does enhance the slow-paced natural selection process because being 'subjective' requires trying something new/different at some point in time. This gives Natural Selection a chance to act! I think it could also be argued that increased subjectivity is, as Dennett suggests, a predictable product of Natural Selection. For example, if we trace the human line of evolution (yes, according to Darwin), it appears that the anatomically modern human is more subjective than its predecessors (we can speak, we have developed political, social, economical, and societal realms which allow us to exercise further subjectivity every day). This is not to say that humans are the ultimate/perfect product of evolution, but it seems reasonable to me that if you pick any organism and trace it back to its ancestors, you'd find that its capacity for 'subjectivity' would be no less than that of its predecessors. Natural selection would have favored subjectivity as a means of modifying life forms.

    As for objectivity in its purest form, I think this is unachievable by life forms on Earth. In my story here, 'objectivity' would be the sky hook that corresponds to my 'subjectivity' crane. I'm thinking I may explore this story further in my next webpaper.

I was reading about the history of Earth day at http://earthday.envirolink.org/history.html and found an interesting quote: "That was the remarkable thing about Earth Day. It organized itself." This seemed to relate directly to what we have been talking about with biological evolution, applied to a human event.

I was thinking about the comparisons between human cultural evolution and biological evolution. I wondered whether, in contrast to biological evolution, which under our current Darwinian narrative has no goal/ is essentially random, cultural evolution is fundamentally different because as active shapers/ participants in our cultural narratives and direction, we can intentionally choose to have things follow a certain path/ lead to an ultimate goal. If we give culture an overarching goal/ teleology, how does this change its evolutionary nature? Also, it seems that cultural evolution exponentially tends toward greater complexity and intelligence, evidenced by the massive technological leaps over the past two centuries. It has been said that more happened in the 20th century than in the previous 19 combined. Such massive changes in such a short time contrasts with biological evolution, which is much harder for individual organisms to be able to notice in a given lifetime. When we talked about evidence of human evolution a few weeks ago, I don't know why no one mentioned the internet - in my mind, this is the greatest evolutionary mechanism we have yet evolved by far. Talk about information as a mechanism of evolutionary change - what greater medium exists for the exchange of information?

I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey after Thursday's discussion, on Prof. G's strong recommendation. I found an interesting review by Robert Ebert from 1998 in which he said that "2001 pointed the way beyond narrative." What might it mean for a human cultural creation to be non-narrative? Also, I realized the term science fiction is interesting - is science fiction more real/ realistic/ plausible than plain old fiction? It as a genre seems to blur the traditional science/ literature divide, if only if name.

On Thursday, we talked a lot about the difference between fantasy and reality. I was wondering whether fantasy is really distinct from reality, or whether we live out fantasies on a daily basis. For instance, don't people write fiction in their head all day - what else is the inner monologue, that constantly running voice inside you head? To me, perhaps the most interesting topic that arose during our conversation was the idea that, going along with Dennett's metaphor, Truth, Reality, and Objectivity are 'skyhooks' (transcendent ideas/ supernatural creations); that our wish to achieve those ideals is the crane. As Prof. Grobstein noted, we created libraries full of books and knowledge; they did not drop down out of the sky.  From this, I came away with the idea that we shouldn't seek factual objectivity because it is an ideal that we created; but we should, however, seek to be as intellectually honest and make as broad of summaries of observations as possible for us as humans (which may mean admitting that nothing we conceive of could ever be True in the universal sense, only accurate or inaccurate in a given frame of reference at a certain time in a certain place).

I feel like this whole week I have just been confused. When we talked about Truth vs. truth and about fantasy vs. reality.  With truth I thought that there are not truth only inconsistent ideas or maybe it's just that there are no facts.   I guess its just hearing that you can't rely on one idea because there could be a better one out there. And maybe that is our goal in life, to just understand what is around us and live.  I know we have been saying that life is randomly made and is not being lead to some ultimate perfection but what about making your own goal in life. For some it is just to be noticed or be remembered forever through history, for others maybe just having a family and being happy.  For myself I haven't figured out my ulitmate goal in life, right now it's just to get through college and live my life, instead of being scared of death.  I guess truths are not facts but they are some statement or words that mean something to someone or a way to keep moving forward to explore. For fantasy vs. reality I'll just keep pondering the differences and try to figure out how you can tell the difference or even if there is one.  Well I actually know there is a difference but maybe a very small one.  Fiction I think falls in between fantasy and reality.  See with some fantasy books authors base characters on people who lived or societies that made mistakes as warnings to us all to be careful with what we pursue or create.  I mean I like to believe in mythological creatures but maybe not Harry Potter.  I just can't see how people obsess over magic and wands and nonexistent characters when there are other "real" things to obsess about. For me it's the mountains at home in Colorado. I miss them and love how you walk up a mountain and hear the sounds of nature around you.  I guess believing in fantasy is okay as long as it doesn't take over your life, which is about where I fell out of the discussion on Thursday.  I hope we can explore this topic more so that I can put a stop to my confusion.