"Some people associate touch with something bad and recoil from it. People also have cultural ideas about appropriate and inappropriate touching, and react accordingly. That reaction isn't firmware."
Yes, this is all stuff that can be layered on top of the basic firmware. But wouldn't you say that when you hug someone you love in a time of distress, you're feeling something innate and at your core? I'm not saying we're simple or whatnot, there's definitely many facets to our cognition that are all in there rumbling around. But we sure aren't blank slates that are programmed by the environment. I think a better analogy is that we have a bunch of knobs with certain ranges, and the environment & genetic variation together dial in these knobs to make us who we are. This provides plenty of room for the complex interplay between the different emotions, like the example you cite where someone is generally distrusting of people and dislikes touch. I bet even that distrusting person could feel close to someone who put in a lot of effort to build a friendship to overcome their initial hesitance, and feel comforted by this closeness. Again, it's a difference-in-degree and not a difference-in-kind.
"A second problem with the "Genes Rule The World" hypothesis (if you get to name my position, I get to name yours ;p) is that no one ever actually explains how they do this (while allowing vast room for conscious control, reinterpretation, etc)"
That's what the fields of Genetics, Evolutionary Psychology and Evolutionary Biology are about. :-) Check out that book I referenced in the parent post, it's pretty interesting.
If it's not genes that determine what we are, then what? Or at least, even if there isn't an alternative better answer yet, why aren't genes a suitable answer?
But wouldn't you say that when you hug someone you love in a time of distress, you're feeling something innate and at your core?
If I thought I was feeling something innate that would not be valid evidence I actually was, just a self-reported anecdote.
If it's not genes that determine what we are, then what? Or at least, even if there isn't an alternative better answer yet, why aren't genes a suitable answer?
The answer is memes. And the short reason why is: memes evolve much, much faster than genes, so once they existed, they got to do everything mind-related, and biological evolution no longer got to do anything. This also explains why genes aren't a suitable answer :)
Yes, that's an anecdote. It was meant to be an illustrative point, not a scientific factually valid point. You should read the EvPsych literature to get the scientific argument. I don't know enough about it to cite the papers, etc. Another book that looks at factors involved in the evolution of the human brain is The Symbolic Species by Terrence Deacon, http://www.amazon.com/Symbolic-Species-Co-Evolution-Language...
"The answer is memes. And the short reason why is: memes evolve much, much faster than genes, so once they existed, they got to do everything mind-related, and biological evolution no longer got to do anything. This also explains why genes aren't a suitable answer :)"
Yes, memes exist, and they do quite a lot, but it's not like as soon as memes showed up, everything else went out the door! Even if we assume that memes had some ability to thwart further biological evolution, that wouldn't reverse all of the built-in stuff that existed at the point memes came on the scene. Everything that memes do is layered on top of the huge amount of pre-programming that we're born with; memes exist solely on the highest thin layer of a big multi-layered system. Don't forget that we're actually primates with primate brains, and mammals with mammal brains. Millions of years of mammalian brain evolution weren't discarded just because we invented a vehicle for meme transmission (language). That high-level idea transmission mechanism resides on top of a regular ol' primate brain, with all of its complex builtin emotions for survival, reproduction, social interaction, etc.
Anyway, I'm not an expert on this stuff, so I can't put together a really convincing argument citing specific experimental facts and whatever. I'm starting to repeat myself ... shows how little I know about this stuff. You should read some of the stuff on EvPsych to draw your own conclusions about the validity of the field.
This branch of the thread seems like a good example of the existential questioning in the article. Some folks are comfortable with the idea of certain traits being hard-wired by evolution and/or God (depending on the person). Others seem threatened by the idea of an existence over which they do not exercise full control -- as if to ask "what meaning can be derived from such limited opportunity for self-actualization?"
I'm in the first camp. Sometimes I have some anxiety over my existence, but (as a Christian) it usually revolves around questioning whether or not I am living the right kind of life.
One thing I do know is that worrying does nothing to help the situation. Getting out there and doing something with your life does.
I didn't say memes thwart biological evolution, I said they evolve faster. So any niche that can be, will be filled by a meme before our biology changes.
You are right this wouldn't reverse pre-existing stuff. But what pre-existing things were there? Reflexes? Check. Face recognition hardware? Check. High level human interpretations of touch? No.
You say memes are a top layer. That's what I said originally! And I made an analogy you have not answered: Ruby is a top layer, on top of an assembly language, and C. And the fact is, if you switch to a platform with a different assembly language, Ruby stays the same. The lower layers aren't important once you abstract them away.
You say we have a "primate brain" but aren't clear on what this means. We have a brain with universal creativity. No (other) primates have that. It's a different kind of thing.
Your basic assumption that DNA is unimportant is wrong.
Basic counter examples are:
Reflexes.
The variation in human reaction to drugs.
Down syndrome and other genetic defects.
It's the similarity in the basic human genome that lets most people assume we are blank slates. Generic mutation can alter an infant's reaction to their environment and people don't notice X-Ray's due to basic biology. Thus we are not blank slates even if environment seems to dominate the picture.
Sometimes I have a hard problem in front of me. I can't crack it. I go to sleep. I don't dream about it. I wake up. I know the answer. That isn't part of the concious mind and is pure reflex and creative.
Yes, this is all stuff that can be layered on top of the basic firmware. But wouldn't you say that when you hug someone you love in a time of distress, you're feeling something innate and at your core? I'm not saying we're simple or whatnot, there's definitely many facets to our cognition that are all in there rumbling around. But we sure aren't blank slates that are programmed by the environment. I think a better analogy is that we have a bunch of knobs with certain ranges, and the environment & genetic variation together dial in these knobs to make us who we are. This provides plenty of room for the complex interplay between the different emotions, like the example you cite where someone is generally distrusting of people and dislikes touch. I bet even that distrusting person could feel close to someone who put in a lot of effort to build a friendship to overcome their initial hesitance, and feel comforted by this closeness. Again, it's a difference-in-degree and not a difference-in-kind.
"A second problem with the "Genes Rule The World" hypothesis (if you get to name my position, I get to name yours ;p) is that no one ever actually explains how they do this (while allowing vast room for conscious control, reinterpretation, etc)"
That's what the fields of Genetics, Evolutionary Psychology and Evolutionary Biology are about. :-) Check out that book I referenced in the parent post, it's pretty interesting.
If it's not genes that determine what we are, then what? Or at least, even if there isn't an alternative better answer yet, why aren't genes a suitable answer?