#174- Life & Mind A Conversation with Richard Dawkins

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6419
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
04 November 2019 11:51
 

In this episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Richard Dawkins. They discuss the strangeness of the “gene’s-eye view” of the world, the limits of Darwinian thinking when applied to human life, the concept of the extended phenotype, ideologies as meme complexes, whether consciousness might be an epiphenomenon, psychedelics, meditation, and other topics.

#174- Life & Mind A Conversation with Richard Dawkins


This thread is for listeners’ comments.

 
 
GreenInferno
 
Avatar
 
 
GreenInferno
Total Posts:  118
Joined  20-09-2012
 
 
 
04 November 2019 20:14
 

That’s two British guests (Stephen Fry and Richard Dawkins) that have not seen the value in meditation as described by Sam. This is also the first time that I felt that mindfulness/meditation became a greater distraction than what it is claimed that it removes.

We can add Hitchens to the list of British colleagues that showed no interest in meditation also.

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2868
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
05 November 2019 18:13
 

A quick note Dawkins and Harris got wrong:
Part of our disease immunity is genetic, but because of the fast mutation rate of most pathogens, the effect is limited.
In addition, there is the transmission of gut bacteria strains from mother to child which have been selected to cope with pathogens and parasites found in the mother’s environment.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6828
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
11 November 2019 14:37
 

I found the part (around the 50-minute mark) about consciousness as a “spandrel” interesting. Harris claims that the more we learn about consciousness, the less it appears to actually benefit us. I tend to agree that it does less than we give it credit for, but I’m pretty sure it does make certain things possible which do confer an advantage: things like treachery (long term deception) and hydrogen bombs on the one hand, or penicillin and the Internet on the other. Not that technological progress would necessarily be impossible without consciousness, but it would take a lot longer.

I’d even go one step further: consciousness might be a learned skill, made possible by our overwhelmingly complex brain which evolved to confer an advantage on social animals. Children raised without any contact with conscious others might never learn to become conscious, and would grow up to be philosophical zombies. If true, then it seems to me that there might be better and worse ways of learning consciousness. Maybe we in the developed world today just happen to be learning it in the worst possible way, which might explain what appears to be an ever-increasing obsession with our “selves.”

(By “consciousness,” I mean the process by which a model of reality—including the model of self—is constructed in the mind.)

 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2868
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
12 November 2019 00:29
 

I mostly agree, though in typical Evolution-Fashion: if consciousnesses arose as a by-product, it would quickly be co-opted for some evolutionary-beneficial purpose.

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21811
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
12 November 2019 10:58
 

If we didn’t have consciousness there wouldn’t be any “us” to benefit.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2868
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
12 November 2019 11:01
 
EN - 12 November 2019 10:58 AM

If we didn’t have consciousness there wouldn’t be any “us” to benefit.

It’s not the “us” that needs to benefit, it is our genes.
Our “us” doesn’t pass on from generation to generation.

 
 
nonverbal
 
Avatar
 
 
nonverbal
Total Posts:  1859
Joined  31-10-2015
 
 
 
12 November 2019 11:27
 
EN - 12 November 2019 10:58 AM

If we didn’t have consciousness there wouldn’t be any “us” to benefit.

Not that it matters, but all creatures are entirely conscious. Human consciousness is perhaps less literally conscious, though we make up for it by being extra smart.

 

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21811
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
12 November 2019 11:43
 
Twissel - 12 November 2019 11:01 AM
EN - 12 November 2019 10:58 AM

If we didn’t have consciousness there wouldn’t be any “us” to benefit.

It’s not the “us” that needs to benefit, it is our genes.
Our “us” doesn’t pass on from generation to generation.

Right, but “benefit” has a subjective component to it.  If we don’t have consciousness, even if our genes get an advantage there is no “benefit.”  Consciousness is necessary for any consideration of good or bad, better or worse, etc.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6828
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
12 November 2019 15:10
 

You guys are looking at it from two different angles: genes vs. selves.

From the genes angle, I don’t think consciousness is necessary for our genes to spread, but it seems to benefit them by making us better able to survive and reproduce.

From the selves angle, you might say that “You” are not only an illusion, but a virtual parasite infecting the mind of your host mammal. Like EN says, without consciousness there’s no “you.” So as long as existing as a virtual parasite is desirable, then consciousness is beneficial from the selves angle.

 

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21811
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
12 November 2019 16:40
 

I’m having a great time as a parasite, so I can say it is, or can be, quite desirable.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2868
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
13 November 2019 00:49
 

Keeping with the Parasite image, I do think that our consciousness can, in some way, replicate: teaching and raising kids comes to mind.