Books That Will Make You Think Differently About Yourself
The concept behind this site is fairly simple. Our genes are controlling us a lot more than we think they are, but this is not a bad news story. We can, if we understand what our genes are up to, take control and live according to our rationally conceived objectives in life. This is not an idea that I have come up with on my own (though I may be one of its most ardent proponents). I've just grabbed onto it because I think it is the key to getting the most out of our time here. If we know that emotions are the brain's rapid response system, and we know that they evolved to react in certain ways to certain situations (social situations, in particular), then we have a leg up in the quest to think when circumstances require thought more than emotion. That, alone, I am convinced, would elevate the general happiness to levels that have never before been seen in mankind's history. To that end, I'd like to propose the creation of a book list, an enlightened caveman curriculum, if you will.
Let me first draw some lines in the sand. There are countless books that can be said to enlighten humanity - the dictionary comes to mind - so we need some criteria for books that will fit properly into this. The first is this: a book on this list must deal directly with human nature. It may be based in science, such as genetics, or any other field of study that is represented on accredited college campuses. Anthropologists and archaeologists have learned a great deal about who we are as a species, so it makes sense to include their efforts in our pursuit of enlightenment.
Second, the book must invoke concepts about human nature in a prescriptive way. That is to say, it isn't good enough to say that genes are selfish, which means our elaborate lives are the happenstance result of replicators replicating. (So The Selfish Gene , great as it is, is out.) The book has to say what the science and/or anthropology and/or archaeology prescribes for those of us looking for direction in life. We need to be able to practically apply what the academics have discovered.
I'll start by adding three books that have been particularly meaningful to me, and I'd ask that suggestions to the list adhere to the same general format - tell what the background information is, and then tell what is prescribed, and how it benefits mankind. Over time, hopefully, we'll have a nice list of books that all add credence and weight to the theme of this site. Of course, in the spirit of intellectual rigor, I'd welcome any recommendations of books that contradict the enlightened caveman concept.
These books are listed in no particular order.
1. Mean Genes : From Sex to Money to Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts
by Terry Burnham, Jay Phelan .
From the introduction:
Our brains have been designed by genetic evolution. Once we understand that design, it is no longer surprising that we experience tensions in our marriages, that our waistlines are bigger than we'd like, and that Big Macs are tastier than brown rice. To understand ourselves and our world, we need to look not to Sigmund Freud but rather to Charles Darwin.
The authors then go on to address the following list of topics: debt, getting fat, drugs, taking risks, greed, gender differences, beauty, infidelity, family, friends, and foes. In each case, they detail the ancient genetic strategies that are manifesting themselves in behavior and social phenomena today, and then they explain what shifts in thought are implied by the information if we are to improve our lives.
I must admit that I was in a pretty solid state of panic when I read the introduction to this book. I was thinking that these guys had basically beat me to the punch. Fortunately, as I read on, I realized that there really isn't very much overlap between my book and theirs. Yes, we're both working off the same general premise. However, my book is far less tactical. I'm focused on changing the way we think from the inside out - by starting with how we think of ourselves and what matters in life and then moving on to how we think about our fellow man - all for the sole purpose of bringing happiness to our lives. Burnham and Phelan, however, call their book a manual for the mind, and I have to agree with them.
For example, they explain that in ancestral times, it made sense to eat when food was available. Therefore, we are now a species that eats far more than it needs when food is plentiful (as it is in first-world countries). That means we have to consciously endeavor to control our intake of food. If we do not, we'll routinely find ourselves letting our belts out. Think of how many people in this country don't know this. The mass awareness of little tidbits like this could prolong and improve the lives of countless people. There are many, many others in this book.
2. Consilience : The Unity of Knowledge
by Edward O. Wilson.
From Chapter 6: The Mind
All that has been learned empirically about evolution in general and mental processes in particular suggests that the brain is a machine assembled not to understand itself, but to survive. Because these two ends are basically different, the mind unaided by factual knowledge from science sees the world only in little pieces. It throws a spotlight on those portions of the world it must know in order to live to the next day, and surrenders the rest to darkness.
Wilson's book is about reconsidering the way we teach and pursue knowledge. He argues that our schools break subjects apart (math, english, biology, etc.) for somewhat arbitrary reasons and that this works against the design of the mind, which is more comfortable with holistic approaches to learning. Consilience, he says, is, "...literally a 'jumping together' of knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation." The idea is that we shouldn't restrict ourselves to applying what we learn in computer-based neural networks to implementing better computer systems. We should ask what other phenomenon could be better understood by what we know about these inanimate, but elegant systems. It's about sythesis, and this, to me, begs a mental paradigm shift.
Wilson asserts that that the value of consilience is not something that can be proven with first principles or logical deduction. Its value is self-evident, as it has been chiefly responsible for most of the progress of our species. I can vouch for that in my own life. Any time I learn something new, I automatically ponder what this new information could bring to other things I've wondered about. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example, has so many other applications that counting them would be tough, and I thank Wilson for helping me think differently, about myself and the world around me.
3. The Science of Good and Evil : Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule
by Michael Shermer
From the Prologue:
Ultimate questions about social and moral behavior, while considerably more challenging [than questions about hunger and sex], must nevetheless be subjected to an evolutionary analysis. There is a science dedicated specifically to this subject called evolutionary ethics, founded by Charles Darwin a century and a half ago and continuing as a vigorous field of study and debate today. Evolutionary ethics is a subdivision of a larger science called evolutionary psychology, which attempts a scientific study of all social and psychological human behavior. The fundamental premise of these sciences is that human behavior evolved over the course of hundreds of thousands of years during our stint as hominid hunter gatherers, as well as over the course of millions of years as primates, and tens of millions of years as mammals.
In this book, Shermer takes aim at morality and ethics by arguing that humans came by the two long before religion or any codified social rules existed. In Chapter 5, called, "Can We Be Good Without God?", he addresses head on how we can rationally arrive at morality and be anchored to it as tightly (and rightly) as any religious person is to his or her morality. Throughout the book, the author calls upon all sorts of academic information, from evolutionary psychology to anthropology to sociology to make his points. And aside from the obvious benefits of seeing our tendency toward peity for what it is, he also brings out a really useful concept, using fuzzy logic to think differently about issues.
Shermer makes the point that the human tendency to dichotomize, to think something is either this way or that, must be guarded against, because life is simply not black and white. Better to think in terms of fractions. For example, at any given moment, I may be 20% altruistic and 80% nonaltruistic (selfish). Though, in the balance, I come off selfish at that time, it is incorrect to say that I am a selfish person. The situation may have called for selfishness. The bottom line is that circumstances have a lot to do with our morality. Being able to see people and ideas as shades of grey helps us to avoid moral absolutes that generally lead to division between people. This is a worthwhile message, to say the least.
So there you have it - three books that I think contribute to the enlightened caveman movement. There are more, but not too many, not to my knowledge. That's why I'm doing this. I'll finish my contributions in later posts. For now, I hope to learn about all the great books I've never heard of, books that will bolster my belief that here lies something big, something important.
17 Comments:
What a great idea. I LOVE this shit! And to think I get to go first! Okay okay, I've thought of a few books that I believe qualify for inclusion. I humbly submit the following list for consideration:
1. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker. This is a slightly flawed but nevertheless erudite and ambitious book about, well, human nature. I think the most prescriptive part lies in the author's warning not to believe the three major myths he dispells: the idea that the mind is a blank slate; the idea that human nature is that of a noble savage, and that there is a spiritual or non-material component to humanity--a ghost in the machine. The book really challenges a lot of conventional (and erroneous) beliefs about society, child rearing, politics, individual differences, religion, pain, etc., etc. Pinker emphasizes that evolution has a lot more to do with human nature than most people realize.
2. How We Believe by Michael Shermer. There might be several of Shermer's books you could include, but this one directly addresses the factors that go into beliefs, especially religious beliefs. Man is a pattern-seeking, story-telling species, and this informs much of what we do and what we believe in.
3. How We Know What Isn't so: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life by Thomas Gilovich. The author is a psychology professor at Cornell, I believe, and he does a great job of documenting the psychological evidence concerning cognitive biases. The facts indicate that human beings just aren't hard wired to think rationally. By reading this you'll become a more skillful thinker and a more responsible decision maker.
4. Learned Optimism by Martin Seligman. Why are so many people depressed? Psychologist Seligman explains that it has a lot to do with negative thinking, or pessimism. The book offers lots of practical advice about when and how to use optimism and overcome depression.
5. Living with our Genes by Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland. This book almost didn't make my list because of the prescriptive requirement, nevertheless I include it. The authors wrote an easily readable book about the important things about life and personality: aging, anger, emotion, hunger, worry, thinking, thrills, etc. Lots of case studies, too. The last chapter includes some thoughts on gene therapy and genetic engineering.
6. Happiness is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual by Dennis Prager. This is probably the least theoretical and most practical book on the list. Although Prager spends a few pages discussing human nature, genes, biochemistry and the like, most of the book is replete with suggestions on how to live more happily.
So there you have it. If I think of anything else I'll post another comment.
Anyone else?
4/14/2005 02:01:00 AM
My offering is less biological and more philosophical. For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, written by Rand in 1960, is essentially an overview of Objectivism. This little book explores the concept of “man as rational being”, by examining epistemology and its practical applications. Rand speaks of System-building—the integration of knowledge into a coherent sum and a consistent view of reality…
From the Preface: I am often asked whether I am primarily a novelist or a philosopher. The answer is: both. In a certain sense, every novelist is a philosopher, because one cannot present a picture of human existence without a philosophical framework; the novelist’s only choice is whether that framework is present in his story explicitly or implicitly, whether he is aware of it or not, whether he holds his philosophical convictions consciously or unconsciously. This involves another choice: whether his framework is his individual projection of existing philosophical ideas or whether he originates a philosophical framework of his own. I did the second. That is not the specific task of a novelist; I had to do it, because my basic view of man and of existence was in conflict with most of the existing philosophical theories. In order to define, explain and present my concept of man, I had to become a philosopher in the specific meaning of the term.
I first read this when I was an impressionable twenty-something. It profoundly affected my world-view, as well as reinforcing my adherence to the concept of individuality. Oh and, Rand has some decent fiction too.
4/14/2005 11:14:00 AM
Mine is a book called Myers in Modules by David Myers. This book was my psych 100 book nonetheless I learned a lot how the human mind bends reality to fit certain "goals" it has for survival. A lot of politics is the efficient allocation of resources and opportunity for happiness and knowing how we tick is the best way I can think of to making the best decisions for our lives. I also learned a lot about human nature from my mom's drill instructor who said, "10% of you are good, 10% of you are bad, and the other 80% of you are sheep."
4/14/2005 11:46:00 AM
OK Bill - here we go.
1. I haven't read The Blank Slate, but I have a read a couple of Pinker's others. If The Blank Slate comes off as they do, I would say he is decidedly not to be included in the list. Even if he illuminates us as to the particulars of our nature, he isn't really helping us unless he offers practical advice on what to do with what we've learned. This, above all else, is what is wrong with science writing today. Pinker may challenge erroneous beliefs, but does he demonstrate how holding those beliefs harms our experience of life? Does he offer new visions for life that are informed by putting aside silly ideas like dualism? This is my litmus test.
2. I haven't read this one, either. However, Shermer talks about in The Science of Good and Evil, so I'm inclined to accept it if...
it's prescriptive. It's one thing to help us understand why we're religious. It's quite another to extoll the benefits of not being religious, or better said, of not falling prey to the inherent need to explain and to have social alignment with others. Does he do this?
3. Again, haven't read it, but my questions are the same as 1 and 2.
4. I've read this and I think it's just simply wrong. It will therefore not be included, but not just because Seligman and I would disagree, but because the basis of his positive emotions work is clinical nonsense, not academic science.
He argues that we should focus on the positive emotions people have and not on the negative ones. We should look to emotionally healthy people for ideas on how to help those who are unhealthy. At the end of the day, he's flat-out full of shit. His recommendation - optimism. I get riled just thinking about how stupid it is.
Yes, we can all gain a great deal from life by being optimistic and by disassociating ourselves with negative people. However, to suggest that depression can be cured by being optimistic is simply naive. First of all, depression comes from a lot of directions - physiological (as in serotonin problems) and experiential (as in your life really does suck) and a combination of the two. I argue in my book that the number one reason for depression is that the world simply doesn't add up for most people. They follow their emotions seeking status and concurrence and wonder why they're still miserable when they've got everything society tells them they should have. They see themselves and the world unrealistically, and the result is unhappiness and depression.
5 and 6. Sorry, no dice. There are scores of books about what matters in life. If it's not based upon the scientific (or at least academic, which is to say researched and documented in peer reviewed journals) understanding of humanity, then it doesn't apply (even if it's great).
Bill - you've helped to clarify what I'm after here. It won't be easy, because this, in my view, is an entirely new genre of nonfiction. It's simply not enough to offer up science without making a deliberate effort to translate that science into actions that can be taken to improve life. On the flipside, it's also not enough to offer up wisdom on how to improve life that has no basis in what we know about Homo sapiens as a species. I'm after the intersection of the two.
See what I mean?
4/14/2005 05:03:00 PM
Robert - you pose an interesting book. I've read that one, and we've actually commented on it a bit recently in arguing which was better - Rand's fiction or nonfiction.
I'd have to say that the philosophical basis of Rand's book precludes her inclusion in this list. I, too, liked the book, but it doesn't fit the criteria. If it did, Eric Hoffer's, The True Believer, and Bertrand Russell's, The Conquest of Happiness, would top the list.
Clup - is this book prescriptive? Is the author saying, this is how the mind works, which means you need to do this or that in life? If not, it won't work. It doesn't matter that you took a lot from it. Lots of books fit that description.
I hope you're all seeing that there are VERY FEW books that are scientific and prescriptive at the same time. Interesting, isn't it?
I promise this wasn't meant to be a trick question or anything. It's just that we're venturing into a place that is hard to categorize because we all have little familiarity with it. You ought to see the blank looks on publishers and agents when you have this conversation with them. One wonders how any books ever get published.
Except, of course, for bullshit books like Seligman's that are sold as the equivalent of the "after-school special movie" in the self-help aisle.
4/14/2005 05:13:00 PM
Wait a second, Alice. I thought we hated Deepak? I haven't read him, but I was under the impression that his work is mumbo jumbo. No? Or are you joking?
"I am not sure that I agree however that a work needs to be prescriptive to enlighten humanity."
I wouldn't agree with that either. I'm not saying that. The point I have been clumsily trying to make has to do with who is making recommendations to us about how to get the most out of life and who is not.
Think about Gilligan's Island. Suppose the Professor was the purveyor of information on the island, but that's all he did. When Gilligan or the Skipper would spout off about something silly, he would correct them and explain the science behind what was really going on. Then, he'd just kick back in his hammock and hang out - the job's done. That's what our academics, at least in the many of the sciences, are doing.
But the Professor was hands on. He took the knowledge he had and translated it into actions that could be taken by all on the island to better their conditions. He didn't leave it to Gilligan and the Skipper to infer what to do based upon what they'd been told, but that's exactly what Pinker et al do.
Do any of you frequent the self-help aisle in the book store? I'd venture to say the answer is no. Reason? Because the people who are telling you how to get the most out of life are no more credible than Ann Landers or Dr. Laura (not a real doctor, ya know). They have seen some things that work and they have an affinity for generalizing concepts into platitudes, and for putting a marketable spin on them (positive emotions, for example). But, at the end of the day, most of us can't relate to anecdotes about Gus who works as a shoe salesman who found personal peace by learning to be optimistic. Makes me want to puke, really. I'm not saying these books don't have something to offer. I'm just saying that when they do, it is largely a matter of luck - you just *happen* to relate to what they're saying.
Basing self-help (that is, prescriptive writing) in science, however, is altogether different. If you get it, it's because you're intelligent enough to understand the concepts and the author has been successful at helping you convert the concepts into actionable options. The *content* is universally applicable or nearly so - we're all human, no? It isn't restricted to people who can relate to Gus. See what I mean?
So, all I'm saying is that the people who *should* be guiding us in living better lives (the academics and the people who can translate academic findings into digestable material) aren't, for the most part. They've abdicated that responsibility to Dr.Phil.
As we ponder what to include in this list, it becomes more and more clear to me that there is an entire genre of writing that barely even exists. Of course, we can be enlightened by anything that gets us access to an area of solution space we have heretofore never accessed. But wouldn't it be nice if someone was there when we arrived to make suggestions on what to do with what we've learned?
4/15/2005 11:47:00 AM
"Wouldn't the works of Freud satisfy your criterion?"
Frued, from my reading, was the equivalent of Dr.Phil in his day. He came up with some ideas that seemed to be confirmed by his clinical research. The thing that made him so great was that his psychotherapy concept was so appealing. Who wouldn't like to have an objective person to spill their guts to on a regular basis? Someone who was wise and could help you navigate the inexplicability of life?
But Frued, and Dr. Phil, and Dr. Seligman were and are all *clinical* psychologists. Their research is nothing more than a series of anecdotes aggregated to produce *theories* about how things are. If Freud surmised that we all have little tiny men in our heads and he was able to successfully treat emotionally disturbed patients by convincing them that they had to learn to control the little men (and he had a twelve step program for accomplishing that), people would call it scientific, but it really isn't.
The difference is that anecdotal, empirical science is useful for testing hypotheses that are based in something concrete. That's why pharma companies use chemistry to find compounds that affect certain antigens, and *then* they use clinical trials to put their theoretical science to the test. With most self-help, they skip the science and go straight to the empirical stuff. That's the problem.
Wilson may very well turn out to be wrong, but if he does, it will be because the underlying science that led to him to his conclusions turned out to be wrong, or he made some mistake in drawing the conclusions he drew. When Dr.Phil turns out to be wrong, it is because the particular person he is dealing with doesn't relate to his brand of tough love therapy. Big difference.
BTW - now I realize that you were joking about Deepak. Sorry so dense.
4/15/2005 12:03:00 PM
Are you suggesting that Deepak Chopra isn’t credible?...I can’t continue living.
Basing self-help (that is, prescriptive writing) in science, however, is altogether different. If you get it, it's because you're intelligent enough to understand the concepts and the author has been successful at helping you convert the concepts into actionable options. The *content* is universally applicable or nearly so - we're all human, no?
That’s a fairly sweeping statement. We humans certainly share common physicality and a similar mental framework. However, the vast differences (even among identical twins) lie in the complexities of neural processes and genetic make-up. Individual experiences, coupled with idiosyncrasies and proclivities, are the stuff of consciousness. I seriously doubt that a one size fits all set of recommendations could be practical.
If what you’re after is a road map for the pursuit of happiness, I would argue that everyone’s is unique. Sure, pop-culture offers conformity and acceptance as the keys to contentment. The fact may be that, for many, “normality” will suffice. Unless I’m mistaken, your post seeks to find answers to questions that may only be discovered by each individual during the course of a lifetime. I do think though, that the media pop-psyches are modern day snake oil salesmen.
4/15/2005 03:29:00 PM
One size fit all obviously doesn't work but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Like in business, people write business theory and how to practically apply it, but is it a formula? Are there simple steps to follow? No, because business is complicated as the humany psyche. There are certain generalities that work and bind all business together and so on. It doesn't mean though that a compilation of "business" books can't help you be prepared for the individual situations you will be faced with.
4/16/2005 04:08:00 PM
One size fit all obviously doesn't work but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Like in business, people write business theory and how to practically apply it, but is it a formula? Are there simple steps to follow? No, because business is complicated as the humany psyche. There are certain generalities that work and bind all business together and so on. It doesn't mean though that a compilation of "business" books can't help you be prepared for the individual situations you will be faced with.
4/16/2005 04:09:00 PM
One size fit all obviously doesn't work but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Like in business, people write business theory and how to practically apply it, but is it a formula? Are there simple steps to follow? No, because business is complicated as the humany psyche. There are certain generalities that work and bind all business together and so on. It doesn't mean though that a compilation of "business" books can't help you be prepared for the individual situations you will be faced with.
4/16/2005 04:09:00 PM
Does a book have to be explicitly prescriptive to fit your list's criterion?
The Rand books and some of Dennett's stuff seem to imply a prescriptive approach towards understanding ourselves.
4/16/2005 06:38:00 PM
"But Frued, and Dr. Phil, and Dr. Seligman were and are all *clinical* psychologists. Their research is nothing more than a series of anecdotes aggregated to produce *theories* about how things are..."
Not so about Seligman. Along with being a therapist, he's done a lot of empirical research as well.
4/17/2005 04:16:00 AM
"That’s a fairly sweeping statement."
Yes, I'm fond of those. In fact, I believe that generalization is generally underrated. By recognizing patterns and trends (even among things that are seemingly unrelated), we infer interesting things about our world.
As far as human nature is concerned, can we not look back into history and see humans reacting in pretty consistent ways to situations that share commonalities? Can we not see, for example, that socialism fails because once the group gets above a certain size, corruption creeps in, corruption that is rooted in the challenges faced in the course of survival as a caveman? Can we not recognize that jealousy accounts for a significant portion of murder motives, as it always has?
The point is that it is the broad brushstrokes that are the most useful. But your point is well taken, and it leads directly to my point.
If generalization can overreach its grasp, then we should be careful about when and how we employ it. That means we can't necessarily buy into the impact of the pawcity of patients who respond favorably to focusing on "positive emotions." If we can tie it somehow to how our brains work or to some natural proclivity that has its roots in our heritage as a species, then I think we can feel a little better about it.
"The Rand books and some of Dennett's stuff seem to imply a prescriptive approach towards understanding ourselves."
Imply is the key word there. I've read a few Rand books and a couple of Dennett's books. I don't recall an explicit area where either of them say - I've figured this and that out and it means such and such in terms of finding happiness in life. On its face, it sounds silly - not something befitting an erudite scholar. But why not?
It seems to me that folks like Dennett probably have some pretty keen insights into how think about being a person in a modern world, and more importantly, how to apply those thoughts to making the most of our time here. Bertrand Russell thought enough of the rest of us to write, The Conquest of Happiness (which is brilliant, by the way).
As for Seligman's empirical research - no dice.
Not because I'm saying he hasn't done any, but because it doesn't matter. The guy is a clinical psychologist. Yes, he's got an impressive resume of academic work, but it is clear that basic concepts about human nature do not find their way into his assertions.
He doesn't recognize that many people are depressed because their impressions of what life should be do not match what they see in the mirror every day. These impressions, I say, are a direct result of our caveman genes.
When we understand how it is our ancient minds are driving our thoughts, feelings, and actions, it becomes possible to redirect all of it. But in Seligman's empirically researched world, one need only accentuate the positive and ignore the negative. Sorry, I think he's a kook, even if his schtick does work for some people.
So the list is still small. When I get more time, I have another installment of books - but these may surprise you.
4/19/2005 02:06:00 AM
I'm inclined at first blush to lampoon this notion of transactional analysis, or specifically the idea that there are three entities competing for space on our big screens. So I'd want to see the basis for this before I was willing to say it fits the genre we're talking about here.
Freud talked about the id, the ego, and the superego, and, like a horoscope, these concepts rang true (and still do) for many people. But he made them up out of thin air, which is why no reputable mental health counselor uses them. My fear is that whoever this transactional analysis person is is in the same boat. Do provide details, however.
As for your recent trip, I have found that whenever you get together with people with whom you've once shared close concurrence, it goes in one of two ways. With most of my male friends, we pick up right where we left off and leave the details to stream in as we spend time together. With others, the first few hours/days are spent re-establishing our concurrence. We bring each other up to speed on everything - the focus is on ourselves and our lives, whereas in the other case, our focus is on whatever we're doing (fishing, skiing, concert, etc.).
For some relationships, the concurrence is a given, no matter how much time has transpired. For others, there's always the need to validate the concurrence again and again. The latter tries too hard, if you ask me.
4/19/2005 10:49:00 AM
EC you will surely be interested in "The Robot's Rebellion : Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin" by Keith E. Stanovich.
The author cogently argues for using our rational analytical minds to overcome the "autonomous set of systems" installed in us by selfish replicators (genes and memes). The author highlights the fact that although there is often significant overlap between gene-installed goals and those that we would rationally chose for ourselves as vehicles, there are also significant areas where such goals do not overlap. Critically, these areas are often those behaviors which sacrifice the interests of the vehicle to serve the interests of the genes (or memes). Sacrificing ourselves to serve the interests of a mindless replicating molecule is almost never rational. Similarly, the irrationality of sacrificing the vehicle to serve memes (such as religion) is also highlighted.
By separating our goals into those which have been gene-installed, those which have been installed in us as children and those which we may rationally choose to pursue as thinking adults, we are taking the first steps towards freeing ourselves from the interests of selfish replicators. This ability to set and pursue goals which are independent or even contradictory to our genetic goals is a product of our analytical minds and the memeplex that is science. Although our analytical mind is as much built by our genes as any other part of our mind, it has over evolutionary time become further distanced from "direct" genetic control (because greater intelligence must have provided short-term selective advantage). This happy occurrence gives us the unique potential to turn the tables on our genes and become the first robots on this planet to rebel against our controlling replicators.
A fascinating and well-argued book, thoroughly grounded in evolutionary and cognitive science. It is not an easy read, but the insights provided are well worth the effort. Highly recommended.
5/01/2005 01:07:00 PM
I recently read an excellent book called "The Face In the Mirror: The Search For The Origins of Consciousness" by Julian Keenan.
Basically, this book goes into self-recognition theory and experiments that show that mirror recognition is essential to consciousness. For instance, they've found that the only animals that show face/mirror recognition are humans, chimps, and to a lesser degree, dolphins. They haven't been able to get orang-utans or apes to consistently show such recognition.
He gives an "excellent biomedical perspective of the science of...consciousness and the evolution of self-awareness..." is one of the reviews that hits the nail on the head.
The book is written for the layman, and it's enjoyable and fascinating from page one. I recommend it highly.
Another book I would recommend is "Why God Won't Go Away," by Andrew Newberg MD, Eugene D'Aquili, MD, PhD, and Vince Rause. This book has to do with the emerging field of neurotheology, the relationship between spirituality and the brain. I found the experiments on brain activity when experiencing spiritual occurrances, from meditation to death, extremely fascinating. Apparantly there are areas of the brain that are specifically geared towards spiritual experience.
I recommend both highly.
Sidhe
5/13/2005 02:59:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home