Skip to main content

it's all local, sez Dawkins

Dawkins describes how embryological development is completely local. No master plan: Just many local interactions, each of which is directed by the set of instructions contained therein. Just like a flock of birds flying together so that they look like they are all part of one graceful whole. But they are not: rather, each is following its own set of instructions. True, that set of instructions is the same in kind for each bird. But there is a different instance of these instructions for each bird. Dawkins points out that if you want to simulate the movement of a flock of birds on the 2 dimensional computer screen, you don't write one computer program for the whole: rather, you write one program for one bird, telling it how to adjust to the movements of other birds. Then you clone it for as many birds as there are.

This is an elegant argument against the unity of not just an embryo, but of any organism. Dawkins himself doesn't carry it that far, but there is no reason why one could not suppose that an adult human is nothing more than a set of cells, each of which has its own set of instructions. Cells in different organs or parts of organs may look different from others elsewhere, but that is because they are reading different instructions from the same operations manual, based on differing signals they get from their immediate environment. In such a case, human action is our name for a whole, which, like the flock of birds, seems to more united than it really is. In such a case, there is no such thing as a scientist. What a curious thing it would be if there were science but no scientists! But that would follow. I suppose Dawkins would confidently, and quite eloquently accept this conclusion. But wait--there is no Dr. Dawkins: only his eloquent words, much like the smile of the Cheshire cat.

One can object that this applies embryos but not to adults. But to object thus without explaining why would be to engage in special pleading, the fallacy where one denies that a generally accepted principle applies in all cases except for where one wishes it didn't apply. To avoid this fallacy, one must explain why the line of anlaysis applies in one case and not the other. As soon as I find Dawkins addressing that question, I will post it here.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more