Genetic Philosophy

As I mentioned in a previous blog, “A New Paradigm?,” philosophy in general rarely seems to go anywhere or solve any problems because there is no well-defined starting place from which philosophy begins nor do we know where it is supposed to end. It is often asked, “How should I (or we) live?” which seeks a moral foundation for living while completely ignoring both the beginning and ending points of our nature.

While we might say that we do philosophy for the sake of examining our own lives, pursuing the truth (whatever that means, nevermind what the truth is alleged to do for us), or inoculating ourselves against bad ideas, whatever reason any of us have for doing philosophy is ancillary to our very existence. So, might it be a good idea to at least begin philosophy from the question “How did I (or we) get here?” and end it by answering the question, “Where am I (or we) going?” At first glance, it may seem a bit arbitrary to pick these as starting and ending points for philosophy, but I do not think there are better points to begin working from, for doing philosophy from these points is at least based upon something concrete; our existence. [Or at least one’s own existence since we cannot prove others exist. But I digress…]

To once again paraphrase Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, our genes use us, not the other way around. In the old Nature vs. Nurture debate (which shapes our lives more?), being nurtured is secondary to our Nature, our existence, so I don’t see how Nurture could shape our lives more than our Nature. Even the most rational person, nurtured to believe in logic and nothing else, is prone to bouts of irrationality. How could this be? Because we do not have conscious control over the entire world, much less ourselves, and this is due to the expression of our genes: Emotions are chemically driven and underwritten by the very way we are built. Realizing the power our genes have over us in attempting to get themselves into the next generation presents great explanatory power over otherwise seemingly irrational behavior. People who declare themselves rational constantly bicker over ideas because of the lack of a philosophical starting point and finishing line, but by agreeing with Dawkins about the goal of our genes gives philosophy a place to start from and finish. (And, of course, all rational people – or at least rational atheists – agree with Dawkins.)

Take, for example, how problematic devising an ethical system is. There is no flawless ethical system because there is no starting or ending point for ethical conundrums. In cases where those points are defined, such points betray what the person arguing for any given idea favors, revealing how they think the world should operate because it suits them. If an ethical system is, say, devised such that our actions should not cause physical harm to others, what is often revealed is that this is simply the preference of the person advocating such a position who, when pressed, can’t really express why they have taken such a position. What’s revealed is that the advocate’s position is actually rooted in their emotions and not so much in reason, with emotions being rooted in our biology to a greater degree than our capacity to be rational. Meta-ethics has failed to answer where ethics arise from because most meta-ethical hypotheses place ethical origins in some mythical, ethereal, or mental world and not in our own bodies. Meta-ethics has failed because it has failed to focus on the question “Why be ethical?” from the point of view of our genes’ survival (Evolutionary Psychology notwithstanding). Why ought we not physically harm others if it helps advance our genes or the best genes of our species into the next generation? [By ‘best,’ I mean two things: Genes that manifest the most favorable traits in a given environment and gives us the genetic variety necessary to withstand a disease that would otherwise wipe out the species.] Of course, maybe the belief that we shouldn’t physically harm others helps stabilize communities (read: tribes) which in turn gives us access to more mates and resources that aid survival.

These points considered, it is perhaps best to start philosophy from the point of “I (or we) exist” (having previously countered counters to Descartes’ initially false assertion). For now, since there are more pressing questions, we’ll have to regulate to the background how our parents genes got us where we are in order to focus on the question of how we’re going to live given that our genes are going to express themselves over the course of our lives. How will they make us behave? What problems will we encounter simply because we exist and how will we attempt to fix those problems?

Although not meant to be an exhaustive list, I have (as have others) identified several key obstacles regarding an individual’s existence. They are:

One is trying to overcome death (the most basic biological imperative).

One is trying not to be hungry (so as to overcome death and be fit for mating).

One is trying to avoid illness (so as to overcome death and be fit for mating).

One is trying to overcome fear (so they can take risks necessary to find food, mates, etc.).

One is trying to live without being controlled (so they can take risks necessary to find food, mates, etc.). 

One is trying to reproduce (or may have sexual urges based on a biological imperative…which is meant to overcome death through the passing on of genes.)

Now let’s attempt to ask a simple question – “How should I (or we) live?” – and see if Genetic Philosophy can give us a less complex answer and less hoops than traditional philosophy. Rationally, we know we cannot overcome death; our genes are programmed to die at some point. We have few options in overcoming death: either ensure that our name goes down in history (a short term solution, but potentially long if you’re a Greek philosopher or insane dictator), get our genes into the next generation through reproduction (potentially a long term solution so long as our offspring keep reproducing), or both. [Let’s rule out some mad scientist being able to manipulate our biology and make us live forever since none of us can outlive the universe. Would we even want to? Is immortality worth it? Ah, so many questions…]

Among our choices, trying to get your name to go down in history is fraught with difficulties; in fact, almost all of the most famous people in history weren’t even attempting to be famous and are instead famous because of others’ fascination with whatever they did. Moreover, assuming one rises to prominence does not mean they are going to enjoy their fame after they have died. I might also add that becoming a historical figure will only last as long as the species or the Earth is around. The only practical solution to overcoming death then is to get our genes into the next generation, and hope that our decedents pass the genes on, so on and so forth. This becomes our starting point in answering the question, “How should I (or we) live?” [Assuming one doesn’t want to have children, one can still examine the question from the ‘genetic’ point of view since our biology commands us in other ways.]

If it seems like the next logical thing to say once we’ve accepted the desire to get our genes into the next generation is that we should do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal, one is oversimplifying the situation. [While we are trying to have Genetic Philosophy give us simple answers, we mustn’t oversimplify.] If we thought clubbing a woman over the head and dragging her back to our home was the best way to get our genes into the next generation, we have to accept all the risks that go along with such behavior. The biggest problem is that we’d have to accept that violence may be done to us in competing for a mate which goes against our primary instincts to survive. Second, our offspring would be locked in a never-ending battle over resources which would reduce their chances of getting their genes (and ours) passed on. Collectively, we do not want that and how (Western) societies are set up reflects this.

Western society, as it has evolved (so to speak) appears to have unconsciously adopted genetic philosophy and created societies geared towards equality for all because that appears to offer everyone the best chance of accomplishing the goal of producing offspring. Certainly racial tensions and a tribal mindset still exist, but such base desires are really a manifestation of resource competitions. If recognized for what they are, racism and tribalism can become something of a vestigial appendix of the human mind. (I hope, anyway.) The problem entering the equation comes in when we do not consciously considered how our biology inclines us to act. Naturally, ancient Scandinavians and ancient Polynesians are going to differ wildly in their behaviors and values as the environment each evolved in has had a dramatic effect on their biology, and hence, also each one’s behavior and values.

So, when asking a question such as “How should I (or we) live?” should be answered every step of the way in accordance with our biological needs and desires. Or, supposing we don’t want a child for some reason undoubtedly based upon our biology, how our biology affects us. For example, I know that if I allow the slow driver in front of me to anger me, that raises the levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) in my bloodstream and elevated levels of cortisol in my bloodstream is damaging to my body over time. Being aware of my biology helps me become aware of my situation and allows me to take a moment to analyze the situation. That sure sounds deceptively simple but it is not: If I know the biological cost of anger, I might be inclined to find ways of managing my emotions so as to avoid anger.

Any good philosopher should have or be thinking of objections to my so-called Genetic Philosophy by now. For example, one might ask: Could Genetic Philosophy be used to enslave people, say, women? My answer would be, it shouldn’t, for two reasons. First, as a species we should seek genetic variety because this helps prevent a species from being wiped out by a single disease. Second, at least in part, genetic variety leads to a differing of cultures which may be a potential source of alternate or competing ideas when trying to problem-solve. Having different genders and cultures allows for different ideas, and a diversity of ideas is necessary for long-term survival. As you can see, a simple question with a simple answer (that I may have oversimplified).

I believe that Genetic Philosophy, as I like to call it, has the potential to solve ages old debates such as whether abortion or capital punishment should be permissible, how should I (or we) live, what the meaning of life is, and – due to the nature of doing philosophy from a genetic point of view – whether or not it is okay to be irrational. My hopes for Genetic Philosophy may be misplaced as I have yet to thorough test a single issue just mentioned using this new paradigm. But, I will get around to it as soon as my genes will allow.

Solipsism: Finally Defeated

[Part Three of my recent investigation into metaphysics and consciousness in an attempt to defeat solipsism. As I’ve said before, it is important that solipsism to be defeated before any other philosophy can begin. While I’ve defeated solipsism on practical grounds in an earlier blog, and practical grounds figure into what I am about to present, the previous victory is admittedly hallow. So I began writing and writing until I came up with an argument that convincingly defeats solipsism. Given the answer I present here, I can look back and see just how much I – and others – have over-thought this problem, mainly because I – and others – initially refuse to accept the premise of solipsism. Solipsism cannot be defeated from the outside; it can only be defeated from within. Can solipsism be defeated? Yes. How? By accepting it. Please read on]

Solipsism is the name given to the idea that one’s own existence – particularly one’s own mental existence – is the only existence there is. Solipsism posits that there are no other minds besides one’s own and that the world of extended objects does not exist either. Although solipsism sounds nonsensical to the uninitiated, I and many others consider solipsism the greatest of all philosophical problems. There really does not seem to be a way to be certain that a world outside of one’s own mind exists.

To tackle this dilemma, it is necessary to accept the premise of solipsism rather than dismissing it simply because a world of extended objects appears obvious. [This assumes a previous acceptance of the idea that I am something that has experiences. And why not? It’s undeniable.] Upon accepting the premise, I – and maybe you if you exist – am inclined to ask some investigative questions, “Why this world and not another? Why would I imagine the world such as it is if I can imagine a better existence for myself? If I am all there is, what could possibly motivate me to perceive anything else?” Given my circumstances, it does not seem logical that my mental creation of the world would be coming from within myself if I have the capability of creating any world I want, assuming I even have such a need. If the world is my mental creation but I cannot create the world I want when I want, there has to be some explanation why not. And so I consider possibilities.

I can only think of one. Could it be that subconsciously I understand I am not ready for such an undertaking? If psychoanalysts, as a figments of my imagination, are correct about how the mind (my mind) works then certainly I have unconscious thoughts. But if I consciously wish that I did not have subconscious thoughts, why are they still there? (Well, I’d have to assume they are there; I can’t be sure if they are unconscious thoughts.) Perhaps subconscious thoughts are a reflex like breathing or my heart beating, but I have some conscious control over those reflexes even if I cannot stop such reflexes altogether. But what control do I have over subconscious thoughts? None and I cannot wish them away if they are there. But I do not consciously accept this explanation; I refuse to accept it on the grounds that I consciously assume that a desire for my life to be better is stronger than (and thus able to override) whatever subconscious thoughts that make or keep my world such as it is.

This Argument from Subconsciousness fails to explain why the world is the way it is if the world is a figment of my imagination. Problematically, I can think of no competing hypothesis other than the one I just presented as to how the world can appear as it is if it is created out of my own mind. Every other explanation I can think of as to why the world is the way it is even if it is all in my mind brings some other entity or element into the equation that must be outside of myself affecting my thoughts. The only way I can bring another entity or element into the equation that allows for control over my thoughts while still remaining a solipsist can only end in a self-manifested case of schizophrenia; that is, I – as more than one mental being – am controlling my own thoughts for undisclosed reasons. But then any such other mental being I am is stuck manifesting a world with their thoughts that I assume would be less than their ideal state, meaning, their situation is simply and likewise a variety of the Argument from Subconsciousness. Thus, this explanation is prone to the same flaw.

At this point I know that the world I perceive cannot be a construct of my own mind simply because of my limited ability to shape the world according to my conscious desires. I could be tempted to raise an objection to that statement and consider that the world I perceive can in fact be shaped according to my conscious desires, if only to a limited agree (that is, to a similar degree I have conscious control over breathing or my heart beating). My response to such an objection would be that I agree, but only in a manner of speaking: If I want more money, I can always work more or change careers or network with the right people, but changing the world in this sense is beholden to the laws of physics my mind accepts as real. On the other hand, if one is arguing for the ability to literally reshaping the world, defying the laws of physics to bring about changes, I would ask why are there limits to what my mind can do if it is my mind making the changes. I would much prefer to have an unlimited capability to reshape the world with my mind if I did in fact have such powers. Again, it’s the Argument from Subconsciousness which I’ve already argued is not a plausible scenario.

To be clear, what I’ve argued up to this point is not that my mind doesn’t create the world I perceive, rather I have argued that my perception of a world of extended objects must be driven by forces external to my mind since I have no reason to believe my mind, which can only be beholden to my will if I alone exist, would create the world such as I perceive it. I can certainly question where the sensory data is coming from that drives my particular perception of reality but it seems nonsensical to think that sensory data could be coming from myself considering my lack of ability to manipulate it. If it were the case that the data were coming from myself, I cannot imagine how or why that would be possible. It is much easier to imagine that a world of extended objects, with all its various qualities, encroach upon my sensory apparatuses (even if there is a sole sensory apparatus; the mind) to create experiences in my mind. While there remains the possibility that those qualities may be forced upon my mind, they are forced upon me from outside my mind’s ‘boundary.’ This doesn’t necessitate the existence of other minds per se, just that something besides my mind exists. That said, if I know something besides my own mind exists, I am no longer solipsistic and the existence of other minds at least appears plausible.

However, if there are in fact no minds other than my own, I can only conclude that I am God. Strangely, not a single figment of my imagination considers me to be so.

Update: 9/1/13

In promoting my blog on Youtube, one gentleman – a fan of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein – strongly objected to my argument against solipsism, saying first that I was ignorant of the subject and second that just because I cannot provide an explanation for how or why my mind is the only existent thing, doesn’t mean there is a how or why; it just MAY BE or IS the case that my mind is all there is (a very Taoist argument, I must say). 

Since I am unaffected by his attempted ad hominid  attack, which was brought on by a minor slip in language on my part, I’ll get right to his second point. On one hand I agree with my detractor when it comes to the ‘why’ of possible solipsism. Asking ‘why’ something is the case implies a reason why I may be solipsistic (even if I don’t want to be) and reasons imply intelligence. The universe, were it intelligent, might ask itself why it is all there is. But the universe is not an intelligent being, insofar as we are familiar with the term, and thus to imagine the universe asking itself ‘why’ it exists is not a legitimate question. Now, just because I appear to be an intelligent being to myself or at least a sentient being does not mean I am either such thing. So asking myself ‘why’ my mind is all there is certainly may be a nonsensical question. 

On the other hand, asking ‘how’ I may be solipsistic is a perfectly legitimate question. ‘How’ is precisely what science pursues. Even Analytic Philosophy pursues ‘how’ things are (if not the ‘why’), demonstrating how conclusions are drawn from premises. But my detractor believes asking ‘how’ is a nonsensical activity also – at some point, he writes, you just have to accept the description removed from the cause (quoting Wittgenstein). So it seems this detractor believes that some things or events do not have causes or believes in a first cause for which there is no ‘how’ or explanation. The problem with believing that there once was a point for which no ‘how’ exists is indefensible; one cannot argue that everything has a cause – a ‘how’ – except for the first thing. Atheists certainly don’t let theists get away with that tired inconsistency of logic and I’m not allowing it here as an objection to my argument against solipsism. Worse, my detractor’s counter-argument is even weaker if he tries to say some things have causes and others don’t, implying he has arbitrary guidelines for what constitutes a cause and what doesn’t (or his definition of ‘cause’ is derived from Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language, which has its critics). I may not know the ‘how’ of my solipsism but the ‘how’ nonetheless exists as a concept within myself if my mind is all there is. Even if, supposing I am not an intelligent being or at least a sentient being, there is a still a ‘how;’ how is it that my mind is all there is?

So my detractor may be correct that my original investigative questions, “Why this world and not another? Why would I imagine the world such as it is if I can imagine a better existence for myself? If I am all there is, what could possibly motivate me to perceive anything else?” are off the mark. But if I replace ‘why’ with ‘how,’ where the ‘how’ is an explanation intelligible to myself since my mind is everything there is – thoughts, objects, other people, etc. – taking up solipsism is once again shown to be so convoluted that it shouldn’t be assumed that my mind is all there is.