Daniel Dennett talk redux
Jeremy Henty
This is an account of Daniel Dennett's lecture at Lady Mitchell Hall
on Friday 2006/03/17 . It is based on the notes I took while
attending and written up later the same evening (and early the next
morning). All statements should be attributed to Dennett (or rather,
to my imperfect recall of his speech) unless the subject is "I", in
which case they are due to me. I abbreviate "Daniel Dennett" to "DD".
The talk referred frequently to his recent book "Breaking the Spell
...", so you should interpret references to "breaking" and "spell" in
that light.
DD explains that the spell he wishes to break is not religion itself,
but the belief that we should not study religion naturalistically.
Such a study would presume that religion is a natural phenomenon. It
could fail, which would be evidence that religion is supernatural.
Indeed, how else could we assert that religion is supernatural other
than by demonstrating that a naturalistic investigation of religion
fails to explain it? (Note that the Catholic church validates
miracles by investigating them and asserting that they have no natural
explanation.)
(DD inserts a gag about the resemblance between himself and Charles
Darwin (whom he identifies only as "my hero", but we all know who he
means).)
*Why* should we study religion in this way? Because it is relevant to
many important issues! Having good intentions is not enough
(Prohibition, Communism, even Apartheid, were all endorsed by many
goodwilled people, but they still caused great harm). Therefore we
must understand religion, therefore we must study it.
Imagine what a Martian biologist would notice if they studied Earth.
DD cites massive human congregations (at the Ganges, the Vatican,
etc.) and suggests that our alien biologist would reasonably wonder:
"Why is this happening?", "What is it for?".
Consider 5 scenarios for the future of religion:
1) One religion sweeps the world.
All religions are currently minorities (DD presents a pie chart
showing that Christianity is currently the biggest: about one
third of the population) so this option would surely entail much
conflict.
2) All religions disappear in the near future.
Unlikely? Religions have disappeared in the past, and their
churches are now museums. (DD shows an example of one such
ex-church, but I didn't note what it was.)
3) Religions evolve into something more mundane: moral creed clubs,
with much pageantry but little dogma.
4) Religion goes out of fashion. Rather like smoking, people still
do it but they try to be discreet about it and are expected not
to blow their smoke in other people's faces.
5) Judgement Day: Jesus Christ initiates the Apocalypse. (DD
mentions a poll which claims 57% of his countryfolk believe in
this one.)
These possibilities are mutually inconsistent, so all (save at most
one) are wrong. Nobody knows which (if any) is right, which is why it
is urgent that we study religion.
DD introduces the dairy cow. It is descended from the Aurochs, a wild
animal that was designed unconsciously by natural selection to produce
more Aurochs. Our ancestors domesticated the Auriochs and redesigned
it (at first unconsciously, then deliberately) to benefit themselves.
We have created the dairy cow by reverse engineering the Aurochs and
optimising its features for our own good.
(I think the next paragraph is the key point of the talk.)
(DD asserts:) Modern religions are like the dairy cow, they are
products of natural selection which we have domesticated and
redesigned for our own ends. Therefore they can be reverse
engineered.
Many people object to reverse engineering religion. Strangely, they
do not object to musicologists doing the same to music, or biologists
unravelling the biosphere, or similar studies of the economy, energy
systems, etc. (Actually I'm not sure that DD mentioned the economy,
my memory may have inserted that one.)
Consider:
1) An ant climbs to the top of a leaf and stays there. It has been
infected by a fluke that invades its brain and changes its
behaviour. Why does the fluke make the ant do this? Because it
needs to be eaten by a cow to continue its life cycle!
2) Toxoplasma infects mice. Then it needs to get inside a cat.
Infected mice become fearless (DD displays a Mighty Mouse
cartoon) so they are more likely to get eaten.
A parasite can modify its host's brain, inducing suicidal behaviour to
serve its own ends. Gosh, is this familiar? Consider that "Islam"
means "submission". Consider similar Christian texts (DD presents one
that describes the Word of God as a seed that we carry, so obtaining
eternal life). These are "Ideas to die for".
DD asks if anyone present thinks that the purpose of their life is to
have more grandchildren than their neighbours. No-one does. DD
points out that this is astonishing. Other species are governed by
the goal of reproducing as much as possible (to be precise, maximising
genetic fitness). Why are we so unique? Because we have ideas to die
for: memes that have hijacked our brains.
Memes are like viruses; they are naked replicators which are not
alive, but can provoke living things to make copies of themselves.
Words are memes. A person creating a poem from words is like a bird
building a nest from twigs.
DD proposes an evolutionary story of how religion arose. This story
is a "sketch of a sketch". It shows that such a story is possible.
It may be wrong. Right or wrong, it could be a basis for research.
In this story religion (like many other things) arises from an
instinct, one that we share with other animals. This instinct is the
HADD (hyperactive agent detection device). (I had to Google this
acronym because I didn't write down its meaning at the talk.
Nevertheless I'm sure this is right. It certainly wasn't "Hikers
Against Doo-Doo" (not making this up, Google it yourself if you don't
believe me!))
The HADD responds to the unexpected by asking "Who is there?", "What
do you want?". This generates wild memes: superstitions, talking
trees, imps, goblins. Wild memes (like the Aurochs) exist for
themselves. They don't need their host's cooperation. To propagate
without their host's cooperation they must be unforgettable. A wild
meme that is hard to learn will die by natural selection.
But wild memes (like the Aurochs) can be domesticated. A domesticated
meme can afford to be hard to learn. A spoken word is a wild meme; it
spreads without its host's cooperation. A written word is
domesticated; it needs the cooperation of its host to spread but it
can survive being forgettable because it has teachers. Cf. the
differential calculus!
Consider how smart it was of sheep to acquire shepherds. They
outsourced their problems to another species (us!), and now
domesticated sheep vastly outnumber wild ones. But it was not *their*
smartness, it was the smartness of natural selection. (Sheep are
actually rather stupid; they have unusually small brains, even when
you account for them being bred for body mass.)
Folk religions (imps, elves, etc.) are wild memes and organised
religions came from us domesticating those memes. Like domesticated
animals, organised religions are now designed for our sake, not
theirs.
What did people gain from domesticating folk religions? Suggestions:
1) A way to make decisions.
Think coin-flipping, casting the bones, examining the entrails of
sacrifices, etc.
(Credit: Julian Jaynes, "The Origin of Consciousness in the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", which DD describes as a
wonderful book with a thousand original ideas, ten of which are
really good, but no-one agrees which ten.)
2) Props for the placebo effect.
Hypnotism has real curative power (not just analgesic). Shamans
used this. If you were resistant to being hypnotised you had no
health insurance.
If this sounds fanciful, consider that most human adults (like
most mammals) are lactose intolerant, but lactose tolerance has
appeared in societies with a tradition of dairy farming. So a
gene (lactose tolerance) can co-evolve with a meme (dairy
farming).
(Credit: McClenan.)
3) Surrogate Police Force.
Imagine driving into a small town and seeing a sign telling you
your speed is monitored by radar. It's cheaper for the town just
to have the sign and no radar. As long as people believe the
sign it still works!
(Credit: just about everyone who's thought about this.)
If organised religion is a domesticated version of folk religion then
it should show signs of having being designed for our purposes. What
features of organised religion, not present in folk religion, might be
such signs? Suggestions:
1) Belief in belief.
Many people believe in God, and believe that God is good. But
many more believe that there is belief in God, and that belief in
God is good. (I disclaim: DD talked about "belief in X" without
mentioning "belief in X is good", but I can't make sense of his
words without assuming he included "belief in X is good" as part
of "belief in X".)
It's possible to believe that something is true without believing
the thing itself. For example, DD presents a sentence provided
by a trusted Turkish friend whom he asked for a true sentence in
Turkish. Other Turks have confirmed that the sentence is true.
But DD knows no Turkish and has refused to let anyone tell him
what it means. He justifiably believes that the sentence is
true, but he does not believe the sentence itself because he does
not understand it.
If that seems contrived, consider that many people believe that
"E = mc^2" despite having little or no idea what it means.
Religion takes this to a new level: religious experts claim that
some things are true which *no-one* understands!
2) There are no atheists, we all believe in God in our own way.
DD suggests (rather caustically) that claiming "we all believe in
God" is like claiming "we all love Rock" while failing to notice
that some of us mean "Rock Hudson" and others mean "Rock Music".
3) Atheists are immoral.
DD describes this (with significant emotion) as "the world's most
popular falsehood".
DD proposes that we should teach the facts about all religions to all
children. (He recognises that we Brits won't find this controversial
because we already have this, but he quotes American reviewers who
found his suggestion "totalitarian" and "hilarious".) He hopes this
will create an environment that selects for benign religions.
Paul Oldham
> This is an account of Daniel Dennett's lecture at Lady Mitchell Hall
> on Friday 2006/03/17 . It is based on the notes I took while
> attending and written up later the same evening (and early the next
> morning). [remaining 230 odd line snipped]
Ever thought of using web space for this sort if thing ...
--
Paul Oldham ----------> http://the-hug.org/paul
Milton villager ------> http://www.miltonvillage.org.uk/
and FAQ wiki owner ---> http://cam.misc.org.uk
"A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion"
Sarah Brown
Jeremy Henty <jer...@chaos.org.uk> wrote:
>
>This is an account of Daniel Dennett's lecture at Lady Mitchell Hall
[snip]
Thanks for the interesting and informative summary. Sounds like it was an
excellent talk!
s0x
> On 18/03/06 00:51 Jeremy Henty wrote:
>
>> This is an account of Daniel Dennett's lecture at Lady Mitchell Hall
>> on Friday 2006/03/17 . It is based on the notes I took while
>> attending and written up later the same evening (and early the next
>> morning). [remaining 230 odd line snipped]
>
>
> Ever thought of using web space for this sort if thing ...
Yeah some of us read this via WAP.
Ben Hutchings
> On 18/03/06 00:51 Jeremy Henty wrote:
>
>> This is an account of Daniel Dennett's lecture at Lady Mitchell Hall
>> on Friday 2006/03/17 . It is based on the notes I took while
>> attending and written up later the same evening (and early the next
>> morning). [remaining 230 odd line snipped]
>
> Ever thought of using web space for this sort if thing ...
You're complaining about the length? That article actually had
content, not the usual wibble. Or maybe you think that makes it
off-topic?
Someone - I forget who - did ask for a précis of the talk.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Sturgeon's Law: Ninety percent of everything is crap.
Richard Kettlewell
> This is an account of Daniel Dennett's lecture at Lady Mitchell Hall
Interesting! Thanks for writing it up.
Ian Manning
> On 18/03/06 00:51 Jeremy Henty wrote:
>
>> This is an account of Daniel Dennett's lecture at Lady Mitchell Hall
>> on Friday 2006/03/17 . It is based on the notes I took while
>> attending and written up later the same evening (and early the next
>> morning). [remaining 230 odd line snipped]
>
> Ever thought of using web space for this sort if thing ...
>
comments like that? ;)
I think it was a really interesting precis of the talk - I had hoped to
make it but couldn't.
dolomite
Thank you so much for sharing your Dennett notes. A lot of this reminds
me of
Russell's work, particularly as regards subscription to belief in a
proposition whose contents are unknown, never mind untested!
Kind regards,
'foolsrushin'.
Michael Kilpatrick
> This is an account of Daniel Dennett's lecture at Lady Mitchell Hall
> on Friday 2006/03/17 .
Thanks very much, Jeremy. Wish I had heard the lecture proper.
Michael
Jennifer Liddle
> You're complaining about the length? That article actually had
> content, not the usual wibble. Or maybe you think that makes it
> off-topic?
So it did, and I for one enjoyed reading it. Thanks to Jeremy for posting it.
--
Jennifer Liddle
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/~js10/
Matthew Vernon
> All religions are currently minorities (DD presents a pie chart
Gah, pie charts. Why does anyone think they're a good way of
presenting data?
Matthew
--
* Emperor reads cam.misc
* antinomy/#chiark puts some clothes on
<Emperor> that's our lives in a nutshell, isn't it?
Marcus Streets
> Jeremy Henty <jer...@chaos.org.uk> writes:
>
>> All religions are currently minorities (DD presents a pie chart
>
> Gah, pie charts. Why does anyone think they're a good way of
> presenting data?
>
> Matthew
>
Marcus