The Numskulls - A Gene Machine Model

Reading transcript of Dawkin's interview (for full details see link), I was struck by the fact that:

a) he assumes what might be called a simplistic understanding of language, in that he is not aware that the model of people as "machines" which are "programmed" by genes uses a good deal of analogical language. Now if he had but engaged in a dialogue over language with a theologian, such as, for example the existentialist John Macquarrie, he would have seen that part of theology (and linquistic philosophy, for that matter) is understanding how language relating to "god" is laden heavily with analogical language, and part of theology is understanding how that kind of language relates to experience, and the dangers of pressing analogies too far or taking them literally. "Biological machines" also came up in the recent Star Trek! The main danger of that kind of metaphor is in overlooking the very real differences between human beings and the machines from which the model is derived. The model has been updated, and now is more like a software / hardware analogy, but it often causes absurdities at a very basic level - as for instance when some thinkers press it so hard that they cannot find a place for the phenomenon of consciousness, so they end up saying it is an illusion.

I fear that as ideas of "god" can be linked with facile images of man in white beard in clouds, that people as "machines" can give rise to the same kind of naivety, in which people are seen as run by operators (as machines are). In "The Numskulls" - a comic strip in The Beano -  some tiny human like creatures that live inside the head of Edd, a boy, and control his actions. The Numskulls are: Brainy - Controls Edd's brain. Blinky - Controls his sight/eyes. Radar (previously Luggy)- Controls his hearing/ears. Snitch - Controls his smell/nose. Cruncher - Controls his mouth/taste. That I fear is the main force of a "machine" model, that it is run by operators and not self-determining, and any use of the word "machine" should be very clear about. Dawkins, especially in his answer on "free will" seems singularly muddled.

b) he is very clear on what "selfish gene" means then spoils his answer completely by talking about morality, thus confusing the model again, after just explaining that selfish genes do not imply selfish behaviour. No wonder Mary Midgely was exasperrated by him!

---

 http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html

QUESTION: Professor Dawkins, could you explain your belief that human beings are just "gene machines"?

MR. DAWKINS: When I say that human beings are just gene machines, one shouldn't put too much emphasis on the word "just." There is a very great deal of complication, and indeed beauty in being a gene machine. What it means is that natural selection, Darwinian natural selection, which is the process that has brought all living things to be the way they are, is best seen at the gene level, is best seen as a process of differential survival among genes, and therefore living organisms and their bodies are best seen as machines programmed by the genes to propagate those very same genes. In that sense we are gene machines. But it is not intended to be at all a demeaning or belittling statement.

QUESTION: Now, if we are gene machines, presumably then our behavior is also programmed by genes -- you have made that case. But Christians would say that there is a thing called free will, and that free will gives us a genuine choice about our actions, that effectively free will allows us to override biology. What is your response to that as a scientist?

MR. DAWKINS: I am very comfortable with the idea that we can override biology with free will. Indeed, I encourage people all the time to do it. Much of the message of my first book, "The Selfish Gene," was that we must understand what it means to be a gene machine, what it means to be programmed by genes, so that we are better equipped to escape, so that we are better equipped to use our big brains, use our conscience intelligence, to depart from the dictates of the selfish genes and to build for ourselves a new kind of life which as far as I am concerned the more un-Darwinian it is the better, because the Darwinian world in which our ancestors were selected is a very unpleasant world. Nature really is red in tooth and claw. And when we sit down together to argue out and discuss and decide upon how we want to run our societies, I think we should hold up Darwinism as an awful warning for how we should not organize our societies.

QUESTION: If, as you have said, there is a tendency from our genes for us to be selfish, would that perhaps suggest that we need institutions like religion to encourage us to override this innate selfishness?

MR. DAWKINS: The phrase "the selfish gene" only means that genes are selfish. It doesn't mean that individual organisms are. On the contrary, one of the main messages of the selfish gene is that selfish genes can program altruistic behavior in organisms. Organisms can behave altruistically towards other organisms -- the better to forward the propagation of their own selfish genes. What you cannot have is a gene that sacrifices itself for the benefit of other genes. What you can have is a gene that makes organisms sacrifice themselves for other organisms under the influence of selfish genes.

I think we certainly benefit from social institutions which encourage us towards moral behavior. It's very important to have law. It's very important to have a moral education. It's very important to try to inculcate into children moral rules, such as "do as you would be done by." It's very important to do moral philosophy, to try work out the principles we want to live. But when you say religious principles, there I think I would part company. I see no reason why they should be religious. But I certainly think that they should be developed by society and not necessarily following biological dictates.