Joe's $0.02 regarding Pinker's Blank Slate

"...meaning in life does not require that the process that shaped the brain have a purpose, only that the brain itself have a purpose." This quote is a summation of Pinker's rebuttal over the fear of nihilism, and though I can see that his idea can be very controversial to certain religious groups, I agree with him completely.

About a decade ago, my parents took me with them to one of their "friend's" place for Thanksgiving dinner. The reason I put quotation marks around the word friends was because they were Christian missionaries trying to absorb my family into the church. As new immigrants my parents wanted to be accepted by the community as quickly as possible, so they were interacting with those people and participating in different church events. Long story short during the dinner the host mentioned about someone's daughter in that church passed away in a car accident. It was terrible news and we offered our condolences, and the dinner table turned quiet as everyone needed time to process this tragedy. The missionary noticed, and was probably trying to comfort us, said, "God has a different plan for her, she is in a better place now." We nodded and moved on. After that dinner, my mom stopped going to all church related events, cut ties with that "friend" and never looked back since. Years later I asked her why, she said, "saying God has a different plan for over someone's death is just being lazy and cold blooded, and that goes against all my beliefs." As I try to make sense out of what my mom and the missionary said, I have to agree with my mom, when someone is dead, they are dead, period, what happens after death is not our concern, and we should not use what potentially could happen after death to justify death itself. By doing so we neglect all the efforts and achievements of that person in their life, and saying that we need God to have moral and values is also undermining life itself. I refuse to believe that I am here to serve some mystic higher power, I am here doing what I do because I have my own values established by the culture around me, through interactions with real people like me.

I'm not trying to start a war on religion, but what I am trying to say is we live in a multidimensional society, some people believe in Adam and Eve while some others believe in reincarnation or nothing. Those are cultural differences we all can live with, as long as we don't screw with others because they might be different. What's great about science is science is reality, some famous scientist once said, if humans vanish from earth one day and returns millions of years later, there will be completely different religions, but the science will still be the same, maybe with different symbols. Pinker said, "people who appreciate legislation and sausages shouldn't watch them being made." Religion is like the explanations clueless people have over the process of legislation and sausage manufacturing. The effectiveness of the legislation or the deliciousness of the sausage should not be influenced by production methods, enjoy life, eat a sausage.

I know I am all over the place.

Grammar was never my strong suit.

Denis Dutton

Denis Dutton's quote "We find beauty in something done well" illustrates his argument that the human concept of beauty is not merely a product of cultural conditioning but is a deeply entrenched aesthetic sense that has emerged from our collective evolutionary biology. He provides compelling evidence that our experience of beauty is an adaptive effect caused by natural and sexual selection. He gives the example of the peacock's tail feathers as beauty that is non-utilitarian but is directly related to sexual selection.
As a scuba diver, I've seen an incredible assortment of tropical reef fish that look like they could have been hand painted by the likes of Picasso, Joan Miro or Paul Klee. Upon closer inspection however it is evident that their beauty is never superfluous or a product of "art for arts sake"  but is indeed a product of sexual selection and/or a means to avoid predation.
There are many cultural theorists and anthropologists that would argue that beauty is a product of  cultural conditioning; aristocratic Japanese women blackening their teeth in feudal-era Japan being one example. One way of looking at this difference of opinions might be to categorize culturally conditioned beauty as "beauty" and universal beauty as "Beauty" much in the way Buddhists talk about the "self" vs the "Self."
I recently returned from one week in Mazatlan, Mexico. I had a beach-front room on the 28th floor of the El Moro hotel. Every evening about 1/2 hour before sunset I would watch people gather on the beach to view the spectacularly "Beautiful" sunset. These people hailed from all parts of the world. They all seemed to be equally impressed with and inspired by the "puesta del sol."
One thing that Dutton doesn't mention and that is perhaps a weakness in his Ted Talk is "beauty vs the sublime." When he says "We find beauty in something well done" he makes a good point but it comes up a little short. I would add that we find "Beauty" in something so breathtakingly well done that it becomes a sublime experience. That, I believe is truly universal.

Kelli Takes on Pinker on perfectability (Posted by Robin for Kelli--whom the U's web server hates)

The section that really grabbed my attention was when Pinker was discussing the concept of the fear of imperfectability in human nature. Specifically, the section where he explains the movement towards a perfect world, “indeed, the undeniable social progress that has taken place in the last few centuries did not occur because human nature was reprogrammed from scratch, but because human nature was mobilized against other parts.”

This explanation of reaching perfection stands out to me because it points out that it is social constructs that determine what is deemed right and ‘good’ in this world and more so that there really is no concrete answer. It is these social constructs which decide the movement society must forgo to reach the perfectibility of humankind. This can be positive in the sense that while some ignoble traits are innate as Pinker points out, our bodies and minds have been programmed to counteract those specific tendencies deemed to be negative by socialization as a means of avoiding imperfectibly. As most people have, I have spent a lot of my life differentiating between right and wrong while trying to understand why so much injustice remains in this world. I try to lead my own life by doing good and minimizing ignoble tendencies, but I have not given much thought as to the factors influencing why I believe something is right or wrong. Ultimately, although there is no perfect world, this statement gives me hope that as a society through fear of imperfectability and the history of our progression thus far, we will continue with our social progress through experience to reach a more peaceful world.

Thinking about perfectibility of human kind could lead our world to a better, more perfect, outcome. But through a blank slate method, there are some stakes in this theory. Depending on the motive of social influences deciding the direction of reaching perfectionism as a species, we as a society run the risk of running down the dark roads of eugenics or totalitarian social engineering. Depending on if a perfect human kind is defined as getting along or creating the ultimate human beings, the future would lead to completely different outcomes. If the earlier was to be true, this would regress the heightened empathy and treatment for those who are different from one another we have established over time.

Callista takes on Dutton on Beauty (posted by Robin for Callista--whom the U's web server hates)

When Dutton states beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, or even the beholder’s culture, he says that humans think things are beautiful based on evolution. I always thought people just had different tastes. I never realized the conception of beauty could be passed down through evolution. To me, everyone seeing beauty differently was a personal ideal, not a cultural and especially evolutionary idea, so this contradicted what I thought was right in the world. However, this new idea has changed my mind about the conception of beauty. If fears can be passed down through evolution, why can’t the perception of beauty? This new idea just makes sense to me, now that I have watched Dutton’s lecture.

The first time I watched this part of the lecture,when Dutton said that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, I was like “uh what are you talking about of course it is…” However, this sentence caught my attention and made me listen to what he said to prove this idea of his. This really resonated with me because I grew up thinking everyone is unique and enjoy different things--which is probably just what my mom told me so I would get along with other kids. But based on this lecture, people all like the same things, which means people are not as unique as we are told they are. Dutton says, that because of our ancient ancestors, we all prefer similar images, appreciate art, and enjoy anything that is done well. This lecture showed me that even though everyone is different, we are all united through our ancestors perception of beauty, which has been passed down to us through evolution.

Dutton has made me question if anything I enjoy is really something personal, or if I like it because my ancestors did. I can definitely see the science wars in my feelings after watching Dutton’s lecture. I am questioning my reality because of what science says. I think it’s important to try to maintain some sense of self even though these men are making us all question our entire lives. We don’t necessarily have to believe what Pinker and Dutton are saying, but when they are so convincing, it is hard not to. They call into question some of the most famous scientists and philosophers, like when Dutton disproves Plato’s saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Also, the further I go into the science field, the more I realize that science does not have a definitive answer for everything, the more I question if anything is real, so Dutton’s lecture reaffirms this fear of mine. Pinker and Dutton prove that science and culture are very intertwined and there is not really a divide between the two. The sooner we all realize this, the easier it will be to swallow the ideas Pinker and Dutton have.

Regan Bradley - Blog 1

Denis Dutton’s TED talk sparked numerous ideas in my mind as well as struck my emotions. The way he described how we see beauty based on genetically predisposed concepts written in our ancestry confirms my value of staying true to our human race. There are good and bad aspects of this idea of how we perceive beauty and I believe Dutton hit both with elegance and grace. He spoke of how we have the natural idea to kill someone we do not like or disagree with. This is the warrior side of our past. He also explains how we find beauty in a path or in a water landscape or in tall trees based on our ancestors need for direction, water, and protection. We cannot change who we are and this is so true in the current world. We are human beings with genetically predisposed emotions that will not be earased due to a modern society quite different than the time of our ancestors. We are aware of these emotions and know when to tame them such as knowing not to kill someone we disagree with but also seeing the beauty in the directions found by a path. I see this personally with my love to hike. There is something about wandering long paths in the mountains to find either a beauty scenic view of the vast landscapes around or, my personal favorite, a lake near the top of the peak. I used to always believe this was just something that I like because that was just me. However, after seeing Dutton speak on the beauty we find in nature, I begin to think of the genetics behind my love for the outdoors. My ancestors probably loved the sight of a lake on a mountain because it meant both water and protection from those down below. It would give them the upper hand. It was so important for me to find a deeper rooted connection to a passion I have in my life. This passion I have in a modern society can be rooted back to the times of early homo sapiens, even earlier. My interest in adventure through hiking affires my value of staying true to our human race. Why should we care about this? Because everything we do or everything we love has a reason behind it. There is a point to everything. That is important to a person like me who most of the times has difficulty seeing the point to everything, but there is. We love nature for a reason. We find safety near water for a reason. We like the adventure of following a path for a reason. We are not clueless beings. We have a history, a past that shapes us. The science of our history determines the science of our lives today. It is written in our genes. This matters and is important. We should all care about where we come from and how this shapes who we are because this is what has got us to be here today, doing the things we do and loving what we love.

Denis Dutton

When I first watched Dutton's TED talk, I was at first annoyed. Being told that all the things that I found beautiful was because it was a result of genetics felt like all the choices I've made in life was pre-determined. I've never been a fan of the concept of Calvinism so I'm also pretty sure I knew that I was going to have an issue with this TED talk. However, hearing him speak and connect the dots between our everyday enjoyments to basic survival instincts could not be overlooked. I can't ignore the science and all the facts because they're true and every time I try to find a way to contradict them becomes a very confusing bout of circular reasoning in my head. So yes, I grudgingly agree with Dutton but just like the nature vs nurture argument can be applied to our personality so can it be applied in this case. There are more factors to be taken into consideration than just genetics by itself.

In addition, when Dutton mentioned during the landscape portion of the video, that the reason people like trees that fork near the ground was because it made it easier to climb, I immediately remembered the term biophilia. The Biophilia hypothesis is the idea that humans possess an innate tendency to seek connections with nature and other forms of life. It's a genetic basis. It's why people like the smell of rain because the oils secreted from plants mix with the rain after a dry spell, creating a pleasant, musky aroma. We enjoy nature because we relied on nature in the past for survival and now we find those same scenes of nature beautiful. Humans climbed trees to escape and saw rain as a reminder of growth in resources. Dutton was right when he said "beauty is a gift, handed down through the intelligence skills" of our ancestors. However, at what point do the genetic traits my ancestors exhibited stop and where do mine begin? The whole point of darwinism is that we adapt. We are products of our ancestors survival skills but we change whether its due to mutation or adaptation. So yes, I like rainstorms because of my ancestors but I also like the sound of coffee being brewed and poured. To me, it's one of the best aesthetic pleasures in the world.  Who's to say which trait belongs to who? 

Nature's Elegant Chaos

Denis Dutton wonderfully illustrates how beauty came to be perceived through the evolution of homo sapiens. Although I have not previously considered his ideas, it brings up many important points as well as progress towards bridging the gap between science and society. Yes, I am a BSE major and sustainability studies minor so I am exhaustively looking for ways in which we can facilitate a paradigm shift in societies view of the natural world – less of an object to be mastered and more of a living, interdependent, being.

Dutton describes through the first mechanism of the operations of evolution that fear is innately within us. He also describes that across cultures, throughout the world, there is a common agreement of a beauty in the savannah landscape that points back to the Pleistocene period. Yet, I don’t think these values are completely based on biological determinism. Our western culture has become more fearful of nature’s complexity. Just as Carl Elliot describes - our practice of categorization demonstrates our left brain working ever-so-eagerly to use labels in order to distinguish our differences and thus aiding in othering the natural world. If only it were easier for humans to live alongside the dynamic world, rather than stabilize it, we could better appreciate its elegant chaos.