|
|
Home | FAQs | Site Map | Member Intranet |
| Our Ministers | Background | Selected Sermons: Use and Abuse… | ||||
|
The Use and Abuse of Intelligence The Reverend Mark Edmiston-Lange, March 4, 2007 About a century or two ago, the Pope decided that all the Jews had to leave Rome. Naturally there was a big uproar from the Jewish community. So the Pope made a deal. He would have a religious debate with a member of the Jewish community. If the Jew won, the Jews could stay. If the Pope won, the Jews would leave. The Jews realized that they had no choice. So they picked a middle aged man named Moishe to represent them. Moishe asked for one addition to the debate. To make it more interesting, neither side would be allowed to talk. The Pope agreed. The day of the great debate came. Moishe and the Pope sat opposite each other for a full minute before the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. Moishe looked back at him and raised one finger. The Pope waved his fingers in a circle around his head. Moishe pointed to the ground where he sat. The Pope pulled out a wafer and a glass of wine. Moishe pulled out an apple. The Pope stood up and said, “I give up. This man is too good. The Jews can stay.” An hour later, the cardinals were all around the Pope asking him what had happened. The Pope said, “First I held up three fingers to represent the Trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was still one God common to both our religions. Then I waved my finger around me to show him that God was all around us. He responded by pointing to the ground and showing that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us from our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin. He had an answer for everything. What could I do?” Meanwhile, the Jewish community had crowded around Moishe. “What happened?” they asked. “Well,” said Moishe, “First he said to me that the Jews had three days to get out of here. I told him that not one of us was leaving. Then he told me that this whole city would be cleared of Jews. I let him know that we were staying right here.” “Yes, yes,… and then???” asked the crowd. “I don’t know,” said Moishe, “He took out his lunch, and I took out mine.” You think we sometimes misunderstand what others say. Imagine what it would be like if all we had for communication was gestures. We do not often think about the role that language, particularly spoken language, plays in shaping how we think. It is more common for us to believe that language is merely a mechanism for expressing what we think. Of the two, consciousness and language, it strikes us that language is a result of having consciousness. But what if it is really the other way around? What if consciousness itself is a product of language? I know this is an unusual thought, but bear with me. Recall for a moment all that consciousness does. It is our ability to think, reason, imagine, remember, impute—there are a great many products of thought. The depth of our understanding, the knowledge we have discovered, the miraculous feats of engineering and medicine we have performed—all this because Homo sapiens has a very big brain. As to how we manage to do all this with our brain, well h’mm. The philosopher John R. Searl, one of the premier thinkers in our country who has devoted most of his philosophical career to the study of human consciousness, describes the dilemma about consciousness: “We’re all conscious and it’s real. All you do is pinch yourself and you know this is real. How can matter be conscious? You know, what you’ve got in your skull is about a kilogram and a half; It’s about the texture of English oatmeal. And now how can this three pounds of English oatmeal in your skull, how can that have all these thoughts and feelings and anxieties and aspirations? How can all of the variety of our conscious life be produced by this squishy stuff blasting away at the synapses? A hundred billion neurons, glial cells, synapses, how do they produce consciousness? On the one had you want to say, well, consciousness couldn’t exist because, you know, how does it fit in with the physical world? On the other hand we all know it does exist, so you have to find some way to resolve that.” (Conversations with History, Institute of International Studies , UC Berkeley blog.) Religions tend to account for the fact of consciousness by suggesting that some divine power intervened and supernaturally created consciousness in human beings. In the Garden of Eden story God blows “ruach” or “spirit” into Adam to rouse him to consciousness. The common recourse to such miraculous explanations by religious mythology or doctrine reveals how a stonishing it seems to us that we have consciousness at all. Consciousness has typically been seen as something that stands in stark contrast to the rest of the created physical order. This has led to the very common mind/body division in both religion and philosophy. There is the world of nature, in which our bodies participate; and there is the world of mind which is typically thought of as a disembodied animating feature trapped within a body. Sometimes religion identifies this animating feature as “the spirit,” other times “the soul.” Searl believes the division is false. He writes that “brains cause minds.” Consciousness from his perspective is as much a fact of nature as any other reality which we encounter. It is a very complex fact of nature; but then, he would remind us, there are a lot of facts of nature which are very complex. And he also points out that the brain, while highly specialized, is not unique in the world of nature when it comes to the matter of transferring and using information. How the brain pulls off this massive feat of manipulating so much information, he claims, is a matter for neuro-biologists to sort out. But even understanding the biology of the mind’s processes hardly answers all the questions that we would have about the mind’s functioning. One of the most fascinating areas of research about consciousness concerns its evolutionary history. That is, if you disown the mind/body split and agree that minds are very much facts of nature, then it must be the case that our minds have evolved from some previous form of mind, specifically, that of our cousins in the primate world of chimpanzees and apes. By comparing where we came from in our evolution with where we are now, a lot becomes clearer about how we have come to use—and abuse—our capacity for intelligence. As with any explanation of evolution, one of the primary engines for development is survival value and scientists have done extensive research into the survival value of certain features of human consciousness, particularly the extraordinary development of the cerebral cortex. In short they ask, how did we get to be so brainy? Evolutionary psychologists have also taken the extra step of comparing their theories with sophisticated tests of human thought patterns and have come up with a surprising confirmation of our evolutionary heritage. That is, we can still see the original reasons for the development of consciousness in much of our current behavior. Yet what is most fascinating about this analysis is that those original reasons for consciousness are not commonly recognized by us as primary features of consciousness. What this means is that our evolutionary heritage is not only profound, but also unrecognized. We frequently think we are doing something pretty straightforward with our brains. But when that behavior is viewed from an evolutionary perspective, it turns out that our brains are actually doing something very very different. This distinction between what we think we are doing and the evolutionary tasks our brains are actually performing is very important. Why? So much of our experience, as individuals, as members of society and as citizens, is bathed in routine absolutely unnecessary and most often unintended misunderstanding. Far greater understanding is entirely possible if we can more accurately describe what our brains are actually doing while we engage in normal conscious behaviors. So—to the evolutionary story. Homo sapiens became Homo sapiens about five thousand generations ago. That’s when we really took off as a very distinctive creature on the planet. One of the favorite theories for the initial launch is a shift in the climate which essentially turned our African forest habitat into savannah. That climate shift pulled us out of the trees (because savannahs have few trees) and onto the ground. This change in habitat eventually led to our walking on two feet alone. Of course, not being terribly fast nor having huge fangs or other means of protection or means of subduing prey put those early humans at a remarkable disadvantage. Thankfully, one feature that we share with most primates is the opposable thumb. Researchers have discovered that a massive amount of brain power is connected to the operation of that thumb. Good thing too. Like many other primates we are fond of throwing stuff. But when you no longer have trees to escape into, being able to throw stuff becomes more than just an excellent way of teasing your friends. There is a great deal of survival value in throwing stuff with a purpose. If you heave a stick at an approaching predator, and kill it, your genes live to see another generation. If you miss, hello natural selection. Those Homo sapiens that were more accurate at hitting predators would be favored over the less accurate. And if you have ever tried to throw a spear, you realize that there are several calculations involved. Homo sapiens that were better at formulating the calculations would, again, be more likely to survive than those without such skills. And it is these computations that form the earliest foundation of reasoning, logic, and critical analysis. Now recall what I said about the distinction between what we believe we are doing and what tasks our brains have evolved to accomplish. Let me ask you this, have you ever been in an argument with someone that in retrospect might actually have been a thinly disguised form of spear chucking? We do not notice it in polite conversations, but add a little heat to the disagreement and we human beings tend to revert to survival mode pretty quickly and act like the person with whom we are disagreeing is in fact a saber-toothed tiger. Of course, we are rarely under attack from an actual predator, but because the original setting of consciousness evolved from calculations required for surviving the attacks of predators, our normal use of intelligence still acts as if totally non-dangerous people are very dangerous. This is one half of the reason why university and church politics, to name two examples, which everyone claims to dislike, can nonetheless be way too interesting and not often helpful. Our brains have this evolutionary hangover which is very alert to the presence of tigers even when there are none to be found. We over react and misunderstand. There is another half of the story about the evolutionary development of consciousness. We have all heard about the remarkable survival of a 21 week fetus that finally made it out of the big house alive. What you probably do not know is that all human babies are born premature—by about six months. Now you think, “Hey, normal human gestation is 9 months!” That’s true. But when a baby is born—what exactly can she do? Close to nothing. He’s just about blind, she cannot hold up her head. He will continue to develop rapidly but still not be able to walk on his own well past his first birthday. When compared to all other mammals, human babies are remarkably helpless for a very long time. Biologically human babies are still more of a fetus than an infant when born. The reason for such an early birth? The premature end of gestation is caused by the course of human brain development. At birth human brains are normally only one quarter of the size they will eventually reach. The problem of brain size forces very early births because if they were born further along in their development the brain could not fit through a mother’s birth canal—mothers could not deliver them. The only babies who did survive were the ones who were born very prematurely. The only other evolutionary option would be wider pelvises and thus larger birth canals through which human babies could be born. But studies of body mechanics have revealed that wider pelvises would destroy our ability to walk upright. So the evolutionary solution that won out was very early births. But why would our brains ever get that big in the first place? Was it because we are “naturally” curious or “knew” that someday we wanted to be rocket scientists? No. Surprisingly, it turns out the primary culprit is the larynx. There are very few anatomical features unique to human beings. Many creatures have larynxes. But what is special about the human larynx is its very unique location. It’s a few inches lower than all other primates. Those few inches make all the difference. Unlike every other creature, we are able to make, solely because of the larynx’s location, an almost unlimited number of different sounds. That greatly enhanced facility for sound differentiation eventually led to the creation of words—language. Why are words so important and what is their relationship to our intellectual capacity? Recall that when human babies are born they are helpless. The only way human babies and their nursing mothers could survive the first years of infancy is within the context of a tribe. The vulnerability of infants and nursing mothers makes cooperation within a larger group necessary in order to provide protection and food. Obviously those groups that were better at managing cooperation would more likely survive than those with reduced levels of cooperation. Those more cooperative groups would thus pass their genes onto subsequent generations. We share this requirement for tribal existence with chimpanzees even though their period of vulnerability is much shorter and they still have trees for escaping predators. But there is an interesting difference between homo sapiens and chimpanzees when it comes to tribal life—chimps cannot create a troop much larger than fifty. What limits the size is what is known in evolutionary circles as the “cheater” problem in any primate, human or otherwise, group. The cheater problem is this. As I said, groups in which everyone pitches in for the well being of the group will survive more readily than groups that tolerate individuals who take advantage of others. Group life requires some level of reciprocity and being able to detect cheaters, those who cannot be counted upon to reciprocate, is a very important survival skill. Those primates that were good at uncovering cheaters were more likely to survive and thus pass their genes onto subsequent generations. Thus, all primates are born with a great interest in detecting cheaters. Interestingly, chimps weed out cheaters by grooming each other. In the wild it looks like they are being affectionate. Wrong answer—they are hardly being cuddly. They are constantly checking each other out to see if the response they get back from an offer to groom appears to reveal genuine interest. If not—that cheating chimp is primate toast. Chimps are known for turning on a suspected cheater and bashing their brains out without hesitation. There are limits, however, to how many chimps can successfully continue to physically touch each other in any meaningful time period. It turns out the number is about fifty. Homo sapiens were obviously able to form groups that were much much larger. How? With a much more effective cheat detection method. The technique they developed for uncovering cheats was—tadah—speech, language. They could ask questions, gossip, rat each other out. They could do it by day or night and could do it across distances. One person could communicate to many others at once. They did not have to touch each other to uncover that cheatin’ heart. As the Pope and Moishe found out, a group can accomplish a great deal without words. Many creatures can find prey and call out warnings without words. But only human beings can talk to accomplish the tough work of maintaining successful social bonds. Thus it follows that Homo sapiens that were much more adept at verbal communication and thus could much more readily detect cheaters were far more likely to survive than those with poor language skills. And the more those Homo sapiens could use language, the larger the group, the more they needed language to maintain the group. This facility with language inevitably resulted in increased requirements for memory, linear and metaphoric thought and the expression of emotional states. And these things, its turns out, make up what we normally think of as consciousness. Thus it seems to be the case that language is not really merely a mechanism for expressing consciousness. Rather, language is the parent of much of our consciousness and thus a primary cause for enhanced cerebral development. There was an outside limit to the development of the brain, and that limit was the size of a brain that could be born even given the greatly lengthened period of gestation outside of the womb. This evolutionary analysis reveals that our ability to understand such exotic things as quantum mechanics has a very humble origin, the ability to discover who would or would not help dig out edible roots while foraging. It would make sense, then, that those with enhanced intellectual abilities are also the very same people who are suspicious of cheats. You combine the enthusiasm for cheat discovery and spear chucking, well—need I say more? It turns out that on a normal day human beings are suspicious of each other and interested in finding out who will be of assistance. It is also the case that as a species, we are generally pretty good at or think we are good at guessing what other people are thinking and feeling. We should not be surprised, then, to realize why we prefer to associate with people we believe are “like-minded.” We are more comfortable with “like minded” people largely because our brains have a greater confidence in our ability to tell when “like-minded” people are cheating. In fact, the greater the degree of homogeneity of any human group, the more confident the brain will feel about its success at uncovering cheats. The opposite is also true, the greater the degree of heterogeneity, the greater discomfort the brain will feel about its success at finding cheats. Almost any obvious form of human distinctiveness, particularly the more observable forms of distinctiveness such as skin color, language, or dress, leads to an inevitably enhanced wariness by our cheating seeking brain. And wariness begets mistrust, and mistrust begets misery of a great many varieties. From a purely evolutionary perspective the five thousand generations that Homo sapiens sapiens has survived is not that great a passage of time. Thus it is very likely the case that our mighty brains are still performing tasks that were adapted to circumstances in which we no longer find ourselves. Most of us left the savannah a long time ago even if our brains are, from an evolutionary perspective, still right there. Now what happens to a creature when there is a substantial mismatch between its natural inclinations and the environmental circumstances in which it finds itself? One common evolutionary solution to such a mismatch is called, “extinction.” Of course, we’re way too smart to let that happen. Well, h’mm. Lucky for us, we can do far more with our highly developed consciousness than mindlessly resort to the old behaviors of chucking spears and detecting cheaters even when it is inappropriate. One of the ways by which human beings have beaten the odds of evolutionary pressure is through the creation of cultural behaviors which have on occasion solved tough problems of existence far more rapidly than we could with a purely biological adaptation. Thus our question: can we create a human culture which is not so persistently infected with unacknowledged and inappropriate cheat detection and spear chucking? Certainly suspicion and defense against predators is sometimes warranted. But when you survey our social and political landscape, you find that we resort to these behaviors far more than is at all required. Moreover, our mindless repetition of these behaviors is the primary stumbling block in finding solutions to the very real problems which we face as a species across the planet. Examining the impact of our brains old and foolish ways is a vastly more important matter than solely encouraging peaceable relationships in university departments and religious communities. Our own society theoretically aspires to be very heterogeneous, and in some ways the future of the entire human race absolutely depends upon our ability to create successful heterogeneous community. We have come to a place in our history when we as a species are constantly chaffing in the company of people who are not “like minded,” who have different skin colors, different ethnic histories, different tribal stories. Because of our brain’s evolutionary history we are easily stirred to suspicion and thus to violence. But our suspicion and violence no longer have nearly the survival value they once brought to the species. We have come to a place in our history as a species when we are absolutely interdependent with each other. Somehow we have got to find ways for very different people to flourish in each others company. Yes, our politics, legal system, educational institutions, houses of worship are infected, in fact all of our public institutions are infected, with our brains’ old stupid habits. And the extent that they remain so infected, so much will our aspirations remain unrealized and probably unrealizable. Thankfully, and I love the irony of this, we really are smarter than we think. Success in our future will come with an enhanced ability to discount some of the stupidity that our consciousness creates. We really can say—oh that’s just my evolutionary heritage inadvertently making a mess of things. We really can count on the fact that the vast majority of people with whom we have contact are not cheating or dangerous at all. It turns out that the vast majority of people are, and this is shocking to our brains, indifferent. And, most importantly, we actually do possess interpersonal techniques which are for more accurate at cheat detection than casual observations about such unimportant matters as skin color. Our consciousness is quite capable of using tools to create genuine trust between even the most apparently different people. There is no reason in the world why we have to stay stuck in the place we have come to find ourselves. We can overcome what we have come to see are foolish ways. We can build that community in which we can flourish, where our children, in fact all children, will be easily cherished. We can build that land where people are affirmed, not for who they appear to be, but for who they really are. We can start the journey to that land, right here, right now. |
|
Contact Emerson Webmasters |
©2007 Emerson Unitarian Universalist Church 1900 Bering Drive | Houston, Texas 77057 | Phone (713) 782-8250 Unitarian Universalists—The Uncommon Denomination |
Back to Top |
