Rational Philosophy

On the concept of free will and its application to personal development.

As I watched March of The Penguins with my family the other evening my wife asked whether the penguins, who spend months of each year huddled together in freezing conditions, gradually starving, ever wonder whether there’s something better out there. The film’s accompanying commentary (narrated by Morgan Freeman) often wanders into sappy projections of human psychology, ascribing human thoughts and feelings to the penguins, spoiling to some extent a fascinating documentary.

We can say with some degree of certainty that penguins do not conceive of choice in the same way people do. But how do people conceive of choice and is it an illusion?

As a teenager I was sure that there was no such thing as free will, no such thing as choice. It seemed obvious to me that any response to any stimulus must be pre-determined by environment and instinct. At the most fundamental level, our minds are complex but absolute mechanisms, sets of synaptic switches, and every “choice” is simply the next configuration of these switches determined by the configuration that came before as influenced by a new set of external stimuli.

In a way I still believe this, but I now think that it skips over an explanation for the concepts of free will and choice, and in doing so lets us abdicate responsibility for our actions or inactions.

Perversity, I think, provides one of the clearest ways to conceive of free will: Imagine someone sitting in a temperature-controlled room with a thermostat. The person can raise or lower the temperature in the room by adjusting the thermostat. If he’s cold he can make it warmer. If it’s hot, he can make it cooler. But, if he’s feeling perverse, he can make it colder when he’s cold or hotter when he’s hot.

It’s at this level that free will and choice have meaning. We conceive of a set of choices and decide to act or not act either according to what we feel we should do, or according to what we feel we shouldn’t do. (This is why perversity provides such a good mental template for the concept.) Being conscious and having access to abstract concepts, we can conceive of doing things that counteract our physiological and emotional instincts.
At the next level down a conscious choice may well reflect a pre-conditioned set of psychological and environmental switches, but that’s not the point. We encounter free will and choice as we conceive of an action or inaction and consider them abstractly, consciously.

Now, here’s the trick. We can train ourselves to reset our switches, essentially changing the current conditions of our psychology. You can read this post and go away with a newly set switch, a switch that will permit you to decide to change a behavior that you don’t like. You have then exerted free will and contributed to your own personal development.

The most important part of this insight is that the results of these changes can be cumulative and can snowball. A choice to practice yoga or start therapy or quit drinking, for instance, can lead to a whole new set of experiences that reset a whole bunch of switches in our minds. Small choices can lead to big changes.

This, I believe, is the level at which we experience free will. Acknowledging the power of choice, even if it is mechanistically illusory, can lead to profound and powerful changes that help us get more out of life.

(My book LIFE! contains a more searching discussion of these ideas.)

The Golden Compass, Dark Chocolate, Marijuana, and The Future of The Human Race.

When Google’s search engine trawls a website, its bot uses the first couple of sentences at the top of the post as an abstract. I just found this out. So, as of today, I will add a brief topic summary to the top of my posts. As always, I want to add value for you, the reader, so in the topic summary I’ll try to be at least descriptive, and perhaps even amusing.

BBC’s world service this morning interviewed Phillip Pullman, author of the His Dark Materials trilogy, now a movie: The Golden Compass. Some have criticized Pullman for being atheistic and anti-religion. The American Catholic League has launched a national campaign encouraging people to boycott the film. Any “ism” can be criticized of course, and many can be problematic. But when asked about the controversy, Pullman gently steered the question toward one of rationality. Whether he is atheist or not, Pullman’s concern lies with the harm that organized religion can do when it meddles with politics and when politics uses religion as a rationale for war, murder and oppression. Pullman spoke with such sense and good intent that a national campaign in support of the film seems to be called for as an antidote to the actions of the American Catholic League.

Dark chocolate and marijuana, two guilty pleasures for many, both take a medical beating today. Beware of flavenolless impostors, we’re warned, when it comes to dark chocolate, and don’t eat too much. And for the pot-heads among us, it seems that marijuana, which constricts the blood vessels in the brain, may have long term ill effects on memory and the chances of a stroke. For anyone who knows a pot-head, of course, the news about long term effects comes as little surprise. It’s not that spacey, sieve-headed slackers (no offense intended) are drawn to the substance so much as it encourages these qualities in its partokers.

Where am I going? One more story will get us there.

The men’s satellite TV channel, Bravo, commissioned evolutionary theorist Dr. Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics to report on the future of the human race. Dr. Curry hypothesizes two mid and long-term shifts, the first a racial homogenization over the next 1,000 years, the second, in the 10,000 year time-frame, a split in the human race into two species, one talk, attractive, intelligent, graceful, and the other short, stupid, ugly and goblin-like. We can take heart in Dr. Oliver’s first prediction: Us men will be taller, more athletic looking, deeper-voiced, square-jawed and with bigger peckers. You gals will be wide-eyed, downy-skinned, pert-breasted… But watch out if you rely too much on technology, because 10,000 years on your heirs may be part of the underclass.

I warn my daughter about this when I’m helping her with her math homework. (Not the ultimate goblin-featured fate of her progeny, but the over-reliance on technology.) It’s a terrible thing. We don’t know how a sine function works. We don’t know how our cars work. We don’t know how our phones work, or the GPS devices that guide us from point A to point B. We don’t know how our HDTV works, or what HDTV is for that matter. Well, somebody knows, presumably, since it has been invented, trademarked, licensed and mass-produced, but most of us don’t.

But is Dr. Curry’s work conjecture or science? Is it prejudice wrapped as prescience?

We’ll never know. We’ll be long gone. But it strikes me (my own conjecture!) as sinister, mean-spirited, and downright pessimistic to predict that the long term effects of human consciousness will be to make one segment of the population more stupid. Being conscious and aware, we also have the capacity to self-monitor as a species, to detect our own over-reliance on technology and do something about it. If we can divert ourselves from the rocky shores of faux dark chocolate and pot smoke, we can surely counteract the dangers of technology.

I try to keep this in mind as I read about poor Robert Schoff, who made it to seventy seven years of age before suffering the indignity of spending his Christmas Eve stuck upside-down in the opening of his septic tank, feet waggling in the air. It would be uncharitable to dwell, as Dr. Curry might, on Mr. Schoff generous girth and diminutive stature (5-foot-5 and 135-pounds). His septic mishap notwithstanding, Mr. Schoff sounds like an eminently sensible man. He knew, after all, that he had a septic tank, that it was blocked, and how to unblock it. His fault lay not in his cognition, but in the execution of his plan.

For a rational, science-based explanation of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.

Applying logic to the tricky problems of bodega cats, cancer stem cells, and administrative evasion on torture tapes.

The NY Times reports that perhaps the most successful way for bodegas and convenience stores to keep mice and rats away is for them to keep a cat. The only problem being that city health inspectors regard the presence of any animal — cat or rat — as a violation (the same fines apply). As José Fernández, the president of the Bodega Association of the United States, so elegantly puts it: “It’s hard for bodega owners because they’re not supposed to have a cat, but they’re also not supposed to have rats.”

Another Times report — this one on the role of cancer stem cells in cancer malignancy — reveals that scientists disagree on whether research treatments targeting cancer stem cells is scientifically and financially warranted. The Times quotes Dr. Scott E. Kern, a leading pancreatic cancer researcher at Johns Hopkins University, as saying that the hypothesis that cancer stem cells play a pivotol role in malignancy is more akin to religion than to science. Ouch. If the treatment research doesn’t get done, we may never know whether targeting cancer stem cells can help patients live longer. If the research does get done, other more viable approaches may be overlooked or delayed.

And the judge who, in 2005, ordered the preservation of documents concerning the “torture, treatment and abuse” of Guantanamo Bay prisoners, has refused to order a hearing on the destruction of the now infamous CIA interrogation tapes, instead taking the matter under advisement. According to the Times, government lawyers argue, in part, that Judge Kennedy’s order may not cover the detainees in question, since the order applied only to those who were indisputably at Guantanamo Bay on June 10, and there is a question about the whereabouts of at least some of the detainees on that date… So, presumably the government knows where the detainees were, but won’t reveal that information, and therefore this casts doubt on the question which likewise casts doubt on the applicability of the order, which means that the government can avoid a hearing.

Do these problems yield to logic? Let’s see.

On cats versus rats: When I walk into a convenience store and see a cat, I know what I’m getting. I can, if I’m leaning toward the health-inspector’s way of thinking, turn around and walk out. If I don’t see a cat, I may or may not see evidence of mice and rats; but, having read the article, I’m inclined to think that I would be foolish to assume that the store is free of mice and rats. As a consumer then, I’d say that I’m logically in favor of store-owners keeping cats. As a store-owner, since my customers would favor it, I would favor it and pay the fines if they came. (I’d be foolish to go against my customers’ wishes.) This also keeps the pressure up on the city to reexamine its stance on cats in corner stores. Are they really as potentially harmful to the public health as rats and mice?

On researching cancer stem cell treatments: This one seems very simple. There are two logical possibilities. Treatments that target cancer stem cells may benefit patients… or they may not. Pursuing such treatments is logical so long as this doesn’t jeopardize or seriously inhibit more promising treatments. Bypassing such research is illogical unless it can be shown that the research is to all intents and purposes unproductive. Showing that something related to cancer research is unproductive strikes me as a difficult and wasteful exercise. The logical answer seems to be to perform the research but do so prudently.

On ordering a hearing on the destruction of the CIA tapes: First order a hearing on the whereabouts of the detainees on June 10, 2005. This will answer the question of whether the order applies to any of the detainees. Then, if the detainees were at Guantanamo, order a hearing on the destruction of the tapes. Or, if the detainees were not at Guantanamo, order a hearing on the removal of the detainees from Guantanamo. Repeat ad infinitum.

For a rational, science-based explanation of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.

In writing yesterday’s post as I waxed on about Bush as a puppet I made a mistake. I realized this last night in the lucid wakefulness that comes between dreams. I allowed my reason to be swept away by my infatuation with the argument I was making. I made unsubstantiated and in some respects improbable claims about the degree to which Bush has been manipulated in his presidency.

I both gave Bush less credit than I truly believe he deserves (for being his own person) and correspondingly more credit than he deserves (for not being responsible for his administration’s blunders). Doubtless the truth lies somewhere between my accusations that Bush is no more than a stooge, and the opposite possibility that he’s largely steered the political and ideological course of his presidency.

I feel better now I have that off my chest.

The title of a New York Times piece on Obama’s Illinois State voting record misleads the reader: “Obama’s Vote in Illinois Was Often Just ‘Present.’” By using the word ‘Just,’ the Times implies that the vote of ‘Present’ must be some kind of lesser vote than ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ Indeed, the piece investigates Hillary Clinton’s campaign claim that Obama’s voting record was softer than he’d like people to think. But instead the piece provides a compelling body of evidence and perfectly good rationale supporting the concept that Obama’s voting record, far from being weak, gives evidence of leadership and careful deliberation. The ‘present’ vote can imply leadership, register dissatisfaction, display a tactical approach. Statistics give the dots, joining them up requires context and detail.

So why did the New York Times choose that headline? It’s beyond me…

What do you know! I go back to the same story and the headline has been changed. “It’s Not Just ‘Ayes’ and ‘Nays’: Obama’s Votes in Illinois Echo,” it now reads. No doubt, after the story was posted, an editor spied the discrepant title and changed it.

In another story South Africa seems likely to elect Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma as its next president. As the article points out, Zuma, like most people and many great leaders, is far from perfect. Facing corruption charges and having been acquitted of raping an HIV positive woman, but admitting to having sex with her, saying she seduced him by wearing a short skirt and posing provocatively, and having also said he showered after having sex with her to reduce his likelihood of catching HIV, Zuma nevertheless seems to be popular because of his admission of human frailty rather than in spite of it.

Failure is a fact of life. Further, failure is a natural and inevitable part of existence. The path of the evolving universe, particles popping in and out of existence, gas clouds swirling, stars imploding, has been one of many unproductive paths and just a few fruitful ones. Life is the same way. The DNA of a living organism mutates blindly. Each mutation knows not what it might bring to the organism, something useful, something harmful, or something of no particular use or harm. Successful mutations we call adaptation. They are successful because they get passed on by natural selection; they hold no special quality other than the fortune of being favorably transmitted.

As human beings, however, we have the ability to conceive of success and failure, to foresee, or recognize and regret our error. It is an interesting parallel to reflect that if we recognize and face up to our errors and try to address them, we are performing our own task of natural selection and adaptation, we are mimicking life by choosing to improve ourselves.

Without our awareness of our frailty we would have no ability to effect positive change. This is why, I suspect, I feel relieved for having admitted yesterday’s failing, why my faith in the NY Times editorial process is reinforced by the change of a headline, despite the original blunder, and why South Africans recognize in Zuma, a flawed man, a leader who may have the power to effect positive change.

Early news of the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes had the distinct whiff of smoke about it; the kind of smoke that hints at the existence of fire. The sad story had all the hallmarks of a not-so-wily White House cover up. The protestations of ignorance from all corners; the silent finger pointed at the lone and lowly scapegoats, I mean maverick lawyers at the CIA… I’m sure that many of us had the same question: could this really have happened without the knowledge and endorsement of the White House?

Today we have a glimpse of the smoldering coals of that fire. At least four lawyers close to the administration weighed in on the question of destruction, apparently, among them Alberto Gonzalez, the long arm of the war. And a former senior intelligence official speaks of the “vigorous sentiment” of some White House big wigs in favor of destroying the tapes. Why? Because at the time the Abu Ghraib detention scandals were making the administration and the country look bad, as if we lacked principles and decency. So came, we may presume, the principled and decent voice of power: Let’s burn those incriminating tapes.

I’ll go out on a short and sturdy limb and predict that the US administration also had a hand in Pakistan’s quiet release of about 100 detainees who had been held on suspicion of terrorist involvement in secrecy and with dubious legal grounds or outright lack of same. One of whom was so sick and malnourished that he died about twenty days after being left on a garbage dump.

What philosophical lesson can we take away from the miserable conduct of the present administration? An odd aspect of the Bush presidency seems to be that the man himself hasn’t garnered more ill will. And therein perhaps lies the seed to the lesson.

Bush is the president by title but not by function. He’s the front man. Bush has been more truly and firmly manipulated than the American public. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Fieth, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the hawkish bunch, all with their overlapping and dangerously ulterior motives have molded the clay of the hapless Bush. The plan, but for one fatal flaw, would have been perfect. Bush is so clearly incapable of complex subversive maneuvering that the country was duped into thinking he mostly meant what he said. He probably mostly did mean what he said having been fed the uncomplicated black-and-white surface ideology of his puppeteers.

Here is the point: The American public has been manipulated. Bush’s wranglers used a political system short on insight and long on hype to get an unqualified stooge into the highest office of the government. When that can happen, the system needs revision. The public needs to use the lessons of the last few years to allow itself to yield to wisdom and to carefully evaluate the policies, strengths and weaknesses of the current batch of candidates. The beauty pageant is a distraction. We owe it to ourselves to get wiser, to dig deeper, to understand the motives and motivations of the hopefuls so that we pick the one who is the least corruptible, the best intentioned, and the most effective. Sound bites be damned; America needs a real president again.

The New York Times Science section today summarizes a debate that’s more than 2,000 years old: Can we say that the universe reflects fundamental laws? As its hook, the article highlights the thoughts of Dr. Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State, who brought the debate to a rolling boil recently by opining that science was, to some extent, a matter of faith.

Despite all of the hoopla and the plethora of theories on the subject, it seems to me that we can satisfy ourselves about the nature of the universe as follows:

First, we can restrict our field of inquiry to the universe that we live in. Sure, it’s interesting to postulate what other universes may exist, but let’s explain the one we live in first.

Second, we can say that the universe operates according to the principles of space and time. (This is a pragmatic statement of fact; what other principles would it operate in accordance with?)

And here’s the most important part: Since principles are concepts, and since concepts don’t exist in the concrete, but only in the abstract, the principles that govern space and time must exist outside space and time. Space and time don’t create them, but must concur with them. (This leaves open the possibility that another universe may concur with other principles.)

I believe that this adequately addresses much of the uncertainty. (Quantum mechanics is simply another principle of space and time, perfectly maleable as an abstract concept, and nothing to get hung up on.)

With these founding ideas, we can make rapid and comprehensive progress in understanding our universe and our existence. (As I explain in my book.)

And when we read stories like the one from Detroit in which a seven year old girl was shot six times as she tried to shield her mother from an attack, or those from Iraq where the dire feuds between factions and attacks by insurgents continue to cause misery and mayhem, we realize that we yet have a lot to understand and address in our own universe without needing to go looking for others.

�

Paul Krugman writes today that Barak Obama is naive for believing that he can bring industry leaders and big insurance companies to the table to help reform health care. Krugman’s reasoning is both pragmatic and cynical. Obama isn’t realistic about the battle ahead, Krugman says, and isn’t listening to the populist outcry for reform. He therefore won’t win the same kind of majority as an Edwards or Clinton, who understand that people are hungry for a knock down drag out fight over health care reform and that such reform will only happen over the dead or doubled-up bodies of the industry lobbyists.

And Bush today spoke of a sound economy in much the same way that the Cuban news media these days speaks of Castro’s health. “The underpinning is good,” Bush said to a quiet crowd. And followed this up with the old chestnut — “I’ll veto any tax increase,” which drew a notable lack of applause. To whom was Bush speaking? Members of the Rotary Club of Stafford, the Fredericksburg Rotary Club, the Rappahannock Rotary Club and the Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce. Where was he speaking? Yak-A-Doo’s restaurant in a Holiday Inn. Could Bush’s populist agenda have run afoul of circumstance and reality?

And in a related story, researchers in a remote Indonesian jungle have discovered a rat “five times the size of a typical city rat.” The rat apparently betrayed no fear of the human intruders. (In this much at least, he resembles the rats of New York City.) ”It’s comforting to know that there is a place on Earth so isolated that it remains the absolute realm of wild nature,” said expedition leader Bruce Beehler. ”We were pleased to see that this little piece of Eden remains as pristine and enchanting as it was when we first visited.”

But, reference to Eden notwithstanding, how does the third story related to the first two? Well, I found myself bridling at Krugman’s dismissal of Obama’s ingenuous call for a new approach to politics. Sure, populism gets the vote. Sure, that’s what’s worked. Sure, industry won’t roll over and beg. But doing things because they’ve been done, limiting ourselves by history, doesn’t that doom us to repeat history?

In his first campaign, Bush touted his ability to bring both sides to the table, but we now know that for Bush the function of speaking and the function of communication haven’t yet been brought under the administration of a central mental bureau. Nor do we hold our breath for that miraculous event.

There’s an oft-repeated myth that George Washington invited Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson into his first cabinet in order to bring both sides to the table. It’s a myth because there was no formal or informal opposition at the time. Washington wanted the best minds and hearts in the country at his table. Hamilton and Jefferson developed partisan divisions over the course of their tenure in Washington’s cabinet. Washington over time veered toward Hamilton’s Federalism, but truly wanted and valued Jefferson’s more democratic counsel.

Obama’s ideas about the path to health reform may be naive and impractical, but so what? At least they’re new. At least there’s a chance that they won’t leave us in four years time with a tired and tiresome repeat of the current roll call for populist opinion.

Obama then could well be the big rat appearing at the edge of the camp, strange and fearless and larger than life. You bring big business to the table and you tell them you’ll be happy to listen to their opinions so long as they’ll be happy for you to bite them in the ass if they don’t play along. Government should prevail, whether you start at a big table or a small table. The idea is surely to bring them to the big table so that you lay the cards out all the more clearly.

Of course, the Indonesian researchers also discovered a tiny possum, one of the smallest marsupials in the world. Krugman would doubtless liken Obama to that diminutive possum before he’d liken him to the massive rat. But couldn’t a possum win the hearts of big business, just as his brother rat would nip at their ankles?

Putting into perspective a report that illegal drug use in the UK army is on the rise, the UK’s Ministry of Defense points out that ”Positive rates in the army over the past four years average around 0.77 percent, compared with more than 7 percent in civilian workplace drug testing programs in Britain.”

Barak Obama has admitted drug use as a young man, risking voter backlash, but doubtless winning support for his honesty — a rare thing in politics.

Then we have the baseball steroid report, and Marion Jones stripped of her Olympic medals. (As a side note, if she weren’t broke Marion Jones would be paying back her winnings — I haven’t seen anything about baseball players returning earnings…)

In making this connection between recreational drug use and the use of drugs in recreational activity, I’m not immediately sure whether a connection exists.

Still another way, of course, that we use drugs, is to help us get better or feel better when we’re sick. (Like the antibiotics I’ve been taking for my pneumonia.)

If a philosophical connection exists it must derive from the idea that an external substance taken into the body to cause some response can be deemed unnatural and therefore suspect.

To the list of cocaine, marijuana, heroin, amphetamines, LSD, ecstasy, opium, steroids, stimulants, antibiotics, antihistamine, ibuprofen, acetaminophen, etc. we would then have to add tobacco, coffee, tea, and alcohol.

Society makes a further distinction by labeling some drugs illegal, whether they be recreational drugs, or performance enhancing drugs. But if we take legality out of the equation for a moment, and think about the spectrum of drugs from first principles, how would we begin to determine whether some drugs were OK and others not OK?

Surely alcohol is to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from marijuana, heroin, amphetamines and cocaine if we consider the risks and affects of its consumption? And tobacco has a less profound effect on one’s state of mind, but really does a number on your long term health.

I’m not necessarily arguing that illegal drugs should be legalized, but instead that there’s a good deal of emotion involved in our perspective on drugs rather than sound, rational thought.

The vilification of drug-takers in sport centers on the unfair advantage that the drug-taker has over the none drug-taker. This is indeed a rational perspective. The none drug-taker presumably has chosen to avoid drugs (one imagines he can get them if he wants them). His choice is rational — the drugs he’s avoiding aren’t condoned and are perhaps illegal, and may even be detrimental to his health. His rivals achieve higher levels of performance just because they take the drugs, without declaring their advantage. He’s not a sucker; his rivals are cheats.

Nevertheless, the way society regards performance enhancing drugs depends on the rules and principles that society adopts.

But there are two things, as far as I can see, that can be intrinsically wrong with recreational drugs:

1. That they can be detrimental to a person’s health. For this reason, society should strive to educate people about the dangers of drugs and provide adequate treatment for drug users.

2. That they can cause people to harm or endanger others. The drunk driver, the cocaine-hyped killer, etc. It’s reasonable for society to protect itself from those who abuse and endanger. But the degree of protection must be weighed against the risk and against the loss of liberty for those who can behave responsibly.

(In case you can’t read the cartoon text, it says: “Jerry doesn’t do drugs anymore. He says he gets the same effect just standing up really fast these days.”)

The AP reports on the success of a Japanese team in making genetically modified mice that show no fear of cats. This demonstrates that mice fear cats instinctively, upsetting the more commonly held view that the fear is learned.

The scientists from Tokyo University found that the modified mice quite happily cosied up to the unmodified cats and played with them.

I’ve been reading a fascinating biography of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is getting a lot of play at the moment because of his role in insisting on the separation of church and state as America was being constituted. Jefferson, a Virginian, saw and felt the unfairness of a system in which religion gets forced on people. Fortunately for the country he was a persistent and forceful person who carried forward this conviction even when others would have been OK allowing some degree of intermingling.

Roger Cohen invokes Jefferson’s ideas in an opinion piece that counters Mitt Romney’s vapid criticism of European Secularism, echoing to some degree my own response the other day. Jefferson was an enlightened man. His father read the classics out loud to his family. He had a classical education at home and then at university. Jefferson had great sympathy for the enlightened movements of Europe, and considered anything short of a rational grounding for society unacceptable. In his native state, he reformed the laws of inheritance, for instance, because he thought them inherently unfair.

Jefferson, one can imagine, must be turning in his grave. As Europe has marched on to become widely secularist and for the most part enlightened, America has slumped into a nation riddled with weird zealotry and faith-based fervor, where politicians either make it in part because they genuinely appeal to the religious community or are cowed into pandering to that community. As I sit here, I can think of several reasons why this gap has opened up — the sheer size of America, isolating far-flung communities from the influence and challenge of rigorous thought, the psychological composition of the people who populated America — people came here seeking peace and prosperity trusting largely in their faith that God would provide, the long, lingering influence of slavery and segregation, which was propped up by the idea that whites were somehow better than blacks, a very irrational proposition. I’m sure there are many other potential explanations.

But, as I see it, the point is less how did this happen, and more, how will this change.

The NY Times reports on a new study that indicates that human evolution accelerated rapidly in the last 40,000 years. There’s debate about whether that acceleration has continued over the past 10,000 years, but the study brings with it some hope that we’re not done yet.

Back to those mice…

If mice are genetically programmed to fear cats, this tells us two things: First, that while environment can affect our thoughts and behavior, we start from a predisposition toward a certain psychology and physiology. (My fear of spiders, for instance, may have been influenced by my mother’s fear of spiders, but it was probably also an inherent fear.) Second, that mice evolved their fear of cats.

And if mice can evolve a fear of cats (which seems self-evident to my mind), then human beings can evolve to become more enlightened.

Did I skip a step or two? I fear I did.

1. Is it evolutionary progress to become more enlightened? If you question the answer to this, you’re probably reading the wrong blog.

2. What evolutionary pressure will cause the human race to become more enlightened?

Again, I can come up with several theories in answer to the second question, and I’m sure you’ll find your own. All other things being equal, I think that women are more likely to find enlightened men attractive and vice versa. Who wants to be married to a cave-man? An enlightened man will also be more helpful around the house and with the kids, prompting the woman to be OK having more kids with him. And enlightened people are probably less likely to die stupid, meaningless deaths.

As I argue in my book we’ll one day look back on religious fundamentalism as an anomalous blip in the history of America. The Japanese modification of mice to fear no cats gives me fresh hope that American genes will adjust over time to fear no smiting from on high. At which point the Bushes and the Huckabees and the Romneys of the world will disappear from the political scene with a puff of enlightened smoke.

Former CIA agent John Kiriakou demonstrates the difficulty of sifting through and applying conflicting principles. Kiriakou feels that waterboarding of suspected terrorists saved lives by eliciting information that wouldn’t have otherwise been forthcoming (and while his evidence for making this claim isn’t irrefutable, neither does it seem to be readily dismissed). And yet he finds himself repelled by the technique and feels that it’s no longer necessary. The Bush administration has found itself struggling to uphold severe interrogation techniques as useful and lawful, while wanting to claim that America does not torture.

Similarly, as the battle rages over male foreskins, one could say that parents face a similar dissonance when deciding whether to have a child circumcised. If one believes the claims for better adult health, but one feels that circumcision deprives the male child his natural dominion over his foreskin, how does one decide?

The philosophical problem at work in such matters seems to be the way that we separate out then synthesize the particular concepts and value hierarchies.

In the matter of torture, two fundamental concepts seem to be involved — The concept of eliciting information that may be critical to saving lives. And the concept of following a code of conduct that respects certain inviolable principles about human rights.

The difficulty arises because these concepts rest on very different frameworks. The first requires a straightforward cost benefit calculation. Is torture an effective way to get the information we want with acceptable practical consequences (such as retribution or backlash)? The second requires that we set aside practical implications, making them irrelevant, and commit to a course of humane conduct that would apply under any conditions.

Likewise a very similar dissonance exists for parents considering circumcision. Do they apply the abstract principle that the child has certain rights over his body, or do they make a decision based on the practical benefits or otherwise of circumcision?

Can we in fact synthesize the two sides of such dissonant questions? I believe we can.

First we need to raise the question up a level: In the case of torture, we would frame this higher question as follows: Do I believe that a set of principles grounded in human rights should supersede any practical implications of such principles? Or, in other words, do I consider human rights so important that I would uphold them even when other lives may be risked?

I realize that in one sense we’ve simply put the dissonance at arms length, but now we have a question that we can sink our teeth into. Principles reflect not the moment and circumstances at hand, but something perpetual and far reaching. If we choose to adhere to principles it is because we have concluded that these principles reflect something constant and worthy — such as human rights. It’s in the nature of a principle that it shouldn’t be deflected by the press of the current situation.

What this kind of analysis makes clear is that expedient or plastic principles are not principles at all but simply become part of the cost benefit calculation. When Bush redefines torture so that he can say he upholds the principles of human rights but supports severe interrogation, he is fooling himself. He has simply incorporated the cost benefit analysis of skirting the torture issue into his decision about whether to permit and condone torture. The matter becomes a sliding scale — what level of benefit justifies torture?

Saying that something is against one’s principles, but not in this case because the stakes are too high, is the same as having no principles on the matter whatsoever.