Friendship
"Judge people by their actions and behaviour - not by the labels they are born with"
Welcome to my Blog
A warm welcome to my Blog
I shall post some news of interest to Sri lankans about life in Sri Lanka in the period 1950-1960 mainly. This will feature articles on music, general history and medicine. I am dedicated to humanism and refuse to judge people according to labels they are born with. Their actions and behaviour shall be my yardsticks, always cognizant of the challenges they faced in life.
Sunday 28 April 2024
LIVING....AND DYING
Saturday 10 February 2024
EVOLUTION, MORALITY, NATURAL SELECTION, ADAPTATION, SURVIVAL. SELFISH GENE
EVOLUTION, MORALITY, NATURAL SELECTION, ADAPTATION, SURVIVAL. SELFISH GENE
Mahendra February 10th , 2024
Welcome to my first post in 2024.
The
Theory of Evolution is now almost universally accepted as a scientific fact. There are aspects within the general theory that are very clear and unambiguous, but some of the terms used above create some ambiguity.
The use of the term “selfish” is unfortunate as it implies “agency”. Only an agent (a sentient being with an image of self) can be selfish. To say that a gene is selfish implies that it has agency. Of course, it may not have been used in a literal sense, but it has caused a lot of damage as it has made evolution appear to promote selfish societies with no moral values.
The ultimate mechanism for spontaneous variation and evolution of change over time is the random mutations that occur in genes. As I understand it, these are entirely random and can manifest physically (? And non-physically) as a whole range of possibilities. These possibilities are also random and not directed in any way. What then happens is purely a result of those that have a better reproductive or survival value being “chosen”, and not by a thing that chooses but by the simple fact of what is best suited to survive. If evolution is driven directly via mutations which are needed, that implies that the environment somehow dictates the mutation process to follow a favourable path. This is not so. A whole random range is produced, and the winner is the one with the best chance to survive, merely through a perfectly natural process, and those produced which are not suitable just do not survive. This explains why evolution has to be thought of in the context of a massive scale of time. If purposeful mutation has occurred, the whole process would be shortened, but… an explanation is then required on how these purposeful mutations occur, and it will be very tempting to postulate a grand designer.
Survival must be considered in the context of time (age) and species. In the lowest form, physical attributes will play a large part, such as a long neck (giraffe) or number of limbs, flexibility of joints, skin pigmentation, presence of hair etc. But at a higher level, surely behavioural characteristics must come into play. If that is so, it then implies that behavioural characteristics must also be heritable so that the advantage that promoted survival must be transmissible to the next generation, which is key and central to the theory of evolution.
It is
often mistakenly thought (in my view) that favourable behavioural
characteristics have an underlying moral principle. This has the danger of
making nature “personal” and possibly the design of a higher power. In my view,
it is just basic material sense that drives the process. This explains why “bad” things still happen, as, in a purely mechanistic sense, a “bad” thing could be the best solution. But if we think of survival and its importance, then it is clear that
as species become more and more complex, attributes such as cooperative
behaviour, empathy, loving-kindness, and generosity will enhance the propagation of a species. “Moral”
behaviour then becomes sensible behaviour to be automatically encouraged or
supported by the process of evolution. This, again, needs a long-term perspective. We must not think that we can change the nature of future species
or our own species by short-term measures applicable to the infinitely tiny time we occupy the universe If behavioural changes are heritable, then they will influence
future generations and future species in a direction that we consider “moral”, but as it is a process of automatic selection and not driven by a designed perfect
mechanism, there will always be heterogeneity in species behaviour as well as
in species physical attributes.
We are also not slaves to evolution as a society; we must understand evolution but not treat it as something we cannot influence. We must not fall into the trap of determinism and inevitability. We must also keep reminding ourselves that to think of Evolution, we must think long-term. The whole process is driven by the need for survival, mediated via genes and natural selection. To murder your opponent sometimes may be a good strategy purely in terms of survival, but our intervention with the moral aspects of such a deed will create a better Society and inevitably, if behaviour traits are heritable, create better societies in the future; but it won't happen overnight, not even in a few generations.
We owe a lot to Charles Darwin for his research and intellectual abilities. But we must not forget the contribution of Alfred Russel Wallace, who almost simultaneously had the same thoughts as Darwin. Until the theory of evolution was propounded, it was not easy to debunk the Designer theory favoured by theistic religions. Evolution provides the best explanation for the blindingly vast variety of life and its progression through so many different stages in the space of millions of years. But in my mind, the emergence of a sophisticated animal which Home Sapiens is, and so different in intellectual capacity to any other animal past or present, quite so late in the scale of time living beings have existed, still needs an answer.
Monday 18 December 2023
DESTINY 2023 DECEMBER
What is Destiny
Distinction between fate and destiny. Is our future programmed and immutable?
Predictive factors.
Genetics
Family history
Environment.
? Built-in longevity.
Upbringing, parents, influential teachers, relatives
Habits and lifestyle
Exposure to risk factors
Predictable natural disasters
Conscious decisions on life events.
Availability or, lack of, choices
Religion.
Karma
God's will, design
Is there free will?
Universal trends, such as the certainty that the sun will die and the Milky Way and Andromeda will clash.
Living in times and places of danger.
Wednesday 8 November 2023
Thoughts on the present, past and future
We are often advised to live in the present moment and not think about the lapsed past and the yet to come future. At any one moment in time, there are overlapping circles of the past, the present and the anticipated future. The past cannot be changed, but lessons can be learnt and a better present and future could result. Dwelling on regrets and remorse is unproductive. Wishing things went differently is “wishful” thinking.
There is another aspect of recollecting the past that could be of benefit. The past has not only bad memories but many good ones. Reflecting selectively on the pleasant ones will bring a smile to your face, and is free of charge! You can indulge in playback of happy events in visual, auditory forms with associated emotions which give you enjoyment.
Thinking of the future is essential for safe and meaningful living. It often requires good decisions based on past experience and present conditions. What is not productive is to speculate on every possibility leading to paralysis of decision making and bad outcomes.
By all means accept that the present moment is the only one accessible now but it does not follow that reflecting on the past and on the anticipatory future is worthless - it is quite the opposite, it helps to make best use of the current moment.
Friday 3 November 2023
A Point of View on why Sri Lanka has failed
I have a very controversial theory of why Sri Lanka has failed. A misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Buddhism has led to a self-serving and dangerously detached attitude where personal development in a material sense does not matter at all. What matters is a healthy accumulation of merit, or “ping”, to ensure that your next birth is comfortable. This also goes with an attitude of superiority over other beliefs and a self-centred view of what is good. Christians do far more charitable activities (may not always be for the right reasons) than Buddhists, who spend a fair amount of time, money and effort on monks and temples and on insurance for the after life..
I know these views are very controversial, but I am constantly reminded by devout Sinhalese Buddhists how special they are when they manage to find time to speak to you between temple visits and pandering to Buddhist priests. I hasten to add that this is NOT a criticism of Buddhism. Methta Karuna Muditha are central concepts and service to fellow human beings follow these like the shadow follows the ox.
Monday 23 January 2023
Free will
FREE WILL
The debate on “free will” has been going on for a long time.
A conspicuous feature is the absence of an agreed definition of free
will. Theistic believers posit that forces outside determine whether free will
is exercised or not. Those who believe in “karma” rightly or wrongly imply that
there is an element of pre-determination and physicalists are divided; some believe
that free will definitely exists while others say that space-time is already
there, stretching backwards and forwards so that everything has already happened
and that the “future” and the “past” are relative to the point which you chose
to occupy, in which case, free will is an illusion (or delusion!).
In a simplistic life-centred view, it is the ability to make a decision “feely” and then articulate it without prejudice. It is the ability to make a choice when given
several options. When this is considered
in the context of prevailing circumstances at the time of making this choice,
other factors, such as the time period of existence, systems of governance,
social norms etc., have to be considered. One might argue that free will can
never be fully realised as each person is a victim of time and place, and social
norms: nobody can exercise their “free will” to kill another person! (But he
did because he knew of the repercussions !) Or go through red traffic lights.
One can see how choice, freedom, ethics, religion, and social context all play a
part in our decision-making process..
I am going to forget these for a moment and just consider
whether, regardless of consequences, you are able to make choices and decisions
of your own, assuming that it is possible to do so solely on your considerations
and decisions.
What I see is that human thinking is a complex process. At
any one time, at least three things operate. Firstly, the present moment in
time (which, by the way, is constantly changing and in reality, it is impossible to have a meaningful present “moment”- moments: - maybe). Secondly,
the inevitable flow of relevant memories, coming from past stored
experiences (both yours and those of human history accessible to you through
information sources), and thirdly, thought or projected thoughts on the
anticipated future. For example, suppose I am choosing chocolate in preference to vanilla. In that case, the first influence is the need to decide now (the present moment),
the second is to draw on my previous experience and that of others on the pros
and cons of the choice of flavour and thirdly, the anticipated future, which
can be a host of things and not just the pleasure you get from tasting it. For
example, by my choice of chocolate, would I cause sadness in a loved one who
was eagerly anticipating that you would choose vanilla. The point is whether, after considering all these, you are “free” to make your own choice.
But here is the snag. Some of these considerations from the
past and/or from the future are not conscious ones. Taking a broader view, we
are constantly influenced by our genes (nature), our upbringing (nurture) and
our culture. We can never be totally FREE from that point of view. That is why Libet’s work does not surprise me at
all. The background processing which goes on when we are asked to make a choice
happen long before we come up with the choice. These make your “decide” , just
as you decide without obvious awareness when we drive a car through traffic.
Furthermore, all his subjects have been pre-warned or prepared for this exercise, and hence the results are prejudiced. It is also possible that the precise
moment when we apparently make a choice by an indication to the operator cannot be captured by the methods used.
In summary, I believe that free will is a relative term. None
of us can be immune from influences such
as genes, nurture and culture. It is always a matter of degree and to me, it is
not bimodal or bipolar; it is a spectrum, with the constraint that all of us
are trapped by our genes and culture. Just to complicate matters
further, we can also muddy the waters by contesting whether a sentient being has a “self” that has free will or whether “we” are just a
continuously changing series of “events” or “processes” in which case where is
this “free will” located!