|
|
|
|
Evolutionary Theory Commentary on Ken Wilber’s Twenty Tenets and Two Experiments on Subjective Experience
As one of the co-facilitators of this conference series, Deamer began his response by reading a quotation from Antonio Damasio (author of The Feeling of What Happens) that summarized for Deamer one of the central goals of this conference: Knowledge gathered from subjective observations such as introspective insights can inspire objective experiments and no less importantly subjective experience can be explained in terms of the available scientific knowledge. Deamer commented that one of the central goals of this conference is to learn how to apply the method of science to the interior, subjective life that people experience. What is the value of a new idea (the Twenty Tenets)? When assessing the value of a new idea, Deamer suggested we should ask three questions: How useful is this idea in advancing our understanding of physical reality? More specifically, does it have predictive value? In other words, can it be tested experimentally or observationally? Does it have explanatory value? Sometimes a new hypothesis cannot be tested in the laboratory, but still offers a satisfying explanation of observations. Darwin’s original theory of natural selection had value in this sense. As a scientist who has submitted his own research proposals to federal agencies for funding, Deamer has first hand experience with the process of scientific peer review, which uses questions likes these to guide decision making. Pointing out that the formal process of peer review is virtually unique to science, Deamer noted that about 20,000 scientists every year submit grant proposals to institutions such as NIH and NSF. About 20 – 30 percent are funded, so the competition is fierce. The ability to demonstrate the value of one’s idea in the form of a proposal is thus tested quite thoroughly by the peer review process. In order to provide an example of how the value and efficacy of a new idea is tested rigorously by the scientific community, Deamer gave a brief historical overview of how Charles Darwin’s own hypothesis of natural selection has been tested by scientists since its publication in 1859. Originally, Darwin himself believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics—an idea most commonly associated with the French zoologist, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, whose Philosophie Zoologique was published in 1809 fifty years before Darwin’s Origin of Species. And although it has been shown that there are minor exceptions (there are some instances where acquired characteristics are inherited), Darwin’s central hypothesis of variation and natural selection has survived numerous tests over the past 140 years. Deamer emphasized that what is significant about Darwin’s hypothesis is that it has inspired others to inquire further into its implications. Examples include: 1) Darwin’s idea predicts that there must be an underlying mechanism which produces variability. As a result, scientists in the 20th century discovered both genes and DNA, which form the molecular components of evolutionary change. 2) Our understanding of evolution at the molecular level also has practical applicability, witnessed in the emerging field of genetic medicine. Deamer’s perspective on the Twenty Tenets Next, Deamer discussed 3 evolutionary processes (physical, chemical, and biological) and asked if Wilber’s Twenty Tenets help our understanding of them or add any extra value to them. Number 1: Physical evolution The word evolution is often used simply to describe change over time. For instance, stellar evolution implies that stars ‘evolve’ over time, but there is no selective process at work, as in biological evolution. Scientists study physical evolution in inter-stellar space whereby loose dust and gas clouds slowly form stars. If the cloud is big enough, gravitational forces produce a high mass star that will burn for only a few million years and eventually explode as a supernova. During this process stellar nucleosynthesis synthesizes heavier elements, including gold and uranium, as well as common lighter elements such as carbon, oxygen and silicon. The cycle of star formation followed by explosions has been repeating itself since the beginning of the universe over 12 billion years ago. Stars such as our sun form from a smaller cloud of dust and gas, and have lifetimes measured in billions, not millions of years. Such stars also live and die. Our sun is about 5 billion years old, and in about 5 billion years it will undergo an explosive phase as well, first becoming a red giant, then collapsing to a much smaller white dwarf after losing much of its mass to interstellar space. After giving this account, Deamer openly asked if Wilber’s Twenty Tenets help us understand this process or make predictions about it? Does Wilber’s system add value to what we already know? Robert Kegan pointed out that Wilber’s system points to the advance of complexity. Deamer agreed with this observed trend, but was not convinced that significant explanatory value was provided by the system. Number 2: Chemical evolution In interstellar space, molecules of water, carbon monoxide, and methanol form a thin mantle on the dust-like grains of silicate minerals that compose molecular clouds in our galaxy. UV light hits the grain mantle and chemically activates these molecules, which spontaneously organize themselves into more complex structures. Such dust particles take part in the accretion process by which planets are formed, and we now know that extraterrestrial organic material has been and continues to be delivered to the earth at the rate of tens of tons per day. Again, Deamer asked if Wilber’s model offers adds explanatory value to this process of chemical evolution. At minimum, Wilbur would probably say that the process proceeds from simple holons to more complex holons, but Deamer notes that such a statement is little more than a descriptive statement, and lacks explanatory or predictive power. Number 3: Biological evolution Next, Deamer described the step by step evolutionary process that leads to the origin of life. First, he pointed to a striking finding that has emerged out of years of research on the origins of life. What he and others have found is that cellular-like compartments called vesicles spontaneously self-assemble out of elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen) delivered to the earth by meteorites. These vesicle compartments can be compared to miniature versions of soap bubbles. Second, Deamer noted that without exception all life is polymeric. So, how did the first polymers come about? It must have been a self-assembly process, since there were no prebiotic genes or enzymes to guide the formation of complex structures. Third, he asked how does a polymer reproduce itself, which is an essential characteristic of all life, the prime example being the mechanism by which DNA is replicated. Such replication is central to life, but Deamer noted that scientists have not yet discovered how to get a plausible prebiotic polymer to self-assemble, let alone reproduce itself. Fourth, because polymers don’t spontaneously organize, to create them one must chemically activate the monomers that link up to form polymers. The chemical activation of monomers is central to life and metabolism, but again we have no explanation of how the first monomers were activated. Fifth, regulatory feedback between the catalysts and information storage is also important to the origin of life. This represents the origin of the genetic code and translation of a genetic message via a code to another molecule, such as a protein. Last, to permit growth of the system, energy must be tapped from the environment. Contemporary forms of life use solar energy (photosynthesis) as a primary energy source, but what energy did the first forms of life utilize? Again, we don’t know, although a number of ideas are being tested experimentally. The beginning of evolution is the last step towards life. If scientists someday are able to produce living systems of molecules in the laboratory, the systems capable of replicating "life" in a test tube, it must display the capacity of evolution to constitute what we call "life." Do Wilber’s Tenets help us understand these three evolutionary processes? In response to Deamer’s presentation, George Leonard commented that the added value that Wilber articulates in the Twenty Tenets is the ability to tie diverse activities of evolution into a coherent whole. His aim is not scientific so much as philosophical, and the aim of philosophy is to tie a particular process into a larger context. In particular, Wilber includes consciousness, particularly higher stages of consciousness. Frank Poletti pointed out that one of the central points that Wilber is driving at in his Twenty Tenets is the contextural nature of all holons. Science has a tendency to abstract "things" from their contexts, but Wilber’s holonic theory insists that all "things" always exist within a context. All parts exist within larger wholes, and, furthermore, those parts have different functions depending upon which "whole" they are situated within. By weight the universe today is still 97% hydrogen and 3% helium, barely changed from what it was 2 billion years ago after the big bang, but the holonic context is totally different for that same quantity of hydrogen and helium. In short, the context guides how a holon will manifest. Robert Kegan added that another central point Wilber is trying to make is that there are homologous laws across the great domains of evolution. Macro-structures are organized in homologous ways (not analogous). Using Wilber’s Tenets, we can look in different domains for these homologous laws. In addition, Wilber’s Twenty Tenets are only five years old. Watson and Crick did not find DNA until 1953, which was 6 years short of a full century after Darwin published the Origin of Species, so the amount of time it takes to fully "unpack" the significance of an idea sometimes can take several years. Can we conceive of significant experimental tests of subjective experience? Deamer concluded his presentation with two short experiments that he conducted with the participants of the conference. First Experiment In the first experiment, Deamer tested a hypothesis he has been considering: that the mind may have a true psychokinetic (PK) effect on the material of the brain at the point of making a decision. To test this hypothesis, Deamer asked all the participants to pick up a pen and hold it in hand with their arms stretched out and to consciously choose whether they will drop their pens or not—but not report their choice to anyone. When Deamer said "now," all the participants either dropped or did not drop their pens. About 20% of the participants dropped their pens, while 80% held them. Deamer suggested that the mind (mental intention) of the participants influenced their brain chemistry and thus choice of whether to drop or not. Deamer would like to further study his hypothesis, particularly focusing on the resulting biophysics in the brain that accompany the process of making a choice. Second Experiment In the second experiment Deamer tested the human experience of time. With the participants listening, Deamer made two sets of two audible taps with his hands, and he intentionally (without saying so) made the second set of two taps further apart in time than the first set of two taps. After doing this, he asked the participants to guess which set of two taps was farther apart in time. Almost everyone in the room agreed that the second set of two taps was farther apart in time (which had been Deamer’s tacit intention). Deamer believes that we all share some form of internal clock or oscillator in our brains, which helps us sense time durations. Scientists don’t know exactly where this is in our brains, though. Deamer further suggests that human consciousness is not just awareness of the present moment, but includes awareness of the past several minutes. Human brains perhaps differ from other animal brains in that there is a mechanism that provides access to a trail of recent information. Deamer would like to experiment with how accurately humans estimate time intervals and how far down the phylogenetic tree this capacity goes. For example, are humans different from chimps in accurate time perception? In response Robert Kegan pointed out that developmental psychology has thoroughly studied how children’s cognitive capacities of time change. For example, he noted that children in the age range of 5 to 7 years undergo a qualitative difference in their ability to handle "if/then" statements. Furthermore, in adolescence the ability to bring the future impact of life choices to bear on decisions in the present moment starts to emerge.
|
|
|