#48. Science and Proto-science [evolutionary psychology]

EP

Red, theory; black, fact.

Why does religion continue to be so popular in today's supposedly enlightened age? In what category of things should we place religion for purposes of analysis? This is a very important question. The least bad answer that I have come up with is: "Religion is the last protoscience." (By this I mean "classical protoscience"; a contemporary field of study, string theory, has also been labelled "protoscience," a result I base on a DuckDuckGo search on "Is string theory a protoscience?" on 20 Feb, 2022.)

Protoscience is most easily defined by a few well-known examples: alchemy and astrology. These disciplines can be thought of as crude, primordial versions of chemistry and astronomy, respectively, and unable to quickly divest themselves of laughably bad theories, due to an over-reliance on aesthetics as a way to truth.

If religion is a protoscience, that then, is the corresponding science? Will religion someday transform into some kind of super-science, marvelous beyond all prior imagining, and capable of robustly duplicating all the miracles of Christ, just for starters?

08-03-2020: Formerly at this location, now deprecated: Religion is the protoscience of origins and Darwin's theory its successor via the clergyman Malthus. Malthus was one of Darwin's influences, as attested explicitly in the writings of the latter.

07-26-2020: The science that could replace the protoscience religion is likely to be the study of adaptive, distributed, and unconscious behavioral effects in human populations. <07-30-2020: This will be a division within sociobiology focused on human swarm intelligence acting on an historical time scale.> From my own examined experience, I have reason to believe that such things exist. I called them "macro-homeostatic effects" in the post "The Drill Sergeants of the Apocalypse."

Alchemy is thought to have become chemistry with the isolation of oxygen in pure form by Priestly, followed in short order by its recognition as an element by Lavoisier, who had met Priestly in Paris and learned of the new "air" direct from the discoverer. This clue led Lavoisier to a correct theory of the nature of combustion. Priestly published his discovery of oxygen (Lavoisier's term), which he called "dephlogisticated air" (an alchemical term), in letter form, in 1775.

06-28-2019: The corresponding intellectual hand-off from astrology to astronomy seems to have been from Tycho Brae (1546-1601), who seems to have been much involved with astrology, to his onetime assistant Johannes Kepler (1571-1630; "The Legislator of the Heavens"), who derived three famous mathematical laws of planetary motion from Brae's data.

While the former astrology continues to this day as basically a form of amusement and favorite whipping-boy of sophomores everywhere who are just discovering the use of their brains, and the former alchemy has utterly perished (as theory, not practice), religion continues to pay its way down the time stream as a purveyor of a useful approximate theory.

An approximate theory is useful to have if all you need is a quick and dirty answer. The theory that the Earth is flat is an approximate theory that we use every time we take a step. The corresponding exact theory, that the Earth is spherical and gravitating, is only needed for challenging projects such as travelling to the moon.

03-13-2020: Thus, the God hypothesis is the theory of natural selection seen "through a glass darkly." However, the experiences contributing to the formulation of the God hypothesis would have been due to any cause of seemingly miraculous events over the horizon or beyond the reach of individual memory. This would comprise a mixture of the fastest effects of evolution and the slowest effects of synaptic plasticity/learning (e.g., developmental sensitive periods). However, the capacity for learning is itself due to natural selection and learning is, like natural selection, a trial-and-error process. Thus, the two sources of biological order hinting at the existence of God should usually be pulling in the same direction but perhaps with different levels of detail. Modern skepticism about religion seems to be directed at the intellectual anchor point: the God hypothesis. Since I believe that they are best de-faithed who are least de-faithed, let us simply shift the anchor to natural selection and carry on.

I think it premature to abandon classical religion as a source of moral guidance before evolutionary psychology is better developed, and given the usefulness of approximate theories, complete abandonment may never be practical. However, in our day, humanity is beset with many pressing problems, and although atheism appears to be in the ascendent, it may be time to reconcile religion with science, so as not to throw out any babies with the bathwater.

The modes of worship in use in many modern religions may well confer psychological benefits on the pious not yet suspected or articulated by mainstream science. Scientific investigation of the modes of worship that many religions have in common seems in order, especially since they amount to folk wisdom, which is sometimes on the money. Examples of common practices that seem to have potential for inducing neurophysiological changes are prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, incense-burning, and even simple congregating.

Photo by JJ Jordan on Unsplash

#39. Can Irreducible Complexity Evolve? [genetics, evolution]

EV     GE     

Red, theory; black, fact.

5-26-2018: Influential biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in "The God Delusion" that a genuine case of irreducible complexity will never be found in biology. A case of irreducible complexity would be some adaptation that would require an intelligent designer because it could never evolve one mutation at a time, and Dawkins believes there is no such intelligent designer in biology.

In classic natural selection, each mutation must be individually beneficial to its possessor in order for selection to increase its prevalence in the population to the point where the next incremental, one-mutation improvement becomes statistically possible. In this way, all manner of wondrous things are supposed to evolve bit by tiny bit.

However, I am seeing irreducible complexity all over the place these days. For example, your upper-jaw dentition must mesh pretty accurately with that of your lower jaw or you can't eat. Thus, the process of evolutionary foreshortening of the muzzle of the great apes to the flat human face could never have happened, assuming that a single mutation affects only the upper or lower jaw. But it did. (Let us gloss over the fact that that is an assumption, because the contrary seems to require non-local rules in development.)

Furthermore, how can any instinctive signaling system evolve one mutation at a time? At a minimum, you always need both the transmitter adaptation and the receiver adaptation, not to mention further mutations to connect the receiver circuit to something useful. The evolution of altruism presents a similar problem. The lonely first altruist in the population is always at a disadvantage in competition with the more selfish non-mutants unless it also has a signaling system that lets it recognize fellow altruists (initially, close relatives) and a further mutation that places the altruistic behavior under the control of the receiver part of this system. Thus, altruists would only be altruistic to their own kind, the requirement for altruism to be selected in the presence of selfishness. Finally, the various parts of this system must be indissolubly linked in a way that the non-altruists cannot fake.

My solution is to label the crossing-over events that occur during meiosis as "tetra-mutations." In crossing over, two homologous chromosomes pair up along their length and swap a long segment of DNA, a process requiring four double chain breaks and their corresponding repairs. Because of the presence of single-nucleotide polymorphisms, the homologous chromosomes are not exactly the same, so that each of the upstream sides of the four chain breaks ends up in a subtly different genetic environment. If the break point falls between a cis-acting regulatory element and the corresponding structural gene, for instance, the former may now control the expression of a slightly different protein. Thus, there could be as many as four distinct functional consequences of one crossing-over event. Why not call that a tetra-mutation?

In this way, a concerted change affecting four distinct sites becomes possible. The two ends of the recombinant segment can in principle be functionally unrelated initially. They become related if both are affected by the same tetra-mutation and the entire change increases fitness and is thus selected.

A single tetra-mutation could in principle produce viable altruism at one stroke because of the number of simultaneous changes involved. 

The probability of a combination of simultaneous local changes being beneficial to the organism is much smaller on mathematical grounds than is the probability of a given single-nucleotide change being beneficial. However, these unfavorable statistics are at least partly offset by the existence of a dedicated system for producing tetra-mutations in large numbers, namely meiosis, part of the process of maturation of egg cells and sperm cells.

In the big picture, tetra-mutations provide a way for a species to discontinuously jump into new niches as they open up, possibly explaining how a capacity for this kind of mutation could spread and become characteristic of surviving species over time. This idea also provides a ready explanation for the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

5-30-2018: Here is the search description again, in case you missed it or could not see all of it: Sexual reproduction may allow the evolution of irreducible complexity by increasing the intrinsic complexity of the basic building block of change, the mutation.

6-12-2018: Upon further reflection, it seems that the tetramutation construct described above lacks validity because during gamete maturation it falls apart into two bi-mutations, both of which cannot contribute to the same zygote. The bi-mutation is stable, however, because of the intervening translocated DNA segment. It is harder to see how a complex adaptation like altruism could evolve out of nothing but mono-mutations and bi-mutations, but that does not mean the theory put forward in this post is necessarily wrong. One must not argue from lack of imagination. It is an interesting question, actually, what is the minimum set of all mutation types necessary to account for all known adaptations.

8-27-2019: In my ignorance, I have undersold the bi-mutation idea. A very far-reaching change to the genetic information can occur during crossing-over that is not at all subtle and is termed unequal crossing-over. This form of the process arises because of inaccuracies, sometimes major, in the initial alignment of the homologous chromosomes prior to crossing-over. When the process is finished, one chromosome has been shortened and the other has been lengthened, with gene duplication. This is the major source of gene duplication, which, in turn, is a major source of junk DNA, the part that is classified as broken genes. Two questions come to mind. The first is, are anatomical features such as jaw length and axon targets somehow controlled by variations in gene dose? The second, which is a tangent, is, are broken genes really broken or just temporarily switched off by genetic drift at some mutational hot spot in the recognition site of some transcription factor? The analogy here is to a generator in a power plant that has been placed in stand-down mode because of a temporary decrease in the demand for electrical power.

#34. Emotions [evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience]

EP    NE    GE

Red, theory; black, fact.

12-17-2017: In previous posts, I theorized that humans, along with all other sexually-reproducing species, have a long-range guidance system that I called proxy natural selection, or preferably, post-zygotic gamete selection (PGS), that is basically a fast form of evolution in which individual cells, the gametes, are the units of selection, not individuals. Selection is conjectured to happen post-zygotically (i.e., sometime after the beginning of development, or even in adulthood) but is retroactive to the egg and sperm that came together to create the individual. Each gamete is potentially unique because of the crossing-over genetic rearrangements that happen during its maturation. This theory explains the biological purpose of this further layer of uniqueness beyond that due to the sexual mixing of chromosomes, which would otherwise appear to be redundant.

Our emotions are conjectured to be programmed by species-replacement group selection and to serve as proxies for increases and decreases in the fitness of our entire species.

A further correlate of an emotion beyond the cognitive and autonomic-nervous-system components would be the neurohumoral component, expressed as chemical releasing and inhibiting factors that enter the general circulation via the portal vessels of the hypothalamus, blood vessels which are conventionally described as affecting only the anterior pituitary gland. These factors are theorized to reach the stem-like cells that mature into egg and sperm, where they set reversible epigenetic controls on the level of crossing-over that will occur during differentiation. Large amounts of crossing-over are viewed as retroactively penalizing the gametes leading to the individual by obfuscating or overwriting with noise specifically the genetic uniqueness of said original gametes. In contrast, low levels of further crossing-over reward the original gametes with high penetrance into the next generation. Here, I believe you have all the essential ingredients of classical natural selection, and all the potential, in a process that solves problems on an historical timescale.

Crossing-over happens only between homologous chromosomes, which are the paternal and maternal copies of the same chromosome. Human cells have 46 chromosomes because they have 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes. The homologous-chromosome-specificity of crossing-over suggests that the grand optimization problem that is human evolution has been broken down into 23 smaller sub-problems for the needs of the PGS process, each of which can be solved independently, without interactions with any of the other 22, and which involves a 23-fold reduction in the number of variables that must be simultaneously optimized. In computing, this problem-fragmentation strategy greatly increases the speed of optimization. I conjecture that it is one of the features that makes PGS faster than classical natural selection.

However, we now need 23 independent neurohumoral factors descending in the bloodstream from brain to testis or (fetal) ovary, each capable of setting the crossing-over propensity of one specific pair of homologous chromosomes. Each one will require its own specific receptor on the surface of the target oogonia or spermatogonia. Check this out in the literature, and you will already find a strange diversity of cell-surface receptors on the spermatogonia. (I haven't looked at oogonia yet.&&) I predict that the number of such receptors known to science will increase to at least 23. None of this is Lamarkism, because nervous-system control would be over the standard deviation of behavioral traits, not their averages.

1-09-2018: Naively, this theory also appears to require 23 second messengers to transfer the signals from cell surface to nucleus, which sounds excessive. Perhaps the second messengers form a combinatorial code, which would reduce the number required by humans to log2 (23) = 4.52, or 5 in round numbers. This is much better. Exactly five second-messenger systems are known, these being based on: cyclic AMP, inositol triphosphate, cyclic GMP, arachidonic acid, and small GTPases (e.g., ras). However, many mammalian species have many more than the 32 chromosome pairs needed to saturate a 5-bit address space.

1-10-2018: If we expand the above list of second messengers with the addition of the calcium/calmodulin complex, the address space expands to 64 pairs of homologous chromosomes, for a total ploidy of 128. This seems sufficient to accommodate all the mammals. Thus, a combinatorial second-messenger code representable as a five- or six-bit binary integer in most organisms would control the deposition of the epigenetic marks controlling crossing-over propensity.

If the above code works for transcription as well as epigenetic modification, then applying whatever stimuli it takes to produce a definite combinatorial second-messenger state inside the cell will activate one specific chromosome for transcription, so that the progeny of the affected cell will develop into whatever that chromosome specifies, be it an organ, a system, or something else. And there you may have the long-sought key to programming stem cells. You're welcome.

Each pair of homologous chromosomes may correspond to what in an earlier post was called a "PNS focus." The requirement that the evolution of each chromosome contribute independently to the total increase in fitness suggests that a chromosome specifies a system, like the nervous system or the digestive system. We seem to have only 11 systems, not 23, but more may be defined in the future.

A related concept is that a chromosome specifies an ancestral, generic cell type, like glial cells (4 subtypes known) or muscle cells (3 subtypes known). The great diversity of the neurons suggest that they must be reclassified into multiple basic types, perhaps along the lines suggested by the functional classification of the cranial nerves: general somatic, general visceral, and special somatic (i.e., specific senses).

1-09-2018: A third concept for function assignment to homologous pairs of chromosomes postulates a hypothetical maximally divided genome in which each cell type has its own chromosome pair, a state conjectured to seldom occur in nature. Co-evolution of clusters of cell types (e.g., neurons and glia; bone and cartilage) would create selection pressure for the underlying cell-type-specific chromosomes to become covalently linked into the larger chromosomes that we see in the actual karyotypes. Thus, each observed homologous pair would correspond to a few cell types that are currently co-evolving, which seems to return us to the system or organ concept. 

01-08-2019: The system specified by a chromosome may be called a cooperation system, and these may be organized in a hierarchy, following the general principles of spatial organization outlined in my post: "The Pictures in Your Head." Chromosomes activated earlier in development will specify system-like entities and those activated late in development will specify organ-like entities. Only the first-activated chromosome will apply to the entire organism.

Humans depend on complex social structures for their survival, and this comes out of our individual behavioral tendencies. Probably, most PGS adaptations to environmental fluctuations involve modifying these structures, which would come out of subtle modifications of individual behaviors. I think I am just repeating E.O. Wilson here. Our hard-wired species-fitness definitions would give rise to the primary emotions, perhaps in the hypothalamus or limbic system, by connecting specific stimuli to primary emotions in the manner of an if-then rule. 

Further out on the cortex, the specific stimuli being connected would get progressively more complex and learning-dependent, and progressively less concerned with the "what" of behavior (i.e., our species-specific taxes) and more with the "how" of behavior. In "how" mode, the complex stimuli become more like signposts to be consulted on a journey. PGS adaptations of our behavior would affect the hardwired aspects of this hypothetical transition zone. The primary emotions would then be like the highest hierarchical level of our motor program, or like the least-indented instructions of a conventional high-level computer program.

I conjecture that religion is important because it goes straight for this highest level. We all know that religion is kind of an emotional business, what with the organ music and the stained glass and all such as that, and this is why. I therefore conjecture that words spoken often from the pulpit, such as God, sin, forgiveness, devil, angel, soul, salvation, etc., all enclose a secret that writers such as Dawkins do not grasp: the emotions are the message. To illustrate this, let us attempt an emotional definition of the master symbol, "God."

God: feeling loved and secure to the point of invulnerability; feeling small in an agreeable way, as in the presence of mountains; feeling brotherly/sisterly towards one's fellow humans; blossoming in confidence into one's full potential; fearing nothing.

Perhaps that's enough to give the general idea. No doubt a whole dictionary could be compiled along these lines. When the priest strings these emotion-words together, he creates an experience for the congregation that could fairly be called a form letter from "God," assuming that the word "God" points to the PGS process itself. The job of the priest is to help the congregation relate on a deep level to the sacred texts and to see/feel how they apply to the challenges of the here and now.

7-05-2018: Another term for PGS would be "Yahwetion," from "Yahweh," the conventional modern spelling of the name of the god of ancient Israel, and the "tion" ending indicating a process, like evolution. This neologism advantageously steers people away from category errors like attempting to worship it, or appease it, or what have you.

The conventionally religious will complain that this would make prayer to God impossible, but not if prayer itself is re conceived as "auto socialization," following the educational theory of prayer. Then prayer becomes a fantasy conversation with anyone, living or dead, that you would like to have as a mentor, if it were possible.

#19. Explaining Science-religion Antipathy also Explains Religion [evolutionary psychology]

EP

Red, theory; black, fact.

I will be arguing here that the Darwinian selective advantage to humans of having a propensity for religion is that it regulates the pace of introduction of new technology, which is necessitated by the disruptive side effects of new technology.

If this sounds like a weak argument, perhaps people have been chronically underestimating the costs to society of the harmful side effects of new technology, ever since there have been people. Take the downside of the taming of fire, for instance. You can bet that the first use would have been military, just as in the case of nuclear energy. Remember that everything was covered in forests in those days; there must have been an appalling time of fire until kin selection slowly put a stop to it. The lake-bottom charcoal deposits will still be there, if anyone cares to look for them. (Shades of Asimov's story "Nightfall.")

The sedimentary record does not seem to support the idea that the smoke from such a time of fire caused a planetary cooling event sufficient to trigger the last ice age. However, the mere possibility helps to drive home the point, namely that prehistoric, evolutionary-milieu technology was not necessarily too feckless to produce enough disruption to constitute a source of selection pressure.

Natural selection could have built a rate-of-innovation controller by exaggerating people's pleasure at discovering a new, unexplored phenomenon, until they bog down in rapture at that moment and never progress to the next step of actually experimenting or exploring. The latter activities would be just upstream of the nominally controlled process, the introduction of new technology. People's tendency for "rapture capture" would be causally linked via genetically specified neural pathways to the kinds of hardships caused by technological side effects, thereby completing a negative feedback loop that would work like a steam engine governor.

I conjecture that all present-day religions are built on this phenomenon of "rapture capture." This may explain why the most innovative country, the USA, is also the most religiose, according to Dawkins, writing in "The God Delusion." An Einsteinian sense of wonder at the cosmos that, according to Dawkins, most scientists feel, could be a mild, non-capturing version of the same thing. The unlikely traits attributed to God, omnipotence, omni this and that, could have instrumental value in intensifying the rapture.

Another possible name for what I have been calling rapture could be "arcanaphilia." A basic insight for me here was that religion is fundamentally hedonistic. I do not seem to be straying too far from Marx's statement that "Religion is the opiate of the people."

These ideas help to explain why some sciences such as astronomy and chemistry began as inefficient protosciences (e.g., astrology, alchemy): they were inhibited from the start by an excessive sense of wonder, until harder heads eventually prevailed (Galileo, Lavoisier). Seen as a protoscience, the Abrahamic religions could originally have been sparked by evidence that "someone is looking out for us" found in records of historical events such as those the ancient Israelites compiled (of which the Dead Sea Scrolls are a surviving example). That "someone" would in reality be various forms of generation-time compensation, one of which I have been calling the "intermind" in these pages. Perhaps when the subject of study is in reality a powerful aspect of ourselves as populations, the stimulus for rapture capture will be especially effective, explaining why religion has yet to become an experimental science.

By the way, there is usually no insurmountable difficulty in experimenting on humans so long as the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki are observed: volunteer basis only; controlled, randomized, double-blind study; experiment thoroughly explained to volunteers before enrollment; written consent obtained from all volunteers before enrollment; approval of the experimental design obtained in advance from the appropriate institutional ethics committee; and the experiment registered online with the appropriate registry.

Religions seem to be characterized by an unmistakable style made up of little touches that exaggerate the practitioner's sense of wonder and mystery, thus, their arcanaphilic "high." I refer to unnecessarily high ceilings in places of worship, use of enigmatic symbols, putting gold leaf on things, songs with Italian phrases in the score, such as "maestoso," wearing colorful costumes, etc. I shall refer to all the elements of this style collectively as "bractea," Latin for tinsel or gold leaf. I propose the presence of bractea as a field mark for recognizing religions in the wild. By this criterion, psychiatry is not a religion, but science fiction is.

It seems to me that bractea use can easily graduate into the creation of formal works of art, such as canticles, stained glass windows, statues of the Buddha, and the covers of science fiction magazines. Exposure to concentrations of excessive creativity in places of worship can be expected to drive down the creativity of the worshipers by a negative feedback process evolved to regulate the diversity of the species memeplex, already alluded to in my post titled, "The Intermind: Engine of History?"

This effect should indirectly reduce the rate of introduction of new technology, thereby feeding into the biological mission of religion. Religion could be the epi-evolutionary solution, and the artistic feedback could be the evolutionary solution, to the disorders caused by creativity. Bractea would represent a synergy between the two.