WE REALLY DO NEED TOLERANCE

By

Karl H. Puechl

October 1, 1995

Before getting into the heart of this talk, which should have the longer title, We Really Do Need the Diversity That Can Be Maintained Only Through Tolerance, let me introduce a few related thoughts and present some quotations from books that I've recently read. This will make the talk seem more like a hodge-podge, and this is intentional; it gives a closer relationship as to how the human brain actually functions. The brain is forever comparing many things at once; to us it seems that thinking is linear, proceeding down only a specific line of thought, only because we are constrained by language; we simply can't talk about more than one thing at a time. This feeling is reinforced by the way in which we do arithmetic: we add 2 to 3 and multiply by 6, etc.; one operation at a time to form a neat sequence of actions. I'll touch on this a bit more later, but first let me present some quotations.

"The soul is a living being without a body, having reason and free will". --- from the Roman Catholic catechism.

In the recently published book by Francis Crick entitled THE ASTONISHING HYPOTHESIS: The Scientific Search for the Soul Crick, the British biochemist who with James D. Watson discovered the structure of the DNA molecule and who was awarded the Nobel Prize for this achievement writes:

"Philosophers have had such a poor record over the last two thousand years that they would do better to show a certain modesty rather than the lofty superiority that they usually display."

Incidentally, Crick is currently a distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute in La Jolla.

Near the end of this book, Crick sums up his thoughts very nicely, so I've decided to read the rather long paragraph which contains his conclusions:

The record of religious beliefs in explaining scientific phenomena has been so poor in the past that there is little reason to believe that the conventional religions will do much better in the future. Not only do the beliefs of most popular religions contradict each other but, by scientific standards, they are based on evidence so flimsy that only an act of blind faith can make them acceptable. If the members of a church really believe in a life after death, why do they not conduct sound experiments to establish it? They may not succeed but at least they could try. History has shown that mysteries which the churches thought only they could explain (e.g., the age of the earth) have yielded to a concerted scientific attack. Moreover, the true answers are unusually far from those of conventional religions. If revealed religions have revealed anything it is that they are usually wrong. The case for a scientific attack on the problem of consciousness is extremely strong. The only doubts are how to go about it, and when. What I am urging is that we should pursue it now. If the scientific facts are sufficiently striking and well established, and if they support the Astonishing Hypothesis, then it will be possible to argue that the idea that man has a disembodied soul is as unnecessary as the old idea that there was a Life Force. This is in head-on contradiction to the religious beliefs of billions of human beings alive today. How will such a radical challenge be received? It would be comforting to believe that most people would be so convinced by the experimental evidence that they would immediately change their views. Unfortunately, history suggests otherwise. The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas. There seem to me to be several root causes of this obstinate clinging to outmoded ideas. General ideas, especially moral ones, impressed on us at an early age often become deeply embedded in our brains. It can be very difficult to change them. This may help to explain why religious beliefs persist from generation to generation, but how did such ideas originate in the first place, and why do they so often turn out to be incorrect? One factor is our very basic need for overall explanations of the nature of the world and of ourselves. The various religions provide such explanations and in terms the average person finds easy to relate to. It should always be remembered that our brains largely developed during the period when humans were hunter-gatherers. There was a strong selective pressure for cooperation within small groups of people and also for hostility to neighboring, competing tribes. Even in this century, in the forest of the Amazon, the major cause of death among the competing tribes in the remote parts of Ecuador is from spear wounds inflicted by members of rival tribes. Under such circumstances a shared set of overall beliefs strengthens the bond between tribal members. It is more than likely that the need for them was built into our brains by evolution. Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive and have descendants. From this point of view there is no need for these shared beliefs to be completely correct, provided people can believe in them. The very nature of our brains --- evolved to guess the most plausible interpretations of the limited evidence available --- makes it almost inevitable that, without the discipline of scientific research, we shall often jump to wrong conclusions, especially about rather abstract matters. Man is endowed with a relentless curiosity about the world. We cannot be satisfied forever by the guesses of yesterday, however much the charms of tradition and ritual may, for a time, lull our doubts about their validity. We must hammer away until we have forged a clear and valid picture not only of this vast universe in which we live but also of our very selves.

Now let me point out where science is headed when it comes to brain function and human behavior, and let me also present some facts to show how complicated this all is To present these aspects clearly, I quote from a book entitled: MATTER AND CONSCIOUSNESS: A Contemporary Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind written by Paul Churchland, who like Crick, also has a working relationship with the Salk Institute.

The neuronal architecture revealed by neurophysiological studies is breathtaking in it intricacy. The functional units of the brain appear to be tiny impulse-processing cells called neurons, and there are roughly a hundred billion neurons in a single human brain. [I point out that this is about the same number as there are stars in our galaxy. Also, I point out that we are not talking about the number of atoms, but rather the number of rather complicated cells whose functioning, perhaps, is more complex than the functioning of stars.] More intriguing still, the average neuron enjoys, by way of tiny fibers extending from it called dendrites and axons, about 3000 connections with other neurons, so the interconnectivity of the entire system is truly extraordinary: about 100 trillion connections, [which approaches the total number of stars in the universe]. [When one considers the physical dimensions of the universe relative to the size of the human brain, this is truly amazing.] In the very short term, these connections are a relatively stable feature of each neuron. But new connections do grow and old ones are lost, sometimes on a time scale of mere minutes or less; hence the functional properties of a neuron are themselves somewhat plastic. Such complexity defeats any ready understanding, and we have only just begun to unravel it.

To get a feel for the broader picture, Churchland writes:

Philosophy has been joined by psychology, [computer sciences directed at] artificial intelligence [and artificial life], neuroscience, ethology [the study of animal behavior], and evolutionary theory, to name the principals. All of these sciences have made contributions to what used to be a purely philosophical debate, and all of them promise much more to come.

To elaborate on this, I will next read from another book entitled THE COMPUTATIONAL BRAIN. This book was written by Paul Churchland's wife, Patricia Churchland, together with Terrence Sejnowski.

At this stage in the evolution of science, it appears highly probable that psychological processes are in fact processes of the physical brain, not, as Descartes concluded, processes of a nonphysical soul or mind. Computational neuroscience is an evolving approach that aims to discover the properties characterizing and the principles governing neurons and networks of neurons. It draws on both neurobiological data and computational ideas to investigate how neural networks can produce complex effects such as stereo vision, learning, and auditory location and sound-emitting object. To put it crudely, it has one foot in neuroscience and one foot in computer science. The third foot is firmly planted in experimental psychology, and at least a toe is in philosophy, so evidently the enterprise is multipedal. Unlike a digital computer which is general purpose and can be programmed to run any algorithm, the brain appears to be an interconnected collection of special-purpose systems that are very efficient at performing their tasks but limited in their flexibility. Evolutionary modifications are always made within the context of an organization and architecture that are already in place. Quite simply, Nature is not an intelligent engineer. It cannot dismantle the existing configuration and start from scratch with a preferred design or preferred materials. It cannot mull the environmental conditions and construct an optimal device. Consequently, the computational solutions evolved by Nature may be quite unlike those that an intelligent human would invent, and they may well be neither optimal nor predictable from orthodox engineering assumptions.

That is enough of background information, now let me get more into my subject. This entire topic came about because I noted that the words DIVERSITY and DIVISIVENESS have the same Latin roots. These two words may start out sounding alike, but they are completely opposite when it comes to their impact on society. Diversity, generally leads to greater awareness of possibilities, and growth; divisiveness leads to narrow-minded paranoia, and conflict. Here in the United States, largely because of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we enjoy the benefits of diversity; in the former Yugoslavia, for example, they are reaping the bitter fruits of divisiveness. Seeing this difference, certainly is reason for celebration.

I'd like to point out that diversity is not something that was invented by our Founding Fathers. Diversity is one of Nature's key ingredients that are an aid to survival under changing environmental conditions. To keep this simple, let me talk about sex. Sex gives us, and Nature, assurance that any child of ours will be different from us, and that each child of ours will be different from any other. This means, for example, that in some ways we are all different from each other; perhaps, sometimes only in small ways. But these differences are important. This diversity is extremely important. For example, let's consider the possible impact of a new virus that is extremely lethal. If we were all identical, as we would be without sex, then we would all react similarly to the invasion of our bodies by the toxic virus --- we'd all probably end up dead. But since we are all at least slightly different, some of us will probably have greater immunity to this particular virus, than the average. As a consequence, a massive invasion by a new highly-toxic virus, may lead to many deaths, but, most likely, there will also be many survivors. And subsequently, the children of these survivors will probably also be immune to this particular virus. In general, this is how diversity works. On the biological level, it keeps species from becoming extinct due to a rapid change in the environment, be it extreme cold, or heat, or drought, or novel preditors, or new bacteria, or viruses. One can say that diversity is an insurance policy against rapid, and potentially disastrous, changes in the environment.

The situation is not much different on the social or economic level. Diversity means that there are people with different likes and dislikes, with different drives, with different talents. In combination, this gives a culture vitality. The greater the diversity, the greater the vitality. Each of us can, to a degree, make up for the short-comings of others. Each of us can add a little to the overall scope of possibilities. For those of us who remember the great depression, we recall that not everyone jumped out of a Wall Street window. Most of our parents and grandparents did what was natural for them to do, and they survived the deteriorating economic climate. Most likely, it wasn't easy, but they survived, and, generally, they came out of it morally stronger because of having survived their "trial by fire". The greater the diversity, the greater likelihood that society as a whole will find a better niche; the greater the likelihood that we, collectively, can be proud of where humanity is headed. While it is easy to see the "bad" in our society, let's focus on the "good"; let's just enjoy ourselves and our friendships; let's celebrate our diversity and our togetherness.

Since I am basically an optimist, I like to think that most people believe that intolerance is unacceptable in our heterogeneous democratic society: because it is unethical; because it is rude and crude; because it can be ugly when in the eyes of the "believers" it relegates those who do not "properly believe or belong" into second-class citizens. But more importantly, I believe that intolerance is unacceptable because it goes counter to the dichotomy that has led to the development of "humanity" in the human race.

For many years biologists believed that Homo sapiens developed an inordinately large brain because it was needed to survive in a hunter-gatherer society wherein food was scarce and wherein many preditors roamed. Since many animals existed for millions of years under similar conditions and did not develop any great increase in mental capacity, it is becoming increasing clear that man evolved high intelligence, not because of a prey/preditor relationship with other species, but simply to outsmart his primary adversary, his fellow man. The Red Queen effect as Lewis Carroll described it in Through the Looking-Glass or, in modern terminology, the arms-race with his fellow man came about because man is basically two-sided. He lives in fear of the unknown and therefore latches onto the familiar which gives a feeling of security; but simultaneously he enjoys novelty, excitement, and adventure, and thereby strives for what we now call freedom.

His desire for security leads him to accept irrational beliefs; which, over time, gain the stature of myths. Since these beliefs are based on premises that cannot be proven or disproven either by rational discourse or by observation or experimentation, they can never be overthrown, therefore they persist, they become familiar. What greater comfort is there than for one to have a belief system that cannot be invalidated; and what greater comfort is there than to be part of a mini-culture of individuals who share the same inherently unshakable belief system? Our ancestors who had the greatest need for this security blanket gave early Homo sapiens the degree of cohesiveness that was necessary for the evolution of family, clans, religious communities and, ultimately, nations. Since groups, wherein individuals work collectively, are more powerful than individuals, this banding together was a strong survival mechanism.

On the other hand, our ancestors who had a greater need for adventure and freedom tried new things; they wandered outside of the clan, searched for new mates, and wondered about what it all means. These renegades, among other things, found a greater variety of vegetation that was edible, fashioned different tools that eventually led to agriculture and industry, and cross-fertilized thereby increasing the complexity of individual gene pools which allowed more ready accommodation to environmental changes and also led to the development of immune systems that could more effectively respond to bodily invasion by bacteria and viruses. Obviously, this individualistic behavior was also a strong survival mechanism.

Even in these early days, there was conflict between those whose primary need was for security and those whose primary need was for freedom; but both were necessary for the development of humanity from both a genetic and a cultural viewpoint. The dichotomy, the dialectic (call it what you will), the continuing conflict led to an energetic synergism that could not have developed without this adversarial relationship. This same conflict and synergism exists today, and it is one of our strongest thrusts that guides cultural evolution and keeps it on a reasonable path. The two sides inherently must fight each other, but in this battle they must recognize also that they need each other; and recognizing this need is where tolerance comes into the picture. Absolute security is called slavery and this unrealistic and undesirable goal can be readily attained by destroying freedom; on the other hand, absolute freedom is also an unrealistic and undesirable goal that can be readily visualized by its definition, anarchy. Throughout our continuing cultural evolution, both sides must continue the inevitable battle, must strive to win over advocates, and must compromise so as to allow necessary adjustment to environmental changes; but they must never be intolerant of the other side since such intolerance just might lead to total victory and with it the absurd extreme situations that, in my estimation, could lead to the extinction of the human race.

The advocates for greater freedom universally recognize that tolerance is a vital ingredient for our survival, while the advocates for greater security seem to believe that intolerance is vital. This is readily understood when one examines their respective motivations in greater depth. Those that desire greater freedom, the individualists, really have little need for endorsement from others since, basically, they want to do their own thing without interference, and they recognize that being intolerant can be equated to curbing the freedom of others, which may reflect negatively on their own condition. On the other hand, those that require greater security have this need because they live in fear, and fear can only be completely abolished when there is nothing or no one left to fear; in order to be without fear, they must have complete domination and this can only be accomplished by being intolerant, by completely wiping out the opposition. This explains the horrible atrocities that were committed whenever those that require an inordinate amount of security gained the upper hand. Secondarily, I also suspect that those who require great security recognize that their basic premises, their myths, are really not absolute truths and, therefore, that they must continually strive for reinforcement of the truth of their beliefs by convincing others, by proselytizing. "Of course, a premise must be true if you can convince someone else of its truth!"

The thing that gives me some degree of comfort is the fact that there seems to be a built-in mechanism for preventing either side from completely winning the battle. The mechanism is effective because each of us desires some measure of security as well as some measure of freedom; it is only the relative amounts of each that vary from individual to individual. Slavery is like death for those who have an appreciable desire for freedom; and extreme freedom is real scary to those who are not self-reliant, to those who cannot function when too many avenues of choice are open to them. Consequently, as one or the other of the two sides of the dichotomy begins to dominate, more individuals tend to switch allegiance to the apparently losing side.

For examples of the working of this mechanism, we can look at history. The height of the Greek civilization is a prime example of the domination of freedom (at least for those who were not slaves) and tolerance; all manner of thought and behavior were allowed; the only requirement was openness to debate. This probably was a scary time for those individuals whose constitutions required a large measure of security; accordingly, these tended to band together, with irrational premises being the glue, and these little groups grew until the Greek culture and all its derivatives were replaced by the then modern, and now still major, western religions. The victory of these institutions was nearly complete and led to the Dark Ages. However, this confinement of ideas was too stifling for many individuals and there was desertion in the ranks to the side of those who strove for greater freedom. Eventually, there were a sufficient number of deserters to force the Renaissance, and still increasing numbers eventually led to the Age of Reason which could again be described as a culmination of freedom. However, again this freedom was too scary for many individuals, and more-and-more strove to find greater security. While this security had previously been found in religion, it now tended to be found in intolerant colonization and eventually totalitarian dictatorships, which incidentally, like religions, were also founded on irrational premises. These dictatorships were only mildly successful, and freedom was again soon in ascendancy. It is to be noted that the cycles have shortened; primarily because of technology, changes occur more-and-more rapidly. Therefore, we are again in a period where many individuals feel intolerably insecure. Who does not feel a measure of insecurity when the standard family unit is being driven to extinction, when crime is rampant, when biochemical understanding is leading to major human interference in reproduction and in natural death, when information, much of it not understood, and much of it misinformation, is being instantaneously disseminated throughout the globe? Yes, these are scary times for those who require a large measure of familiarity in order to feel secure; and it is difficult to find this familiarity, this connectedness, in our mobile society where it is easy to feel estranged away from "the hometown"; away from relatives, childhood friends, and well-known neighbors. It is not surprising that the rise of sub-cultures has been extremely rapid since these provide togetherness, reinforcement of beliefs, and, thereby, a sense of security. However, because of this proliferation of sub-cultures, there are also many who find their freedom threatened by these proselytizing entities. This situation, where there is no general agreement as to which side is predominant, has never previously existed. This is leading to a great amount of turmoil since both sides feel forced to fight zealously for that which they believe is necessary for survival. This turmoil, or internecine warfare, is being felt in many areas of the world, and in many seemingly unrelated situations.

It is being played out in all the republics of the former Soviet Union. It is being agonizingly portrayed in the former Yugoslavia. It is a major ingredient in the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism. In the United States, among other things, there is a feeling of purposeless existence as a result of losing the focus of our cold-war enemy. Also on a local level, Americans are trying desperately to alleviate their fears by striving for togetherness and reinforcement: witness the growth of Christian fundamentalism, the rise of various and sundry religious cults, the disturbing expansion of fascist or racist sub-cultures; the establishment of a host of support groups for recovered substance abusers, for a myriad of psychological maladies from real to imagined sex abuse, for almost any kind of real or imagined "survivor". It seems that almost any excuse will do if it allows a group of people to huddle together for support. Also, entering the picture are the substance abusers who overcome their fears simply by "dropping out". In addition, post-modern or New Age phenomena that look toward "other ways of knowing" are being popularized in reaction to rational science and technology that brought about the rapid changes that are largely responsible for our feelings of insecurity. While all this banding together, this cuddling together, to hide fear is going on, those of us who are nourished by freedom are fervently trying to stem the tide of increasing irrationality. While it is impossible to predict the near-term outcome of all this skirmishing, it should be realized that tolerance is now needed more than ever so that transition can be accomplished with minimal harm and suffering; what we do not need is another Inquisition, another closed communist or fascist totalitarian dictatorship, or even another McCarthy-type witch-hunt.

It must be recognized by both parties that the present seemingly intolerable condition has been brought about by the rapidly-changing cultural environment; and that both must somehow accommodate to this change. Besides tolerance, this will probably take compromise. The traditionalists must recognize that we cannot go back to "the good old days"; the individualists must recognize that change, perhaps, can become so rapid that humanity is incapable of making accommodation. There must be a middle ground where both can survive; not in agreement but in continued warfare not aimed at the jugular.

A microcosm of the struggle that is going on both nationally and world-wide is taking place in many school districts throughout the country where the school board's composition has evolved to something like four traditionalists against three individualists. The traditionalists are behaving as traditionalists have always behaved: in order to overcome their fears, they must strive for total victory. Consequently, compromise is never a consideration in the deliberations of the majority. "If we can't have sex education the way we think it should be taught; let's deprive our children of all of it! If there is a teacher in our system who dares to give inordinate attention to teaching the children how to think, her efforts must be stymied or excuses must be found to allow for her discharge! Whenever we can make the minority on the board feel that they are wasting their time, let's do it! Whenever we can discourage teachers from trying to use some initiative, let's do it! Let's micro-manage to make teachers feel insecure; let's keep increasing the paperwork and administrative approval requirements even for mundane matters such as the showing of videos on current events and generally-recognized worthwhile children's programs! Whenever any professional advice, be it from the teaching staff or from legal council, goes against any of our premises, ignore the advice no matter that the consequences may be low morale or unnecessary cost. Let's strive to ruin the public school system so that we produce a nation of followers rather than leaders, a nation wherein self-reliance and critical questioning are shunned. And as soon as it becomes feasible to do so, let's have our kind of prayers to start each day, and let's teach, as science, our non-scientific conjecture that the universe and everything in it developed according to our interpretation of the Bible! Not long after these goals are accomplished, we will be able to tackle the larger tasks of government."

Soon this separation-of-church-and-state conflict will echo in every state legislature and in the halls of Congress. Will the individualists among us respond with sufficient vigor to reverse this tide? Let this essay be a wake-up call, not to the few who have long recognized the dangerous consequences of a theocracy, but to the largely unorganized majority: to those who work hard every day and don't have the time or the inclination to philosophize; to those who prefer not to be a part of any mass-movement; to those who, nevertheless, cherish the freedoms given them by the Constitution of the United States.