What do you think?
Rate this book
The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and Free Will
A radical, optimistic exploration of how humans evolved to develop reason, consciousness, and free will.
Lately, the most passionate advocates of the theory of evolution seem to present it as bad news. Scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and Sam Harris tell us that our most intimate actions, thoughts, and values are mere byproducts of thousands of generations of mindless adaptation. We are just one species among multitudes, and therefore no more significant than any other living creature.
Now comes Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller to make the case that this view betrays a gross misunderstanding of evolution. Natural selection surely explains how our bodies and brains were shaped, but Miller argues that it’s not a social or cultural theory of everything. In The Human Instinct, he rejects the idea that our biological heritage means that human thought, action, and imagination are pre-determined, describing instead the trajectory that ultimately gave us reason, consciousness and free will. A proper understanding of evolution, he says, reveals humankind in its glorious uniqueness—one foot planted firmly among all of the creatures we’ve evolved alongside, and the other in the special place of self-awareness and understanding that we alone occupy in the universe.
Equal parts natural science and philosophy, The Human Instinct is a moving and powerful celebration of what it means to be human.
Lately, the most passionate advocates of the theory of evolution seem to present it as bad news. Scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and Sam Harris tell us that our most intimate actions, thoughts, and values are mere byproducts of thousands of generations of mindless adaptation. We are just one species among multitudes, and therefore no more significant than any other living creature.
Now comes Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller to make the case that this view betrays a gross misunderstanding of evolution. Natural selection surely explains how our bodies and brains were shaped, but Miller argues that it’s not a social or cultural theory of everything. In The Human Instinct, he rejects the idea that our biological heritage means that human thought, action, and imagination are pre-determined, describing instead the trajectory that ultimately gave us reason, consciousness and free will. A proper understanding of evolution, he says, reveals humankind in its glorious uniqueness—one foot planted firmly among all of the creatures we’ve evolved alongside, and the other in the special place of self-awareness and understanding that we alone occupy in the universe.
Equal parts natural science and philosophy, The Human Instinct is a moving and powerful celebration of what it means to be human.
Audible Audio
Published April 17, 2018
65 people are currently reading
1205 people want to read
About the author
Kenneth R. Miller
99 books103 followersKenneth R. Miller is Professor of Biology at Brown University. He earned his Ph.D. in 1974 at the University of Colorado, and spent six years teaching at Harvard University before returning to Brown. He is a cell biologist, and chairs the Education Committee of the American Society for Cell Biology. He serves as an advisor on life sciences to the NewsHour, a daily PBS television program on news and public affairs.
His research work on cell membrane structure and function has produced more than 50 scientific papers and reviews in leading journals, including CELL and Nature, as well as leading popular sources such as Natural History and Scientific American. Miller is coauthor, with Joseph S. Levine, of four different high school and college biology textbooks used by millions of students nationwide. He has received five major teaching awards, and in 2005 was given the Presidential Citation of the American Institute for Biological Sciences for distinguished service in the field of Biology. In 2006 he received the Public Service Award from the American Society for Cell Biology, and in 2007 was given the Science Educator Award from the Exploratorium Museum in San Francisco.
One of Miller's principal interests is the public understanding of evolution. He has written a number of articles defending the scientific integrity of evolution, answering challenges such as "intelligent design," and he has debated a number of anti-evolutionists over the years.
His research work on cell membrane structure and function has produced more than 50 scientific papers and reviews in leading journals, including CELL and Nature, as well as leading popular sources such as Natural History and Scientific American. Miller is coauthor, with Joseph S. Levine, of four different high school and college biology textbooks used by millions of students nationwide. He has received five major teaching awards, and in 2005 was given the Presidential Citation of the American Institute for Biological Sciences for distinguished service in the field of Biology. In 2006 he received the Public Service Award from the American Society for Cell Biology, and in 2007 was given the Science Educator Award from the Exploratorium Museum in San Francisco.
One of Miller's principal interests is the public understanding of evolution. He has written a number of articles defending the scientific integrity of evolution, answering challenges such as "intelligent design," and he has debated a number of anti-evolutionists over the years.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
April 21, 2018
I read a lot. Why do I read so much? I enjoy it, but I suspect there's a hunger behind my voracious appetite for books. I read to pick rocks, turn them over and see whether the secret to life might be hidden there. I suppose I am seeking answers or truth or the secret to human life. Often it's a waste of time, sometimes you catch a whiff of it and then once in a while you turn over a rock and there it is!
I'm not saying this book is the secret answer to life or that it explains fully the meaning of existence, but it gets pretty gosh darn close. The bonus is that he goes after the cocky evolutionary fundamentalists like Sam Harris and Pinker and EO wilson and others. It's not for everyone--especially the spiritual or religiously minded or those seeking answers in those spaces (and I am not saying I am not one). But this book is a sober and humble attempt to explain free will (or at least show that it exists) and to defend man's specialness against the deniers. My favorite part of it is the reigning in of the evolutionary psychologists who need to explain everything as a necessity to gene propagation--what Miller describes as evolutionary science taking over all the other disciplines.
Miller is an excellent writer and thinker and he eloquently engages with others' ideas and anticipate reader questions and answers them. At times, he takes a deep dive into science, but none of it is too hard to understand. I had read the majority of the writers and thinkers he engages with (Dennet, E.O. Wilson, Darwin, Gould, Marilynn Robinson, Wright, Harris, Pinker, Godrey-Smith and others), but I don't think you need to know the background debate to dive in to this.
In summary, humans are amazing because we can write books like this. Who cares how we got here?
I'm not saying this book is the secret answer to life or that it explains fully the meaning of existence, but it gets pretty gosh darn close. The bonus is that he goes after the cocky evolutionary fundamentalists like Sam Harris and Pinker and EO wilson and others. It's not for everyone--especially the spiritual or religiously minded or those seeking answers in those spaces (and I am not saying I am not one). But this book is a sober and humble attempt to explain free will (or at least show that it exists) and to defend man's specialness against the deniers. My favorite part of it is the reigning in of the evolutionary psychologists who need to explain everything as a necessity to gene propagation--what Miller describes as evolutionary science taking over all the other disciplines.
Miller is an excellent writer and thinker and he eloquently engages with others' ideas and anticipate reader questions and answers them. At times, he takes a deep dive into science, but none of it is too hard to understand. I had read the majority of the writers and thinkers he engages with (Dennet, E.O. Wilson, Darwin, Gould, Marilynn Robinson, Wright, Harris, Pinker, Godrey-Smith and others), but I don't think you need to know the background debate to dive in to this.
In summary, humans are amazing because we can write books like this. Who cares how we got here?
December 16, 2018
This book delved into the subject of evolutionary psychology, the idea that our brains, just like our bodies, are primarily molded by evolutionary forces. Example: you aren’t nice to other people because you’re a good person. You’re nice to others because those who treat people well tend not to be thrown out of hunter gatherer tribes, and thus live to pass along their DNA to the next generation.
The book dives deep into the history of evolutionary theory and the debate on free will vs determinism. The book is fairly well written and definitely has some interesting moments. The beginning of the book is the strongest but it tends to get bogged down in the last half.
My favorite part of the book was the history and current efforts of the evolution denier community. Miller does a nice job explaining just how threatening and crazy this debate has been over the past 150 years. To this day, there is a robust community of evolution deniers complete with retreats, podcasts, big museums and political action committees.
I also enjoyed his explanation of how the mapping of the human genome has provided amazing insight into the evolutionary journey of human beings. This new chapter in evolutionary research shows that homos sapien’s assent to global dominance was quite tenuous, filled with dozens and dozens of failed versions.
Because only one form of human survived, homo sapiens, the author argues that we are in fact a failed species. If you want to see a successful species, look at rodents, that have dozens and dozens of viable species variations thriving today. We barely pulled through and thus are the lone human branch on the tree of life.
This book had some good moments but I was disappointed with how much time was spent on the discussion of human free will. The author seems deeply troubled with the idea that human beings are not “special,” and not ordained to hallowed treatment in the species pantheon.
He spends far too much time gnashing his teeth because new scientific research shows that humans are primarily driven by Darwinian motivations. I wanted him to stop discussing chapter after chapter of philosophical implications and get back to the science. That was the best part of the book.
The book dives deep into the history of evolutionary theory and the debate on free will vs determinism. The book is fairly well written and definitely has some interesting moments. The beginning of the book is the strongest but it tends to get bogged down in the last half.
My favorite part of the book was the history and current efforts of the evolution denier community. Miller does a nice job explaining just how threatening and crazy this debate has been over the past 150 years. To this day, there is a robust community of evolution deniers complete with retreats, podcasts, big museums and political action committees.
I also enjoyed his explanation of how the mapping of the human genome has provided amazing insight into the evolutionary journey of human beings. This new chapter in evolutionary research shows that homos sapien’s assent to global dominance was quite tenuous, filled with dozens and dozens of failed versions.
Because only one form of human survived, homo sapiens, the author argues that we are in fact a failed species. If you want to see a successful species, look at rodents, that have dozens and dozens of viable species variations thriving today. We barely pulled through and thus are the lone human branch on the tree of life.
This book had some good moments but I was disappointed with how much time was spent on the discussion of human free will. The author seems deeply troubled with the idea that human beings are not “special,” and not ordained to hallowed treatment in the species pantheon.
He spends far too much time gnashing his teeth because new scientific research shows that humans are primarily driven by Darwinian motivations. I wanted him to stop discussing chapter after chapter of philosophical implications and get back to the science. That was the best part of the book.
December 31, 2018
كتاب عميق ودسم، يدفعك إلى التفكير والتّدبر في مسألة الوعي البشري وحرّية الإرادة من منظور التّطور الدارويني ويُحاول أن يجيب على سؤال "هل لدينا حرّية إرادة إن كنا نتيجة للتّطور الدارويني".
الكاتب كاثوليكي الديانة والمُعتقد لكّنه من أشد المُؤيّدين لنظرية التّطور ومعروفة عنه ردوده عن الخلقيين والمُدافعين عن نظرية "التصميم الذكي"، لكنّه في المُقابل لا ينحو نحو بعض الشخصيات التي ترفع راية "الداروينية الجديدة" أمثال ريتشارد داوكينز أو سام هاريس، بل يُحاول أن يرسم خطًا جديدًا وسطًا، أكثر اعتدالًا خاصّة ما تعلّق منها بالوعي وحريّة الإرادة.
على سبيل المثال ما يذهب إليه هاريس هو أنه وبحكم أننا كبشر لسنا سوى نتيجة للتّطوّر وبحكم أننا نعرف ما يكوّننا، وبحكم عدم إيجادنا لأي "مركز" قرار في أدمغتنا (بعبارة أخرى لسنا سوى مكونات عضوية، وتلك المكونات العضوية لا يوجد ما يميّزها) فإن كل أفعالنا وقرارتنا هي مجرد نتائج لشروط سبق لها توفّرها. بعبارة أخرى "حرية الإرادة" مجرّد وهم وما اعتقادنا بوجود حريّة إرادة إلا نتيجة لنفس لعملية التطور تلك.
لكن لو اعتقدنا بصحّة فرضية هاريس هذه فسنصطدم بما يُعبّر عنه هالدان بالتالي:
“إذا كان عقلي مكوّنًا من ذرّات، ولا أرى ما يمنعني من اعتقاد ذلك، فإنّه حتى الاعتقاد بوجود تلك الذّرات تتحّكم فيه تلك الذّرّات وعليه فإنه لا وجود لما يدفعني لاعتقاد صحّة هذا الادّعاء".
في رأي الكاتب سبب مُحاربة هاريس وأمثاله لمبدأ حرّية الاعتقاد راجع إلى كونها ركيزة أساسية في الديانات الإبراهيمية، وعليه فإن هجومه عليها قد يكون من قبيل هجومه على هذه الديانات لا غير.
الكتاب يناقش كيف يُمكن للوعي وحرّية الإرادة أن تنشآ في ظل التّطوّر الدارويني. ويُحاول أن يشق طريقًا وسطًا.
لكن قد يكون الجزء الذي دفعني إلى إعادة التفكير بشكل أعمق هو تعريته لمجال علم النّفس التّطوري. الخلاصة التي خرجت بها من الكتاب هو أن أغلب ما يُنشر في هذا المجال مجرد تخمينات ليس لها أي أساس علمي، فتجد الدراسة تلو الدراسة تُحاول إثبات أمور سخيفة جدًا وأخرى في غاية الغرابة وتهدف كلها إلى إقناعك بأن هذا السلوك أو ذاك ما هو إلا نتيجة حتمية لعملية التّطوّر.
إن كنت قرأت مقالي السابق حول كتاب نقطة تحول: http://www.it-scoop.com/2018/12/the-t...
أين أشرت إلى أنني أعدت النّظر في ما يُنشر تحت تصنيف "العلوم الشعبية"، فما لم أذكره في ذلك المقال هو أن الكتاب الذي أنا بصدد الحديث عنه هنا هو ما عزّز لدي تلك القناعة، ليس بخصوص كتب العلوم الشعبية فحسب وإنما في الكثير مما يُنشر من دراسات ذات طابع علمي والتي تهدف إلى إثبات نظريات وآراء يصعب حتى التّحقق منها أو إثبات مدى خطأها.
الأسبوع الماضي قرأت مقالًا يُلقي الضّوء على جانب من جوانب تلك الدراسات التي تصل إلى نتائج "غريبة" (أو التي عادة ما تجد طريقها بسهولة إلى مقالات وعناوين الصحافة بمُختلف أنواعها). إن كنت مهتمًا بالأمر فألق نظرة عليها من هنا:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...
عودة إلى كتابنا. إذا لم يكن لديك الوقت لقراءة الكتاب فستجد ملخّصًا لأهم أفكاره في هذا اللقاء:
https://behavioralscientist.org/the-h...
هناك أيضًا عدّة لقاءات على يوتيوب ستجدها هنا:
https://www.youtube.com/results?searc...
الكتاب فعلًا دسم ويدعو إلى التفكير. أكثر ما أعجبني فيه هو طريقة عرضه لمُختلف الآراء ومُحاول الردّ عليها أو دحضها بأسلوب هادئ بعيد أسلوب "الداروينية الجديدة" والذي عادة ما يكون مُستفزّا أو ينظر إلى مُعارضيه بنوع من التّرفّع(ربما لعب الأداء المُمتاز في النسخة الصوتية من الكتاب -على أوديبل - دورًا في الهدوء في النقاش الذي أراه في الكتاب أيضًا.). كما أنه استشهد بمصادر عديدة (أشخاص وكتب) يُمكن لمن يرغب في مواصلة البحث في هذا الموضوع الاطّلاع عليها لتكوين فهم أفضل لمُختلف الآراء (والمُعتقدات) في هذا الموضوع.
سبق وأن نشرت هذا المقال هنا: http://www.it-scoop.com/2018/12/the-h...
الكاتب كاثوليكي الديانة والمُعتقد لكّنه من أشد المُؤيّدين لنظرية التّطور ومعروفة عنه ردوده عن الخلقيين والمُدافعين عن نظرية "التصميم الذكي"، لكنّه في المُقابل لا ينحو نحو بعض الشخصيات التي ترفع راية "الداروينية الجديدة" أمثال ريتشارد داوكينز أو سام هاريس، بل يُحاول أن يرسم خطًا جديدًا وسطًا، أكثر اعتدالًا خاصّة ما تعلّق منها بالوعي وحريّة الإرادة.
على سبيل المثال ما يذهب إليه هاريس هو أنه وبحكم أننا كبشر لسنا سوى نتيجة للتّطوّر وبحكم أننا نعرف ما يكوّننا، وبحكم عدم إيجادنا لأي "مركز" قرار في أدمغتنا (بعبارة أخرى لسنا سوى مكونات عضوية، وتلك المكونات العضوية لا يوجد ما يميّزها) فإن كل أفعالنا وقرارتنا هي مجرد نتائج لشروط سبق لها توفّرها. بعبارة أخرى "حرية الإرادة" مجرّد وهم وما اعتقادنا بوجود حريّة إرادة إلا نتيجة لنفس لعملية التطور تلك.
لكن لو اعتقدنا بصحّة فرضية هاريس هذه فسنصطدم بما يُعبّر عنه هالدان بالتالي:
“إذا كان عقلي مكوّنًا من ذرّات، ولا أرى ما يمنعني من اعتقاد ذلك، فإنّه حتى الاعتقاد بوجود تلك الذّرات تتحّكم فيه تلك الذّرّات وعليه فإنه لا وجود لما يدفعني لاعتقاد صحّة هذا الادّعاء".
في رأي الكاتب سبب مُحاربة هاريس وأمثاله لمبدأ حرّية الاعتقاد راجع إلى كونها ركيزة أساسية في الديانات الإبراهيمية، وعليه فإن هجومه عليها قد يكون من قبيل هجومه على هذه الديانات لا غير.
الكتاب يناقش كيف يُمكن للوعي وحرّية الإرادة أن تنشآ في ظل التّطوّر الدارويني. ويُحاول أن يشق طريقًا وسطًا.
لكن قد يكون الجزء الذي دفعني إلى إعادة التفكير بشكل أعمق هو تعريته لمجال علم النّفس التّطوري. الخلاصة التي خرجت بها من الكتاب هو أن أغلب ما يُنشر في هذا المجال مجرد تخمينات ليس لها أي أساس علمي، فتجد الدراسة تلو الدراسة تُحاول إثبات أمور سخيفة جدًا وأخرى في غاية الغرابة وتهدف كلها إلى إقناعك بأن هذا السلوك أو ذاك ما هو إلا نتيجة حتمية لعملية التّطوّر.
إن كنت قرأت مقالي السابق حول كتاب نقطة تحول: http://www.it-scoop.com/2018/12/the-t...
أين أشرت إلى أنني أعدت النّظر في ما يُنشر تحت تصنيف "العلوم الشعبية"، فما لم أذكره في ذلك المقال هو أن الكتاب الذي أنا بصدد الحديث عنه هنا هو ما عزّز لدي تلك القناعة، ليس بخصوص كتب العلوم الشعبية فحسب وإنما في الكثير مما يُنشر من دراسات ذات طابع علمي والتي تهدف إلى إثبات نظريات وآراء يصعب حتى التّحقق منها أو إثبات مدى خطأها.
الأسبوع الماضي قرأت مقالًا يُلقي الضّوء على جانب من جوانب تلك الدراسات التي تصل إلى نتائج "غريبة" (أو التي عادة ما تجد طريقها بسهولة إلى مقالات وعناوين الصحافة بمُختلف أنواعها). إن كنت مهتمًا بالأمر فألق نظرة عليها من هنا:
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-s...
عودة إلى كتابنا. إذا لم يكن لديك الوقت لقراءة الكتاب فستجد ملخّصًا لأهم أفكاره في هذا اللقاء:
https://behavioralscientist.org/the-h...
هناك أيضًا عدّة لقاءات على يوتيوب ستجدها هنا:
https://www.youtube.com/results?searc...
الكتاب فعلًا دسم ويدعو إلى التفكير. أكثر ما أعجبني فيه هو طريقة عرضه لمُختلف الآراء ومُحاول الردّ عليها أو دحضها بأسلوب هادئ بعيد أسلوب "الداروينية الجديدة" والذي عادة ما يكون مُستفزّا أو ينظر إلى مُعارضيه بنوع من التّرفّع(ربما لعب الأداء المُمتاز في النسخة الصوتية من الكتاب -على أوديبل - دورًا في الهدوء في النقاش الذي أراه في الكتاب أيضًا.). كما أنه استشهد بمصادر عديدة (أشخاص وكتب) يُمكن لمن يرغب في مواصلة البحث في هذا الموضوع الاطّلاع عليها لتكوين فهم أفضل لمُختلف الآراء (والمُعتقدات) في هذا الموضوع.
سبق وأن نشرت هذا المقال هنا: http://www.it-scoop.com/2018/12/the-h...
July 1, 2018
Man is special, creationist will say because God (Jehovah) created him in His Own image and thus allows man to stand apart from nature. The author will say that evolution through natural selection makes us significant, meaningful and special from and within nature and that we are more than just form and matter in motion. The author will say there is specialness for humans and while the universe was not teleologically driven to create us as an end point we are special beyond ourselves because of our conscious self awareness, reason and free will.
Humans as individuals take a stand on their own understanding. That makes us different but not necessarily special beyond ourselves. The meaning we have comes from our own search of the true, the good and the useful. (The author did quote from Kant and that is what Kant thought all philosophy should be about).
The author showed little depth on philosophical matters. He rightly mocked evolutionary psychologist when they extrapolated beyond the data. The author does mention Titus Lucretius and his ‘On the Nature of Things’. As the preacher said to Tom Joad in ‘The Grapes of Wrath’, ‘there ain’t no virtue, there ain’t no sin. There are just people doing things’. That is definitely an Epicurean sentiment and this author’s whole book is meant to disagree with that point of view. He thinks people are special beyond themselves, and our conscious self awareness, reason, and free will makes us special. I would say: logic preserves truth, it never creates truth; our reason is the label we put on things to justify ourselves to ourselves or others. Proust will say that ‘humans are the only animal that doubts their own reason’ in Volume II of ‘Swans Way’. It is our ability to doubt ourselves that make us human but not special, significant or meaningful beyond ourselves.
I can’t really say the author told me anything I didn’t already know. I’ve read or am at least very familiar with most of the people he talks about (Pinker, Harris, Dennett, Gould, Dawkins, Penrose, Nagel, Descartes, Kant and so on). His free will arguments lacked substance, and I don’t even want to bother refuting them.
We only have so much time to learn about our place in the universe. The author takes a perspective that is different from mine. I usually appreciate different perspectives, and the author impressed me with his biology knowledge. He was not impressive with his knowledge on Philosophy of Mind, neuroscience, reason, free will or philosophy or whenever he dropped a dead philosopher’s name all topics that he tried to talk about but only managed a superficial telling. I would recommend ‘Strange Order of Things’ by Damasio or ‘The Enigma of Reason’ by Hugo Mercier instead of this book. They cover most of the topics in this book but they at least provided depth for the topics under consideration and neither book fell into the trap of making humans special, significant or meaningful beyond themselves.
Humans as individuals take a stand on their own understanding. That makes us different but not necessarily special beyond ourselves. The meaning we have comes from our own search of the true, the good and the useful. (The author did quote from Kant and that is what Kant thought all philosophy should be about).
The author showed little depth on philosophical matters. He rightly mocked evolutionary psychologist when they extrapolated beyond the data. The author does mention Titus Lucretius and his ‘On the Nature of Things’. As the preacher said to Tom Joad in ‘The Grapes of Wrath’, ‘there ain’t no virtue, there ain’t no sin. There are just people doing things’. That is definitely an Epicurean sentiment and this author’s whole book is meant to disagree with that point of view. He thinks people are special beyond themselves, and our conscious self awareness, reason, and free will makes us special. I would say: logic preserves truth, it never creates truth; our reason is the label we put on things to justify ourselves to ourselves or others. Proust will say that ‘humans are the only animal that doubts their own reason’ in Volume II of ‘Swans Way’. It is our ability to doubt ourselves that make us human but not special, significant or meaningful beyond ourselves.
I can’t really say the author told me anything I didn’t already know. I’ve read or am at least very familiar with most of the people he talks about (Pinker, Harris, Dennett, Gould, Dawkins, Penrose, Nagel, Descartes, Kant and so on). His free will arguments lacked substance, and I don’t even want to bother refuting them.
We only have so much time to learn about our place in the universe. The author takes a perspective that is different from mine. I usually appreciate different perspectives, and the author impressed me with his biology knowledge. He was not impressive with his knowledge on Philosophy of Mind, neuroscience, reason, free will or philosophy or whenever he dropped a dead philosopher’s name all topics that he tried to talk about but only managed a superficial telling. I would recommend ‘Strange Order of Things’ by Damasio or ‘The Enigma of Reason’ by Hugo Mercier instead of this book. They cover most of the topics in this book but they at least provided depth for the topics under consideration and neither book fell into the trap of making humans special, significant or meaningful beyond themselves.
April 26, 2020
An excellent study of the evolution of consciousness and the limitations of deterministic thinking
Having read several books on evolutional biology, human prehistory, and the development of consciousness, I found think book to be one of the best discussions of the debate over a purely deterministic view of evolutionary biology and how much it can explain human social behavior, along with a very nuanced and intelligent examination of exactly at what point our minds developed to the point that they were able to support consciousness, and whether this is purely contained within the brain or whether it occupies a separate spiritual plane, and whether free will is just a human conceit or not. The author writes convincingly that we are not just following evolutionary behavior to further our progeny in our pursuit of art, literature, music, scholarship, and self examination of our own human condition. Just bursting with interesting and controversial topics, it's like the most erudite and yet interesting dinner conversation you'll ever have.
I recommend reading in this specific order of thematic progression:
1. The Selfish, The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor's Tale, The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins
2. The Third Chimpanzee, Guns, Germs, and Steel - Jared Diamond
3. Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind - Yuval Noah Harari
4. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors - Nicholas Wade
5. The Human Instinct - Kenneth R. Miller
Having read several books on evolutional biology, human prehistory, and the development of consciousness, I found think book to be one of the best discussions of the debate over a purely deterministic view of evolutionary biology and how much it can explain human social behavior, along with a very nuanced and intelligent examination of exactly at what point our minds developed to the point that they were able to support consciousness, and whether this is purely contained within the brain or whether it occupies a separate spiritual plane, and whether free will is just a human conceit or not. The author writes convincingly that we are not just following evolutionary behavior to further our progeny in our pursuit of art, literature, music, scholarship, and self examination of our own human condition. Just bursting with interesting and controversial topics, it's like the most erudite and yet interesting dinner conversation you'll ever have.
I recommend reading in this specific order of thematic progression:
1. The Selfish, The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor's Tale, The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins
2. The Third Chimpanzee, Guns, Germs, and Steel - Jared Diamond
3. Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind - Yuval Noah Harari
4. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors - Nicholas Wade
5. The Human Instinct - Kenneth R. Miller
June 5, 2019
Kenneth R. Miller has zero doubt in the truth of evolution, including for homo sapiens. He has even been in debates on the subject, as a defender of it against those who do doubt it. He is, however, convinced that scientists as a group have made an error, in insisting that there is nothing particularly special about humanity, compared to other species. In fact, he believes this is an error that they share with the Intelligent Design folks, who also believe that if Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection were true, it would mean that humanity is nothing special. Miller believes that we can fully and unreservedly accept Darwin's theory, and yet still believe that there is something unique, and uniquely important, about humanity.
He also appears to believe, that he can convince someone of this, by writing a book about it.
It is, to be sure, not a bad book at all. He goes through a lot of the evidence, and what has been learned about humanity's (and life's) origins, in a thoroughly readable way. He tells an occasional anecdote of his own experience debating and otherwise interacting with creationists, and he has a considerably less sneering attitude towards them than others who write books on the topic. I am a firm believer in Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, myself, and even I find some of the public defenders of the theory to be condescending at best when they discuss what they presume to be the mindset of those who disagree with them.
I even think he may be fundamentally correct when he says that the reason why most of those who reject evolution, is that they are uncomfortable with what they perceive to be the consequences of it. So, it may be that he is onto something when he says that we should work to reframe the known scientific facts in a way that acknowledges human reason, consciousness, and free will. There's no reason to put a sign that says "Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here" above your position, then complain when some people don't want to walk through the gate.
What I am not so convinced by, and would really like to see change, is the idea that you can make progress in our country on convincing people of Darwin's theory, by arguing with them about it. Moreover, for an allegedly pro-science crowd, there seems to be nearly no data or...science, really, behind their strategy on how to argue their points (honorable exception for Dan Kahan at Yale: http://www.culturalcognition.net/).
As for the larger point of whether or not it is possible to simultaneously believe in evolution, and also that humans are different from other animals in a significant way which relates to things like consciousness and free will: I suppose so, but I cannot really claim that I gained any crucial insights into the matter from Miller's book.
In the end, it was kind of like one of those late-night conversations one might have during one's college years, with a few friends, debating whether or not free will is real and what is the meaning of life. It was pleasant, fun even, and it did keep the brain moving on some significant topics. If that's what you're wanting, it's a fine read. But don't expect to come out of such a conversation knowing or understanding anything more than you did going into it. And certainly don't give a copy of Miller's book to any advocates of Intelligent Design who you might know, thinking it will change anyone's mind.
He also appears to believe, that he can convince someone of this, by writing a book about it.
It is, to be sure, not a bad book at all. He goes through a lot of the evidence, and what has been learned about humanity's (and life's) origins, in a thoroughly readable way. He tells an occasional anecdote of his own experience debating and otherwise interacting with creationists, and he has a considerably less sneering attitude towards them than others who write books on the topic. I am a firm believer in Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, myself, and even I find some of the public defenders of the theory to be condescending at best when they discuss what they presume to be the mindset of those who disagree with them.
I even think he may be fundamentally correct when he says that the reason why most of those who reject evolution, is that they are uncomfortable with what they perceive to be the consequences of it. So, it may be that he is onto something when he says that we should work to reframe the known scientific facts in a way that acknowledges human reason, consciousness, and free will. There's no reason to put a sign that says "Abandon Hope, All Ye Who Enter Here" above your position, then complain when some people don't want to walk through the gate.
What I am not so convinced by, and would really like to see change, is the idea that you can make progress in our country on convincing people of Darwin's theory, by arguing with them about it. Moreover, for an allegedly pro-science crowd, there seems to be nearly no data or...science, really, behind their strategy on how to argue their points (honorable exception for Dan Kahan at Yale: http://www.culturalcognition.net/).
As for the larger point of whether or not it is possible to simultaneously believe in evolution, and also that humans are different from other animals in a significant way which relates to things like consciousness and free will: I suppose so, but I cannot really claim that I gained any crucial insights into the matter from Miller's book.
In the end, it was kind of like one of those late-night conversations one might have during one's college years, with a few friends, debating whether or not free will is real and what is the meaning of life. It was pleasant, fun even, and it did keep the brain moving on some significant topics. If that's what you're wanting, it's a fine read. But don't expect to come out of such a conversation knowing or understanding anything more than you did going into it. And certainly don't give a copy of Miller's book to any advocates of Intelligent Design who you might know, thinking it will change anyone's mind.
September 5, 2018
من مزايا Kenneth Miller بساطة اللغة وترتيب وتناسق الافكار وشرح اصغر المصطلحات وهذا ما اعجبني في الكتاب وهو سلاسة العرض
،الكتاب يسلط الضوء في الفصول الاولي علي نظرية التطور ومعني الانتخاب الطبيعي ثم يتطرق الي اهم حجة يلجأ اليها الخلقيين وهي الاحافير ويفسر الانجازات التي تم احرازها في هذا المجال ونجاح رهان داروين بوجود احافير اسلاف الانسان في افريقيا ،ثم في الفصل التالي يتناول الجزء الاهم وهو الادلة الجينية علي التطور وهذا في اعتقادي الدليل الاقوي الذي يكمم الافواه، ثم انتقل في احد الفصول الشيقة لوصف وتحليل السلوك البشري وهل يمكن تفسير كل انماط السلوك البشري استنادا الي الطبيعة فقط والتطور الا يوجد جزء ونصيب للتطبع وتناول هذا الموضوع من جهة الاغتصاب وزنا المحارم وقتل زوج الاب ابناء الام من الاب الاول وفي النهاية استنتج ان الطبع التطوري المغروز ليس فقط التحليل الامثل وانما للتطبع دور ايضا،ثم انتقل الي تحليل العقل في الرئيسات والوعي وما يجعل الانسان منفردا علي الحيوانات.
-------
تجنبا لعدم الاطالة هو كتاب جيد جدا ومنظم وارشحه بشدة لان اسلوبه جد مميز وغني معرفيا بشكل مهم.
May 12, 2022
Miller has spent the last few decades defending the science behind the theory of evolution in court, arguing against creationists and intelligent design advocates. For those who might still have doubts about evolution, namely be squeamish when they hear that "it's all just a theory", Miller does a good job of demystifying it here, presenting evidence, at the DNA level, of the evolutionary process of life on Earth. But Miller did not write "The Human Instinct" to explain the existing support for Darwin's theory, his aim is rather broader. The central question here is whether evolutionism by having killed God, as Nietzsche put it, has really left us orphans and given over to nihilism, or whether we can find in the evolutionary process itself something more.
Rating: 4.5
Full comments in Portuguese here: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
Rating: 4.5
Full comments in Portuguese here: https://virtual-illusion.blogspot.com...
November 19, 2017
In 2000, biologist Randy Thornhill and anthropologist Craig Palmer offered an evolutionary explanation for the presence of rape in the human population. In their book titled A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, Thornhill and Palmer argued that rape was a direct product of natural selection; men who raped had a higher fitness than men who didn’t, so natural selection favored traits associated with rape.
As you can imagine, A Natural History of Rape received a firestorm of criticism from feminists and moralists alike. By offering an evolutionary explanation for rape, Thornhill and Palmer seemed to excuse rape. Furthermore, they suggested that rapists were the “winners” in the evolutionary arms race, producing more offspring than their non-rapist counterparts.
Despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection, millions of Americans remain ardent Creationists. No amount of evidence can convince them otherwise.
In his forthcoming book The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and Free Will (April 2018), Kenneth Miller tries to unpack the reasons why evolution is rejected by so many people. Evolution deniers are concerned about the ontological and ethical consequences of modern scientific theory. Many are perfectly fine with the evolutionary history of fish, but they insist that humans were uniquely created by a loving God.
Today, evolutionary biology is applied not only to human anthropology but also to human psychology, social behavior, and even art. E.O. Wilson has applied his research on ant colonies to the understanding of human behavior. Others attribute our preference for landscape art to our evolutionary history as hominids living in the jungles of Africa.
But how much of the above is grounded in actual science? Quite a bit, actually. Miller cites numerous studies to show that while popular scientists often exaggerate what we can know about human behavior based on evolutionary biology, humans are just as much a product of evolution as other animals; humans and other animals share similar traits.
But these studies seem to undermine human dignity and to preference aggression and selfishness. Creationists consider evolutionary biology as a threat to human exceptionalism and everything that flows from such a lofty perspective on our species.
Full-blown Creationists are not the only ones concerned. While rejecting young earth Creationism as unscientific, Marilynne Robinson is critical of what she refers to as “Darwinism”. In her essay “The Death of Adam”, which I read last year, Robinson bemoans the apparent nihilism inherent in evolutionary biology. Humans are no longer the center of creation. We are the accidental product of a mindless process that favors aggression and selfishness.
In The Human Instinct, Kenneth Miller offers a more optimistic but equally scientific alternative to the brutal nihilism professed by biologists like E. O. Wilson. After a few chapters dedicated to the defense of human evolution, Miller moves to considering the ontological (related to being) and ethical implications of modern science. He too is concerned about justice, free will, and human exceptionalism. But he doesn’t look for answers in the non-material. We are material organisms, and science may one day be able to explain the entire universe in material terms. Still, there are uncertainties inherent in life.
By assuming the role of Marilynne Robinson’s interlocutor, Miller acknowledges that some criticisms of evolutionary biology are worthy of consideration. Anyone who has studied evolutionary biology (as I have) has struggled with the questions of human dignity and free will. If there isn’t anyhing unique about humans, should we model ourselves after ants? Does human life mean anything outside of the context of reproduction? Is free will compatible with evolution? If not, how can humans be responsible for their actions?
Miller’s treatment of these topics is nuanced and well-grounded in science. He exposes the ongoing controversies in the scientific community surrounding the evolutionary basis of human behavior without once denying that humans are animals. Kenneth Miller is, after, a cell biologist at Brown University and an outspoken critic of Intelligent Design. He is the co-author of the book on the right, which was my biology textbook in high school.
The Human Instinct is a good follow-up to Finding Darwin’s God (1999) and a much-needed alternative to the overly pessimistic narratives promoted by scientists like E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins. It doesn’t offer any definitive answers to the “big questions”, but it challenges popular assumptions about the consequences of evolution on human exceptionalism.
As you can imagine, A Natural History of Rape received a firestorm of criticism from feminists and moralists alike. By offering an evolutionary explanation for rape, Thornhill and Palmer seemed to excuse rape. Furthermore, they suggested that rapists were the “winners” in the evolutionary arms race, producing more offspring than their non-rapist counterparts.
Despite the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution by natural selection, millions of Americans remain ardent Creationists. No amount of evidence can convince them otherwise.
In his forthcoming book The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and Free Will (April 2018), Kenneth Miller tries to unpack the reasons why evolution is rejected by so many people. Evolution deniers are concerned about the ontological and ethical consequences of modern scientific theory. Many are perfectly fine with the evolutionary history of fish, but they insist that humans were uniquely created by a loving God.
Today, evolutionary biology is applied not only to human anthropology but also to human psychology, social behavior, and even art. E.O. Wilson has applied his research on ant colonies to the understanding of human behavior. Others attribute our preference for landscape art to our evolutionary history as hominids living in the jungles of Africa.
But how much of the above is grounded in actual science? Quite a bit, actually. Miller cites numerous studies to show that while popular scientists often exaggerate what we can know about human behavior based on evolutionary biology, humans are just as much a product of evolution as other animals; humans and other animals share similar traits.
But these studies seem to undermine human dignity and to preference aggression and selfishness. Creationists consider evolutionary biology as a threat to human exceptionalism and everything that flows from such a lofty perspective on our species.
Full-blown Creationists are not the only ones concerned. While rejecting young earth Creationism as unscientific, Marilynne Robinson is critical of what she refers to as “Darwinism”. In her essay “The Death of Adam”, which I read last year, Robinson bemoans the apparent nihilism inherent in evolutionary biology. Humans are no longer the center of creation. We are the accidental product of a mindless process that favors aggression and selfishness.
In The Human Instinct, Kenneth Miller offers a more optimistic but equally scientific alternative to the brutal nihilism professed by biologists like E. O. Wilson. After a few chapters dedicated to the defense of human evolution, Miller moves to considering the ontological (related to being) and ethical implications of modern science. He too is concerned about justice, free will, and human exceptionalism. But he doesn’t look for answers in the non-material. We are material organisms, and science may one day be able to explain the entire universe in material terms. Still, there are uncertainties inherent in life.
By assuming the role of Marilynne Robinson’s interlocutor, Miller acknowledges that some criticisms of evolutionary biology are worthy of consideration. Anyone who has studied evolutionary biology (as I have) has struggled with the questions of human dignity and free will. If there isn’t anyhing unique about humans, should we model ourselves after ants? Does human life mean anything outside of the context of reproduction? Is free will compatible with evolution? If not, how can humans be responsible for their actions?
Miller’s treatment of these topics is nuanced and well-grounded in science. He exposes the ongoing controversies in the scientific community surrounding the evolutionary basis of human behavior without once denying that humans are animals. Kenneth Miller is, after, a cell biologist at Brown University and an outspoken critic of Intelligent Design. He is the co-author of the book on the right, which was my biology textbook in high school.
The Human Instinct is a good follow-up to Finding Darwin’s God (1999) and a much-needed alternative to the overly pessimistic narratives promoted by scientists like E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins. It doesn’t offer any definitive answers to the “big questions”, but it challenges popular assumptions about the consequences of evolution on human exceptionalism.
February 10, 2018
I wished I had made notes while reading this book. The book is well written in that it was a pleasant read. I enjoyed it. The book is not well written in that the writer makes numerous philosophical errors and uses logical fallacies. He both rejects the "ghost in the machine" and defends the "ghost in the machine" by claiming the complexity of the neurological complexity of the brain creates the mind. The human is either completely controlled by only chemical and physical processes (not allowing "free will"), or one must allow for the "ghost in the machine some way. One can not both claim there is no "ghost" and free will. The two arguments are mutually exclusive.
April 30, 2018
A Major Statement on the Use and Abuse of Evolutionary Theory
With “The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness and Free Will”, Kenneth R. Miller offers a fascinating, insightful and memorable statement on the use and abuse of modern evolutionary theory, not only by creationists and other skeptics of evolution, but especially, by those who believe that human behavior is directed solely by Natural Selection. It may be the most lucid exploration of these themes I have seen from anyone. Unquestionably Miller’s finest book on evolution, “The Human Instinct” should be read by anyone interested in understanding how current evolutionary theory has been – and continues to be - misinterpreted by both the public and the scientific community. It marks a major leap in his understanding and appreciation of evolution that transcends his earlier books “Finding Darwin’s God” and “Only A Theory”, demonstrating that despite his background as a religiously-devout scientist, he can make a most persuasive case explaining how Natural Selection has directed the origin and development of human behavior, without relying on the Anthropic Principle or conceding that we are merely the accidental result of seemingly “random”, unanticipated, events in the history of life on Earth. For these reasons it will infuriate many, most notably some who have hailed him as an indefatigable, exceptional supporter of promoting better public understanding of evolution, especially its teaching in American schools. Regardless, Miller’s latest book should be recognized as a major contribution in discussing how current evolutionary theory has been misused; a timely, quite relevant, reminder that is necessary now, not merely because of the ongoing ascendancy of evolution denialism not only here in the United States, but elsewhere across the globe.
Miller expresses sympathy not only for creationists, including Intelligent Design creationists, but especially those who would support evolution, but remain skeptical since it threatens how humanity views itself, as special and distinct from the rest of nature. In particular, he cites repeatedly, noted novelist and essayist Marilynne Robinson, who in her essay collection “The Death of Adam”, views evolution as a “chilling doctrine” – exempting from criticism the reality of biological evolution - rejecting what Miller describes as “the baggage that Darwinian theory has accumulated in the name of science.” For Robinson, “Darwinism” is “the interpretation of the phenomenon which claims to refute religion and to imply a personal and social ethos which is, not coincidentally, antithetical to the assumptions imposed and authorized by Judeo-Christianity.” Miller acknowledges that these assumptions include the worth of the individual and even, the “intellectual sources of science itself.” In the opening chapter (“Grandeur”), not only does he discuss Robinson’s skepticism, but similar skepticism expressed by the likes of Alfred Russel Wallace – the co-discoverer, along with Charles Darwin, of Natural Selection – and Francis Collins – formerly the head of both the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health – who view the reality of human evolution as being insufficient in explaining all that makes us human. This view stands in sharp contrast with noted New Atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, with Harris regarding free will as an “illusion”. It also stands in sharp contrast with evolutionary psychology, which contends that all human behavior is rooted in biological determinism, with Miller launching into a substantial, well-informed, critique of evolutionary psychology that is among the major themes of his book.
Another major theme is stressing that evolution is not a truly “random” process, but one that is constrained by both the environment and our phylogenetic – in plain English, genealogical – history. Miller does an admirable job in discussing not only the anatomical – especially paleobiological – evidence for human evolution, but most notably, the molecular data, discussing how our second chromosome was fused from two others within our great ape relatives, in both Chapter Two (“Say It Ain’t So”) and a separate, more technical, Appendix. In the subsequent chapter “Chance and Wonder” (Chapter Three), Miller demonstrates that the tree of life isn’t a ladder of progress leading from microbes to mankind, but instead, a densely woven “bush”, in which we may be viewed as the sole surviving species in a once flourishing hominid lineage stretching back several million years. If humanity’s existence is an “accident”, it is due, in Miller’s words, for two reasons; the advent of our earliest chordate ancestor in the Middle Cambrian Burgess shale fauna, and a catastrophe – the asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous approximately 66 million years ago – that wiped out the nonavian dinosaurs, “some of the most magnificent animals ever to walk the Earth.”
Miller’s book is especially noteworthy in its criticism of the strict adaptationist view of Natural Selection and biological evolution and in implying that human consciousness is an emergent property of human evolution; one that may not have been directly selected via Natural Selection. Much of his harshest criticism of evolutionary psychology is stated in Chapter Four (“Explaining It All”), tracing its origins to E. O. Wilson’s work on ant systematics and sociobiology, noting that evolutionary psychology’s greatest accomplishment may be in generating newsworthy headlines such as discerning the biological reason why women enjoy shopping. He also delves into questionable research explaining why rape has an “adaptive value” as well as Marc Hauser’s fraudulent research in relating human social behavior to similar behavior observed in other primates. And yet, despite its ample failings, Miller acknowledges that evolutionary psychology – when done in a sufficiently rigorous manner – may shed light on some aspects of human behavior, noting an important study on infanticide in Indian monkeys by behavioral ecologist and anthropologist Sarah Hrdy, that may support some recent studies of human infanticide.
Much to his credit, Miller mentions paleobiologist Stephen Jay Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin’s 1979 “Spandrels of San Marco” paper in Chapter Five (“The Mind of a Primate”), hailing it as a major critique of the adaptationist view of Natural Selection prevalent in current evolutionary theory and especially, its recognition that other evolutionary processes, not only Natural Selection, are responsible for the history of life on our planet. Gould and Lewontin were responding to the “just so” tales of evolutionary adaptations in organisms, noting that such “adaptations” may be unintended consequences of evolution, in a manner consistent with the existence of spandrels within the domes of cathedrals like the one in San Marco, Italy that appear – and Miller notes this in italics - “whether you want them or not.” It is this expansionist view of evolution that underscores his subsequent discussion of the emergence of reason, human consciousness and free will.
Some will find objectionable, Miller’s sympathetic analyses in Chapter Six (“Consciousness”) of philosopher Thomas Nagel and Raymond Tallis’ objections to evolution, especially with respect to the emergence of human consciousness, missing why he condemns both for regarding evolution as objectionable only because it robs humanity of our special place in Nature. He also notes correctly that both are laboring under the false assumption that evolution is the result of a strictly adaptationist view of Natural Selection, refusing to consider the possibility that evolution allowed human consciousness to emerge for reasons other than survival of the species. In the following chapter, Chapter Seven (“I, Robot”), he tackles the issue of free will, but here, his reasoning doesn’t seem nearly as compelling as in previous chapters, in describing how free will can be viewed from the context of biological evolution. Miller is much more successful in the concluding chapter, Chapter Eight (“Center Stage”), not only in condemning Young Earth Creationists for their astonishingly poor – and rightfully boring – conception of Earth’s geological and biological histories, but in suggesting that intelligence in humans may not be a unique aspect of the history of life, contradicting Stephen Jay Gould’s metaphor on replaying the history of life without yielding creatures resembling us. Instead, it is likely that such intelligence can emerge elsewhere in the universe, even here on Earth, as a result of the same physical and biological processes that have produced numerous instances of convergent evolution, drawing upon paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris’ comparisons of human intelligence with those of the octopus, the leading contender for the emergence of yet another sapient species on our planet. Miller concludes on a triumphant note, suggesting that we should celebrate, not fear, evolution, since it produced us, as the very creatures able “to make sense of it all.”
With “The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness and Free Will”, Kenneth R. Miller offers a fascinating, insightful and memorable statement on the use and abuse of modern evolutionary theory, not only by creationists and other skeptics of evolution, but especially, by those who believe that human behavior is directed solely by Natural Selection. It may be the most lucid exploration of these themes I have seen from anyone. Unquestionably Miller’s finest book on evolution, “The Human Instinct” should be read by anyone interested in understanding how current evolutionary theory has been – and continues to be - misinterpreted by both the public and the scientific community. It marks a major leap in his understanding and appreciation of evolution that transcends his earlier books “Finding Darwin’s God” and “Only A Theory”, demonstrating that despite his background as a religiously-devout scientist, he can make a most persuasive case explaining how Natural Selection has directed the origin and development of human behavior, without relying on the Anthropic Principle or conceding that we are merely the accidental result of seemingly “random”, unanticipated, events in the history of life on Earth. For these reasons it will infuriate many, most notably some who have hailed him as an indefatigable, exceptional supporter of promoting better public understanding of evolution, especially its teaching in American schools. Regardless, Miller’s latest book should be recognized as a major contribution in discussing how current evolutionary theory has been misused; a timely, quite relevant, reminder that is necessary now, not merely because of the ongoing ascendancy of evolution denialism not only here in the United States, but elsewhere across the globe.
Miller expresses sympathy not only for creationists, including Intelligent Design creationists, but especially those who would support evolution, but remain skeptical since it threatens how humanity views itself, as special and distinct from the rest of nature. In particular, he cites repeatedly, noted novelist and essayist Marilynne Robinson, who in her essay collection “The Death of Adam”, views evolution as a “chilling doctrine” – exempting from criticism the reality of biological evolution - rejecting what Miller describes as “the baggage that Darwinian theory has accumulated in the name of science.” For Robinson, “Darwinism” is “the interpretation of the phenomenon which claims to refute religion and to imply a personal and social ethos which is, not coincidentally, antithetical to the assumptions imposed and authorized by Judeo-Christianity.” Miller acknowledges that these assumptions include the worth of the individual and even, the “intellectual sources of science itself.” In the opening chapter (“Grandeur”), not only does he discuss Robinson’s skepticism, but similar skepticism expressed by the likes of Alfred Russel Wallace – the co-discoverer, along with Charles Darwin, of Natural Selection – and Francis Collins – formerly the head of both the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health – who view the reality of human evolution as being insufficient in explaining all that makes us human. This view stands in sharp contrast with noted New Atheist scientists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, with Harris regarding free will as an “illusion”. It also stands in sharp contrast with evolutionary psychology, which contends that all human behavior is rooted in biological determinism, with Miller launching into a substantial, well-informed, critique of evolutionary psychology that is among the major themes of his book.
Another major theme is stressing that evolution is not a truly “random” process, but one that is constrained by both the environment and our phylogenetic – in plain English, genealogical – history. Miller does an admirable job in discussing not only the anatomical – especially paleobiological – evidence for human evolution, but most notably, the molecular data, discussing how our second chromosome was fused from two others within our great ape relatives, in both Chapter Two (“Say It Ain’t So”) and a separate, more technical, Appendix. In the subsequent chapter “Chance and Wonder” (Chapter Three), Miller demonstrates that the tree of life isn’t a ladder of progress leading from microbes to mankind, but instead, a densely woven “bush”, in which we may be viewed as the sole surviving species in a once flourishing hominid lineage stretching back several million years. If humanity’s existence is an “accident”, it is due, in Miller’s words, for two reasons; the advent of our earliest chordate ancestor in the Middle Cambrian Burgess shale fauna, and a catastrophe – the asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous approximately 66 million years ago – that wiped out the nonavian dinosaurs, “some of the most magnificent animals ever to walk the Earth.”
Miller’s book is especially noteworthy in its criticism of the strict adaptationist view of Natural Selection and biological evolution and in implying that human consciousness is an emergent property of human evolution; one that may not have been directly selected via Natural Selection. Much of his harshest criticism of evolutionary psychology is stated in Chapter Four (“Explaining It All”), tracing its origins to E. O. Wilson’s work on ant systematics and sociobiology, noting that evolutionary psychology’s greatest accomplishment may be in generating newsworthy headlines such as discerning the biological reason why women enjoy shopping. He also delves into questionable research explaining why rape has an “adaptive value” as well as Marc Hauser’s fraudulent research in relating human social behavior to similar behavior observed in other primates. And yet, despite its ample failings, Miller acknowledges that evolutionary psychology – when done in a sufficiently rigorous manner – may shed light on some aspects of human behavior, noting an important study on infanticide in Indian monkeys by behavioral ecologist and anthropologist Sarah Hrdy, that may support some recent studies of human infanticide.
Much to his credit, Miller mentions paleobiologist Stephen Jay Gould and geneticist Richard Lewontin’s 1979 “Spandrels of San Marco” paper in Chapter Five (“The Mind of a Primate”), hailing it as a major critique of the adaptationist view of Natural Selection prevalent in current evolutionary theory and especially, its recognition that other evolutionary processes, not only Natural Selection, are responsible for the history of life on our planet. Gould and Lewontin were responding to the “just so” tales of evolutionary adaptations in organisms, noting that such “adaptations” may be unintended consequences of evolution, in a manner consistent with the existence of spandrels within the domes of cathedrals like the one in San Marco, Italy that appear – and Miller notes this in italics - “whether you want them or not.” It is this expansionist view of evolution that underscores his subsequent discussion of the emergence of reason, human consciousness and free will.
Some will find objectionable, Miller’s sympathetic analyses in Chapter Six (“Consciousness”) of philosopher Thomas Nagel and Raymond Tallis’ objections to evolution, especially with respect to the emergence of human consciousness, missing why he condemns both for regarding evolution as objectionable only because it robs humanity of our special place in Nature. He also notes correctly that both are laboring under the false assumption that evolution is the result of a strictly adaptationist view of Natural Selection, refusing to consider the possibility that evolution allowed human consciousness to emerge for reasons other than survival of the species. In the following chapter, Chapter Seven (“I, Robot”), he tackles the issue of free will, but here, his reasoning doesn’t seem nearly as compelling as in previous chapters, in describing how free will can be viewed from the context of biological evolution. Miller is much more successful in the concluding chapter, Chapter Eight (“Center Stage”), not only in condemning Young Earth Creationists for their astonishingly poor – and rightfully boring – conception of Earth’s geological and biological histories, but in suggesting that intelligence in humans may not be a unique aspect of the history of life, contradicting Stephen Jay Gould’s metaphor on replaying the history of life without yielding creatures resembling us. Instead, it is likely that such intelligence can emerge elsewhere in the universe, even here on Earth, as a result of the same physical and biological processes that have produced numerous instances of convergent evolution, drawing upon paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris’ comparisons of human intelligence with those of the octopus, the leading contender for the emergence of yet another sapient species on our planet. Miller concludes on a triumphant note, suggesting that we should celebrate, not fear, evolution, since it produced us, as the very creatures able “to make sense of it all.”
November 11, 2018
Lurking in the background of this clearly written and fascinating book on human evolution is the question of religion. Specifically, Marilynne Robinson is mentioned. She is the talented novelist and essayist who raises a crucial question. She doesn't dispute the facts of evolution, but laments the death of the creation myth of Adam and Eve. If nothing else, it reaffirmed that humans possess dignity and responsibility for their actions.
On the opposite side of this divide are the evolutionists who contend that we have no free will. We are living creatures, one species among countless millions that have come and gone in our planet's lifetime. All of our actions are determined by evolutionary factors, including the activities of the brain. Free will, self-determination, doesn't exist, but it's an illusion that we like to maintain. The reality is that our brains are programmed by evolution to survive and reproduce, that's all. There is no "ghost in the machine", often termed the "soul" or "self," that makes us aware of our actions, and certainly no "God" that is behind any thing.
Miller takes a nuanced position that I think gives credit to both sides. It's true, he argues, that Darwin's theory of evolution is indisputably valid in its basics. Over billions of years, humans have evolved into the apparent superior position of life on earth that we find today. But we are an accidental species and could have vanished, with some other creature coming out on top, such as the octopus, for example, a very intelligent creature that shares some genetic make up with us. In fact, we share genetic features with all kinds of organisms, making us in many respects a gerry-built organism with flukes and extraneous parts.
What to make, though, of human activities which have nothing to do with evolutionary needs - the seemingly extraneous creative impulse that creates music, art, literature? These seem to be free acts and why they even exist is a mystery. We have with all other creatures, characteristics needed for survival, but these are "extra" and are found in no other creatures. And it is only human beings who seek answers to such questions.
Miller's view is a complex one, suitable for a complex subject. He has little patience with the mind-as-computer model; the mind is far too complicated in its operations to be anything like a binary-digitalized computer, good at calculating and storing information, but lacking any self-awareness. The study of the workings of the human mind, made up of billions of electrons which interact with one another in an infinite number of ways, has made limited progress, but final answers may be unanswerable, one reason being that as we formulate theories, the factors that cause those theories may be evolving into new forms of subjective conscious experience.
To return to Marilynne Robinson's point, Miller argues that the drama of evolution, its unknown endless possibilities, is reason enough for awe, wonder, and delight. qualities found in traditional religion, the loss of which Robinson laments. He concludes, writing that we may be approaching the "very first stirrings of true consciousness in the vastness of the Cosmos. Far from diminishing us, knowing the details of Adam's journey ennobles each of as a carrier of something truly precious - the genetic, biological, and cultural heritage. Evolution describes not the death of Adam, but his triumph. That is the great truth of our story."
On the opposite side of this divide are the evolutionists who contend that we have no free will. We are living creatures, one species among countless millions that have come and gone in our planet's lifetime. All of our actions are determined by evolutionary factors, including the activities of the brain. Free will, self-determination, doesn't exist, but it's an illusion that we like to maintain. The reality is that our brains are programmed by evolution to survive and reproduce, that's all. There is no "ghost in the machine", often termed the "soul" or "self," that makes us aware of our actions, and certainly no "God" that is behind any thing.
Miller takes a nuanced position that I think gives credit to both sides. It's true, he argues, that Darwin's theory of evolution is indisputably valid in its basics. Over billions of years, humans have evolved into the apparent superior position of life on earth that we find today. But we are an accidental species and could have vanished, with some other creature coming out on top, such as the octopus, for example, a very intelligent creature that shares some genetic make up with us. In fact, we share genetic features with all kinds of organisms, making us in many respects a gerry-built organism with flukes and extraneous parts.
What to make, though, of human activities which have nothing to do with evolutionary needs - the seemingly extraneous creative impulse that creates music, art, literature? These seem to be free acts and why they even exist is a mystery. We have with all other creatures, characteristics needed for survival, but these are "extra" and are found in no other creatures. And it is only human beings who seek answers to such questions.
Miller's view is a complex one, suitable for a complex subject. He has little patience with the mind-as-computer model; the mind is far too complicated in its operations to be anything like a binary-digitalized computer, good at calculating and storing information, but lacking any self-awareness. The study of the workings of the human mind, made up of billions of electrons which interact with one another in an infinite number of ways, has made limited progress, but final answers may be unanswerable, one reason being that as we formulate theories, the factors that cause those theories may be evolving into new forms of subjective conscious experience.
To return to Marilynne Robinson's point, Miller argues that the drama of evolution, its unknown endless possibilities, is reason enough for awe, wonder, and delight. qualities found in traditional religion, the loss of which Robinson laments. He concludes, writing that we may be approaching the "very first stirrings of true consciousness in the vastness of the Cosmos. Far from diminishing us, knowing the details of Adam's journey ennobles each of as a carrier of something truly precious - the genetic, biological, and cultural heritage. Evolution describes not the death of Adam, but his triumph. That is the great truth of our story."
November 19, 2021
«معظم علماء الأحياء اليوم ، بما فيهم أنا ، قد يجادلون بأن التطور لا ينتج "الكمال" أبداً . في الواقع ، لا يقترب من ذلك أبداً . كل ما يهم هو النجاح في النضال من أجل الوجود ، لذا فإن كونك جيدًا بما يكفي لتعيش ، هو أمر جيد بما فيه الكفاية»
Kenneth R. Miller
Kenneth R. Miller
March 23, 2020
I will say it surely ended on a positive note for humans. I enjoyed reading this book and it gave me a lot of things to study and much more to wonder about. I loaned it from my library, but will be buying this book to add to my collection at home.
Things I learned
*A lot more about neuroscience than I ever have before.
*The bible is a collection of books by various authors at different times for a variety of audiences and often for different purposes.
*Many ancient christian scholars did not take the historicity of Genesis literally like most people do today.
*Kin selection
*Dutton's art instinct is highly speculative and a bit sexist.
*The brain has tripled in size in a geologic instant.
*We are made of matter and have material needs.
*The debate on the "war on reason."
*Creationists have based their natural history on separating humankind from nature.
*Evolution tells a different story, one of unity with the natural world.
*Evolution does not undermine our humanity or our capacity for reason and our sciences.
*A debate going on among scientists about adding a fourth era in called, The Athropocene, "The Human Era."
Questions I am now curiously pondering
*Does evolution really follow a predictable path or is randomness an important part of evolution? Or both?
*Is great intelligence inherent in evolution?
*Is the human mind truly unique?
*Does the universe itself shows a tendency toward consciousness and self-awareness?
*Free will, where does it actually come from and do we truly have it?
Things I learned
*A lot more about neuroscience than I ever have before.
*The bible is a collection of books by various authors at different times for a variety of audiences and often for different purposes.
*Many ancient christian scholars did not take the historicity of Genesis literally like most people do today.
*Kin selection
*Dutton's art instinct is highly speculative and a bit sexist.
*The brain has tripled in size in a geologic instant.
*We are made of matter and have material needs.
*The debate on the "war on reason."
*Creationists have based their natural history on separating humankind from nature.
*Evolution tells a different story, one of unity with the natural world.
*Evolution does not undermine our humanity or our capacity for reason and our sciences.
*A debate going on among scientists about adding a fourth era in called, The Athropocene, "The Human Era."
Questions I am now curiously pondering
*Does evolution really follow a predictable path or is randomness an important part of evolution? Or both?
*Is great intelligence inherent in evolution?
*Is the human mind truly unique?
*Does the universe itself shows a tendency toward consciousness and self-awareness?
*Free will, where does it actually come from and do we truly have it?
May 23, 2018
While well written, I’m on the fence on how I feel about this book. The author came off as if they really wanted to believe that humans are somehow so much more special than the other animals that inhabit the Earth. Unique, sure, but special? I don't think so. I have no problem accepting the fact that we're animals. That we are made of the same stardust as everything else in the Universe. That there really is no meaning to anything aside from creating a better tomorrow for our planet, for our survival. On one hand I can appreciate what Kenneth R. Miller has done by stripping down what doesn’t make us great and defining what actually makes us unique. On the other hand, I'm left feeling as if this book was written for religious people who have troubles accepting that we evolved and what our real place in the universe is. I was shocked to learn how many people are still trying to push evolution out of school as well as the other statistics presented about those who are anti-evolution. Again, I think that this piece is best for those who can't bear to think they share ancestors with their dog. Humans are a destructive and invasive species that needs to have more respect towards the vast amount of life we share this planet with rather than desperately clinging to the illusion that we are “special” - an arrogant point of view which only feds into the human race feeling entitled to more than their fair share.
January 6, 2019
The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and Free Will (Audiobook) well a very interesting topic worth your while. Some common knowledge explained elegantly. Some technical science a very complex study. Free will is it like art and and our ability to make music write poetry, tell stories well if it aint free will its hell of ride to interesting street. We all have the awe wonder excitement and that's why we all love books like this.
July 22, 2018
WOW - this is a great book about evolution and human consciousness!
I first read Robert Wright's, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. While very interesting, it focused too much on Darwin himself and rambled on and on to until the point he was trying to make got lost in the verbiage.
Kenneth Miller's book, on the other hand, is succinct and focuses on the theory and process of evolution rather than on Darwin.
Miller's writing style makes this an easy to read, easy to grasp book even though it focuses on some very "heavy" scientific thoughts and research. He presents the idea being discussed clearly and succinctly and then he explains what it is about this idea that he finds appealing. Going further, he then presents other people's ideas on the same topic for you to use to compare and contrast and then he shows how his idea makes more sense. The alternate ideas he presents are from both those who agree with Darwin's theory and those who do not. Reading this book is a bit like watching a panel discussion except Miller is the only panelist!
As every scientist will tell you, evolution is a THEORY. We have ideas of how we think it works and use fossils, DNA, electron microscopes, etc. to see if the theory holds up when exposed to this data. We clearly do not know all about how this works but this book will give you a great foundation to build upon.
I first read Robert Wright's, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. While very interesting, it focused too much on Darwin himself and rambled on and on to until the point he was trying to make got lost in the verbiage.
Kenneth Miller's book, on the other hand, is succinct and focuses on the theory and process of evolution rather than on Darwin.
Miller's writing style makes this an easy to read, easy to grasp book even though it focuses on some very "heavy" scientific thoughts and research. He presents the idea being discussed clearly and succinctly and then he explains what it is about this idea that he finds appealing. Going further, he then presents other people's ideas on the same topic for you to use to compare and contrast and then he shows how his idea makes more sense. The alternate ideas he presents are from both those who agree with Darwin's theory and those who do not. Reading this book is a bit like watching a panel discussion except Miller is the only panelist!
As every scientist will tell you, evolution is a THEORY. We have ideas of how we think it works and use fossils, DNA, electron microscopes, etc. to see if the theory holds up when exposed to this data. We clearly do not know all about how this works but this book will give you a great foundation to build upon.
January 1, 2020
Wow -- loved this book! Fascinating and brilliant look at human evolution. Miller provides a thorough and rigorous look at where we came from, and I love that he's able to tackle hard questions about the human condition while maintaining optimism about our humanness. I especially enjoyed the section on free will, but the book had my attention from start to finish.
January 14, 2023
wow this was surprisingly good 🤭 love the talk about evolution and while this doesn’t really give a reason as to why people are here today it does give good advice as to how to deal with them 👍👍👍👍
August 9, 2018
The full title of the book is: The Human Instinct: How We Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and Free Will. This is Miller's third book, his earlier works being Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, and Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul.
The book is 294 pages consisting of 8 chapters with an appendix, notes, bibliography, acknowledgments, and index.
One of the main messages of the book is that evolution does not mean humans are merely molecules or bags of meat, a brute force of evolution. Rather as Miller states on page 219, evolution "does not undermine our humanity, our capacity for reason, or our science. It is, in fact the foundation of each. We have become the reasoning animals we are because we are the products of evolution."
Early on Miller reminds the reader that despite claims to the contrary evidence overwhelmingly supports biological evolution. One of the illustrations he presents is that of VIT genes in humans, which are left over remnants of genes for a yoke sac that mammals no longer use. In 2008 when scientists where attempting to find evidence for VIT genes in humans they looked at the genes both before and after the VIT gene in chickens and found those same two genes in the human genome and between them were the remnants of the VIT gene, showing that all mammals have the left over genes that once produced the yoke of an egg. Another example is the NANOG processed pseudogenes in humans and chimpanzees which reflect a pattern showing that they have a common ancestor.
Miller at times will challenge contemporary ideas of evolution that he believes goes too far but shouldn't be rejected completely. For instance chapter 4 covers sociobiology and its modern incarnation in the form of evolutionary psychology. Miller shows that there have been problems within that field, but that some of the evidence and arguments cannot be denied either. So, despite the fact that some evolutionary biologists think that the entire field of evolutionary psychology should be thrown out, he contends that we shouldn't, as the old saying goes, throw out the baby with the bath water. He also argues that evolution isn't a theory of everything.
While contending against those who think that humans are merely an assemblage of atoms or that the brain is just meat, Miller makes the following provocative comment,
"There is another viewpoint, however, and it is the one I have sought to develop in these pages. If we truly accept the validity of science, as I think we must to say anything about the natural world, our view of the human animal cannot help but acknowledge its exceptional nature. Yes. There are elements of our ancestry that depended, in a sense, upon 'random' chance. But it is also true that we emerged in a way dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry and by conditions that have prevailed over eons of change on this planet. We are children of the Earth, but we are more. We are sons and daughters of the Cosmos in every sense that matters. To view our existence as nothing more than an insignificant accident in an obscure corner of the universe is to discount the very science that makes it possible for us to draw that conclusion in the first place. We are the best and brightest things we know, and it is for us to set the terms by which we address existence and define the meaning of our lives."
I'll leave it for the reader to find out what Miller has to say specifically about reason, consciousness, and free will and how they evolved. I will simply say that you'll find Miller engaging and optimistic even if you don't always agree with his position or how he arrived at it.
Like his other books I highly recommend this one to anyone interested in the topic of biological evolution.
The book is 294 pages consisting of 8 chapters with an appendix, notes, bibliography, acknowledgments, and index.
One of the main messages of the book is that evolution does not mean humans are merely molecules or bags of meat, a brute force of evolution. Rather as Miller states on page 219, evolution "does not undermine our humanity, our capacity for reason, or our science. It is, in fact the foundation of each. We have become the reasoning animals we are because we are the products of evolution."
Early on Miller reminds the reader that despite claims to the contrary evidence overwhelmingly supports biological evolution. One of the illustrations he presents is that of VIT genes in humans, which are left over remnants of genes for a yoke sac that mammals no longer use. In 2008 when scientists where attempting to find evidence for VIT genes in humans they looked at the genes both before and after the VIT gene in chickens and found those same two genes in the human genome and between them were the remnants of the VIT gene, showing that all mammals have the left over genes that once produced the yoke of an egg. Another example is the NANOG processed pseudogenes in humans and chimpanzees which reflect a pattern showing that they have a common ancestor.
Miller at times will challenge contemporary ideas of evolution that he believes goes too far but shouldn't be rejected completely. For instance chapter 4 covers sociobiology and its modern incarnation in the form of evolutionary psychology. Miller shows that there have been problems within that field, but that some of the evidence and arguments cannot be denied either. So, despite the fact that some evolutionary biologists think that the entire field of evolutionary psychology should be thrown out, he contends that we shouldn't, as the old saying goes, throw out the baby with the bath water. He also argues that evolution isn't a theory of everything.
While contending against those who think that humans are merely an assemblage of atoms or that the brain is just meat, Miller makes the following provocative comment,
"There is another viewpoint, however, and it is the one I have sought to develop in these pages. If we truly accept the validity of science, as I think we must to say anything about the natural world, our view of the human animal cannot help but acknowledge its exceptional nature. Yes. There are elements of our ancestry that depended, in a sense, upon 'random' chance. But it is also true that we emerged in a way dictated by the laws of physics and chemistry and by conditions that have prevailed over eons of change on this planet. We are children of the Earth, but we are more. We are sons and daughters of the Cosmos in every sense that matters. To view our existence as nothing more than an insignificant accident in an obscure corner of the universe is to discount the very science that makes it possible for us to draw that conclusion in the first place. We are the best and brightest things we know, and it is for us to set the terms by which we address existence and define the meaning of our lives."
I'll leave it for the reader to find out what Miller has to say specifically about reason, consciousness, and free will and how they evolved. I will simply say that you'll find Miller engaging and optimistic even if you don't always agree with his position or how he arrived at it.
Like his other books I highly recommend this one to anyone interested in the topic of biological evolution.
August 7, 2018
“The Human Instinct: How we evolved to have reason, consciousness, and free will,” by Kenneth R. Miller (Simon and Schuster, 2018). Miller, a professor of biology at Brown, was the lead expert witness for the plaintiffs in the landmark Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, in which the judge ruled that evolution is a fact. Here Miller sets out to demonstrate that, even if evolution is true and there is no divine creation, earth, life, and humans are not mere random, mechanical, chance, purposeless things in a pointless universe. The book is a deep blend of pure science down to the atomic level and deeper, and philosophy. Ultimately, Miller demonstrates that even at the most profound level of biochemistry and neurobiology, the decisions we make are not predetermined: the universe is not a machine, we are not driven by instinct, we actually make real choices. He does a deep dive into DNA and chromosomal evidence to show that humans really are importantly different from our closest primate relatives, the gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan---and that the divergence happened a few million years ago. He examines the nature of the primate mind---what is mind, and where is it? The brain is matter, our consciousness comes from the brain---but it is something beyond mere matter. It is something that transcends physical existence, even if there is no such thing as a soul. He looks at computers and AI, and concludes that it is almost impossible for computers to match human brains in flexibility, creativity, ability to chance and grow, to actually think. When a computer can tell jokes, then they are at our level; and there seems little chance that can ever happen. Not only does he demolish the creationists, but he takes on all sorts of contemporary atheistic thinkers such as Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, explains where he thinks even Stephen Jay Gould got things wrong, etc. We may have evolved through the animal kingdom, but we are fully self-aware when no other living being on earth is. Even to argue that we are not requires the ability to see ourselves. This was very difficult reading for me. There were quite a few times when I could barely get more than a few sentences along before having to pause and re-read again and again. But much of the books is very clearly written, direct, witty, and comprehensible. Ultimately, he says, human beings are the pinnacle of evolution on earth; that we have gotten to the point where we affect evolution ourselves; that intelligence is probably always an inevitable result of long-ranging evolution; that, for example, the octopus could supplant us if we wipe ourselves out; that life will keep springing up; that it is tenacious; that there is probably life elsewhere, even if we never encounter it. And finally, that we don’t need the supernatural to experience the glory of existence: there it is, all around us: savor it. He is the anti-nihilist.
http://www.simonandschuster.com/books...
August 7, 2022
Dear reader,
You might be browsing through goodreads wondering if you should pick up this book. I am assuming that you are motivated by the title of the book and you want to know "HOW" we evolved to have reason, consciousness, and free will. In this book, you will DEFINITELY NOT FIND THOSE ANSWERS. You might find other things you like, though. If you want to have a brief overview of the theory of evolution or a brief overview of the implications of evolution on reason, consciousness, and free will, you will find something here. If you want to see examples of an author tying himself up in knots and proudly proclaiming himself free, you will also find it here. But what you will definitely not find is the HOW in the title of the book.
By the end of the book, you will have no doubt that the author is against those who deny evolution. You will also have no doubt that he is against all those who think evolution is true, but inadequate to explain things like reason, morality, free will, an consciousness in any meaningful way. As an added bonus, you will also have no doubt that the author is against those who think evolution is true all the way but who think that such things as consciousness and free will are illusions. All those things will be abundantly clear to you by the end of the book.
What you will ABSOLUTELY NOT find is any explanation as to HOW we evolved reason, consciousness, and free will. Got it? Great.
If title of this book were "The Human Instinct: Some Beliefs About Evolution, Free Will, Reason, and Consciousness", it would be a good book. But that is not the title, right?
You are interested in the book because of the title. It is the HOW in the title that attracted you to the book, right? If so, YOU WILL FIND NO ANSWERS HERE.
You might be browsing through goodreads wondering if you should pick up this book. I am assuming that you are motivated by the title of the book and you want to know "HOW" we evolved to have reason, consciousness, and free will. In this book, you will DEFINITELY NOT FIND THOSE ANSWERS. You might find other things you like, though. If you want to have a brief overview of the theory of evolution or a brief overview of the implications of evolution on reason, consciousness, and free will, you will find something here. If you want to see examples of an author tying himself up in knots and proudly proclaiming himself free, you will also find it here. But what you will definitely not find is the HOW in the title of the book.
By the end of the book, you will have no doubt that the author is against those who deny evolution. You will also have no doubt that he is against all those who think evolution is true, but inadequate to explain things like reason, morality, free will, an consciousness in any meaningful way. As an added bonus, you will also have no doubt that the author is against those who think evolution is true all the way but who think that such things as consciousness and free will are illusions. All those things will be abundantly clear to you by the end of the book.
What you will ABSOLUTELY NOT find is any explanation as to HOW we evolved reason, consciousness, and free will. Got it? Great.
If title of this book were "The Human Instinct: Some Beliefs About Evolution, Free Will, Reason, and Consciousness", it would be a good book. But that is not the title, right?
You are interested in the book because of the title. It is the HOW in the title that attracted you to the book, right? If so, YOU WILL FIND NO ANSWERS HERE.
January 18, 2019
Personally, the writing style was attractive to me. Between poetic abstraction, scientific evidence and the insertion of relevant figures within the field of biology, "The Human Instinct" crafts a strong and compelling outlook of human consciousness, and how it was formed.
I appreciate the synthesis of philosophy and evolution within his work, but the lack of subtlety in blending the two in order to craft a well balanced text is one of my only criticisms. The second half of the book is more difficult to digest, likely due to the fact that it is weighed down by Miller's persistent insistence that, despite scientific evidence that nullifies this sentiment: humans are inherently special. This in itself is contradictory to the entire purpose of the book, which stands to prove that we are mere organisms shaped by the utterly random process of natural selection. How can we be 'special' when every other life form shares the same origin as us? Miller himself addresses, numerous times, that the only unique trait we possess is CONSCIOUSNESS. So yes, homo sapiens are UNIQUE, but they are not inherently SPECIAL. We were a mere byproduct of evolution: a biological accident.
But overall, apart from the slight contradictions, it was an interesting read that I would recommend to other high school students like myself. Science becomes a lot less threatening once you begin to learn its place in the creation of the world you live in.
I appreciate the synthesis of philosophy and evolution within his work, but the lack of subtlety in blending the two in order to craft a well balanced text is one of my only criticisms. The second half of the book is more difficult to digest, likely due to the fact that it is weighed down by Miller's persistent insistence that, despite scientific evidence that nullifies this sentiment: humans are inherently special. This in itself is contradictory to the entire purpose of the book, which stands to prove that we are mere organisms shaped by the utterly random process of natural selection. How can we be 'special' when every other life form shares the same origin as us? Miller himself addresses, numerous times, that the only unique trait we possess is CONSCIOUSNESS. So yes, homo sapiens are UNIQUE, but they are not inherently SPECIAL. We were a mere byproduct of evolution: a biological accident.
But overall, apart from the slight contradictions, it was an interesting read that I would recommend to other high school students like myself. Science becomes a lot less threatening once you begin to learn its place in the creation of the world you live in.
April 9, 2020
I thought this book was going to be "assuming you accept evolution, here's why people are still more special than other life forms." Instead, this book was more along the lines of "assuming you think people are more special than other life forms, here's why you should still accept evolution." Perhaps this is unsurprising given the author's history, but it was a disappointment to me.
I thought the author was going to make arguments for why a mind developed through natural processes is still objectively superior to other life forms developed through the same processes. Instead, he simply asserted as axiomatic that the human mind and experience of consciousness with free will somehow transcends physical mechanistic explanations and thus is objectively special. I accept this as true based on my Christian faith. However, I also feel the conclusion can be objectively supported without appeal to religious belief, so I was interested to explore this author's arguments in favor of this position. What I actually found was a lot of arguments in defense of evolutionary origins of human bodies and arguments opposed to facile evolutionary psychology origins of human minds, neither of which I needed to be convinced of.
I thought the author was going to make arguments for why a mind developed through natural processes is still objectively superior to other life forms developed through the same processes. Instead, he simply asserted as axiomatic that the human mind and experience of consciousness with free will somehow transcends physical mechanistic explanations and thus is objectively special. I accept this as true based on my Christian faith. However, I also feel the conclusion can be objectively supported without appeal to religious belief, so I was interested to explore this author's arguments in favor of this position. What I actually found was a lot of arguments in defense of evolutionary origins of human bodies and arguments opposed to facile evolutionary psychology origins of human minds, neither of which I needed to be convinced of.
May 24, 2020
It hurts to give this book 2 stars because so much of it was 5 stars. His thesis that evolution isn't this scary process which saps life of all its meaning is powerful and well-articulated (at least initially). Personally, I've never understood why people find evolution to be such a utterly devaluing concept -- I think it's the most beautiful, and elegant theory ever stumbled upon by our species and I'm grateful everyday that I was born after 1850 to relish in it. But this book, especially the end!!!, is painfully verbose. He recapitulates the general sentiment "why you scared evolution? it so pretty and cool!" in about 1009340921398 different ways, adding negative amount of substance in the process. I'm sympathetic to this desire to marvel at the wonder of the world; to think how trippy it is that a bundle of matter can become aware of itself and the matter surrounding it on a telescopic and microscopic scale. I love that stuff! But fuck me does this guy beat this point like the deadest of horses.
January 10, 2019
Two of my favourite subjects rolled into one: psychology and evolution.
I enjoyed how the author led me on a journey through the evolving and contrasting theories of our times, so there is room to consider all angles in your brain as you're reading along, and understand how he has arrived at his own conclusions further in.
Fascinating information on what it means to be human (for someone not scientifically gifted, like me). "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself," he says, quoting from Carl Sagan, and echoing his sentiment. I just think that's beautiful.
It's a miracle we reached this stage of self awareness, at all, through all of evolution's bumps and walls. (Though, when you consider a human like Trump, maybe we aren't so special, after all. Unless free will comes down to a choice between acknowledging and employing our self-awareness, our full potential, or not...)
I will be pondering these ideas for a long time.
I enjoyed how the author led me on a journey through the evolving and contrasting theories of our times, so there is room to consider all angles in your brain as you're reading along, and understand how he has arrived at his own conclusions further in.
Fascinating information on what it means to be human (for someone not scientifically gifted, like me). "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself," he says, quoting from Carl Sagan, and echoing his sentiment. I just think that's beautiful.
It's a miracle we reached this stage of self awareness, at all, through all of evolution's bumps and walls. (Though, when you consider a human like Trump, maybe we aren't so special, after all. Unless free will comes down to a choice between acknowledging and employing our self-awareness, our full potential, or not...)
I will be pondering these ideas for a long time.
September 30, 2018
How can we get to the bottom of how we as humans are able to explain our reasoning process, our consciousness and do we really have free will?
What sort of experiments are being done or have been done by scientists using the scientific method to prove what is really going on?
What experiments would you design to answer the tougher questions regarding consciousness, reasoning and is there really free will?
This book does a good job of outlining the scientific research out there to answer some of the mysteries in the human experience.
Can we explain consciousness due to the evolution of the human brain?
The Human Instinct does a good job of laying out what the questions are, the tough ones and what sort of experiments are being done currently to try to find answers.
I enjoyed the book.
What sort of experiments are being done or have been done by scientists using the scientific method to prove what is really going on?
What experiments would you design to answer the tougher questions regarding consciousness, reasoning and is there really free will?
This book does a good job of outlining the scientific research out there to answer some of the mysteries in the human experience.
Can we explain consciousness due to the evolution of the human brain?
The Human Instinct does a good job of laying out what the questions are, the tough ones and what sort of experiments are being done currently to try to find answers.
I enjoyed the book.
Read
April 10, 2022Evolution produced humanity and gave us capacities for reason, consciousness and free will. Our natural origins don’t degrade us, but instead have made humans a unique and impactful species.
And here’s some more actionable advice:
Beware of evolutionary overreach!
Evolution is a powerfully illuminating theory, and it’s tempting to draw conclusions between what we observe in others and ideas about our biology. But be careful.
We know very little about prehistoric Homo sapiens, and finding genetic corollaries to human behavior isn’t yet possible. Keep this in mind the next time a headline appears in your news feed about the evolutionary reasons why, for example, men in red cars break the speed limit.
And here’s some more actionable advice:
Beware of evolutionary overreach!
Evolution is a powerfully illuminating theory, and it’s tempting to draw conclusions between what we observe in others and ideas about our biology. But be careful.
We know very little about prehistoric Homo sapiens, and finding genetic corollaries to human behavior isn’t yet possible. Keep this in mind the next time a headline appears in your news feed about the evolutionary reasons why, for example, men in red cars break the speed limit.
April 7, 2019
This book presented scientific and philosophical arguments supporting the theory of evolution and the relative importance of humanity in the tree of life. The scientific presentation of evidenced coupled with the rhetoric of debating oppositional viewpoints kept me hooked. Overall, the author guided me through arguments for and against evolutionary theory throughout history, and the main draw in his critique was that it didn’t fall victim to dichotomous thinking. The author instead presented the evidence and arguments in a way that the reader could see both sides, and it was a really good brain exercise to contemplate the complexity of the overlapping arguments.
September 23, 2019
This book is in a genre that I call "No audience". The topics discussed are not advanced enough for the people who actually follow evolution, and the people who don't follow evolution will not read this book and they would rather read more original texts.
Furthermore this book is compilation of ideas that the writer agrees with some and disagree others but, I failed to see any coherence, timeline or significance in the ideas mentioned.
Overall I finished it which is a good thing but disappointed in the end.
Furthermore this book is compilation of ideas that the writer agrees with some and disagree others but, I failed to see any coherence, timeline or significance in the ideas mentioned.
Overall I finished it which is a good thing but disappointed in the end.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews