Review of The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin.

Abstract

KEITH E. STANOVICH The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in Age of Darwin Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2004, 374 pages (ISBN 0-226-77089-3, US$27.50 Cloth) Reviewed by F. MICHAEL RABINOWITZ In his interesting scholarly book, The Robot's Rebellion, Stanovich leads us on a journey to find meaning in a world populated by mortal biological vehicles, robots, put on earth to replicate their masters' selfish genes. If genes do a satisfactory job programming robots, then genes replicate in perpetuity and are, therefore, immortal. Most vehicles (species) are incapable of rebelling against their genetic masters because their goal structures are limited to those that serve interests of both vehicles and genes, and those that serve only interests of genes. Humans are an exception in that they also have goal structures that serve only interests of vehicles. Furthermore, humans are capable of evaluating their own desires and can choose between multiple goal structures. This ability permits humans to make ethical choices, some of which serve only interests of vehicles. If one accepts this post-Darwinian metaphor in which human cognition does battle with genetic urges, then it becomes difficult to read this book dispassionately. Many of implications drawn from metaphor will prove disturbing to some readers and ethical issues visited should be of interest to most readers. Stanovich's basic assumptions are: a) vehicles are designed to replicate genes; b) at least in human animals, brain houses two minds; c) first mind, System 1 or The Autonomous Set of Systems, evolved much earlier in evolutionary history than did second mind, System 2 or Analytic System; d) System 1 is associative, parallel, fast to respond, and designed to automatically serve its genetic master; e) System 2 is rule-based, serial, slow to respond, not aware of System 1 functioning but sometimes privy to System 1 output, controls executive functioning, and is capable of self-evaluation and leading rebellion against its genetic master; and, f) memes, culturally generated ideas passed on by nongenetic means, can sometimes be as effective as System 1 at squashing rebellion. These assumptions are derived from work in cognitive and evolutionary biology, and provide a solid foundation for book. Both metaphor and basic assumptions are embedded in detailed and informative reviews of decision theory, evolutionary psychology, memetic theory, rational philosophy, and utility theory. The interweaving of metaphor and review provides a framework that allows Stanovich to make inferences to help general reader understand the implications of modern science (p. xi). He also develops criteria to evaluate memes that are needed in his quest to find meaning in human existence. In combination with basic assumptions, these criteria are used to create an ethical ideology that will be embraced by some readers. The genes and memes that appear in book are, as Stanovich notes, unabashedly anthropomorphic. They are also adultomorphic. Using anthropomorphic and adultomorphic genes and memes, enables Stanovich to simplify a complicated story by focusing on those aspects that seem most relevant. However, this convenience does create loopholes that interfere with his intention to educate general reader about modern science. The problem is that three misconceptions (i.e., memes) are implicitly reinforced: a) humans are only animals housing two minds in one brain; b) genes are expressed independently of environments they pass through; and, c) memes are only transmitted by human cultures. Although three misconceptions are ancillary to metaphor of human cognition at war with genetic urges and never explicitly endorsed by Stanovich, they do relate to some of issues discussed in book. They also relate to a variety of pedological concerns. …