THE SKEPTICS SOCIETY CONFERENCE AT CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY By James A. Murray The Fourth Annual Skeptics Society Conference on Evolutionary Psychology and Humanistic Ethics was held at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena on March 30 and 31, 1996, with 200 people present. I was particularly intrigued with the topic because I am a humanist and a professional neuroethologist, that is, I study the neuronal basis of natural behaviors. Evolutionary psychology measures psychological phenomena in evolutionary terms of "fitness." It asks such questions as: Do humans think like they do to increase their reproduction rate? Do our thoughts and emotions have adaptive functions? Perhaps the most widely cited hypothesis of evolutionary psychology is the incest taboo. Some scientists believe that the conscious incest taboo is an evolutionary adaptation that predominated because individuals without it produced fewer viable offspring than those with it due to the negative genetic consequences of inbreeding in our species. The main issue at the conference was to what extent our psychology has been shaped by our evolutionary past. Dr. Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptics Society, and publisher of Skeptic Magazine, opened the conference by noting that only 9% of U.S. citizens (Gallup) believe in evolution without divine intervention. Apparently, the belief that our psychology is the result of evolution is not widely accepted in this country. This is a historical fact as well. Alfred Wallace differed from Charles Darwin in that he did not believe that the human mind could be the result of evolution. Darwin accepted moral evolution. However, modern psychology did not develop from evolutionary theory. Rather, it was hijacked by the non-scientific theories of Sigmund Freud a century ago and only now is evolutionary theory challenging Freud's dominance. Can we determine if psychological phenomena have evolved? Can a psychological phenomenon spread in a population like a "brain virus" (i.e., meme, sensu Dawkins), even if it is maladaptive? Before these and other questions were addressed, we were treated to talks by Professors Patricia and Paul Churchland, eminent authors from the Philosophy Department at the University of California at San Diego on the subject of "Intelligence and Consciousness." Dr. Patricia Churchland claimed that dualism is still a widespread belief, but suggested that we will make more progress in understanding the mind if we hypothesize that it is material (as is the body), and thus amenable to experimental study. Since we know practically nothing of the neural mechanisms of cognition, declarative memory, and awareness, we need to design neural and psychological experiments to elucidate these cellular and physical mechanisms. She suggested that understanding consciousness might require a "recategorization" of our knowledge about it, such that it may not be at all what we now think it is. By analogy, she noted that humans once use the word Afire@ to denote many things that are quite different physically, such as the sun's nuclear fusion and the bioluminescence of insects. She believes the key to understanding consciousness is seeing the differences between a brain that receives sensory stimulation and becomes "aware" of the stimulus, and the same brain that receives the same sensory stimulation and does not become "aware" of the stimulus. Dr. Paul Churchland, also an adjunct professor at the Salk Institute, talked about his work at the Institute for Neural Computation on "neural networks," a type of computer program that resembles, in some respects, a neural system. Such computer programs can change with experience and learn tasks after being "trained," for instance, to recognize individual human faces. He introduced us to the so-called "Hard Problem," that of "qualia," e.g., of subjective experience. How do I know that my subjective experience of redness is similar to yours? What is the neural basis of qualia? A computer might be programmed to respond to a red stimulus, but can a computer really know "redness?" Can a computer have "qualia?" Does a snail really feel pain in the same way that humans do? Does a snail have a subjective experience? Hard problems indeed. Roger Bingham, the creator of the PBS series The Human Quest on science, evolution, and consciousness, was an energetic and entertaining speaker. He believes that the Enlightenment started in the 17th century is now under attack by romantics, obscurantists, religionists, and neo-Luddites, and he suggests that we counter with a second Darwinian revolution, but this time including the toughest evolutionary trait to understand, the human mind. We need a new common sense, since dualism is indefensible. He cited many examples of mind traits thought to have evolved, such as our preference for fats and sweets, and for nepotism. He emphasized that science is not an assault on, but rather an expression of, the human spirit. After lunch, we received an update from the Amazing Randi who is ceaselessly active in debunking frauds and cheats and has recently troubled dowsers and a Japanese "psychic." However, his big news was the announcement of the new James Randi Educational Foundation, which an anonymous benefactor has funded. (See the related article elsewhere in this newsletter.) He plans to build a reference and lending library of skeptical sources, and will put many on the Internet (see his web page accessible from the SDARI homepage). He encourages us all to maintain hope in fighting the exploitive practices of psychics and pseudo scientists. Dr. Donald Symons, professor of anthropology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, presented his research on the evolutionary psychology of female sexual attractiveness, "Beauty is in the Adaptations of the Beholder." How does a man determine the mate value of a woman, and what are reliable and unfakable cues to her value? One aspect of this is the perception of beauty. "Beauty" is highly intersubjective, such that many men agree on the beauty rankings of photographs of female faces. Using computers to create synthetic face images, he exaggerated the differences between those faces rated less and those rated more attractive, and created superattractive faces that were highly symmetrical, had smaller jaws, and larger lips. One interesting universal found in human populations was that the preferred skin color is lighter than the local average in each population studied. Dr. Nancy Seagal, professor of developmental psychology, is the director of the Twin Studies Center at the California State University, Fullerton. Twins allow us to study the genetics of human behavior because sometimes the effects of environment and genetics can be separated. Even when identical twins are separated at birth and raised apart, they are more similar to each other than are fraternal twins raised apart, and siblings raised apart are more similar than are unrelated people. This shows that genetics significantly affect many traits, including I.Q., sexual orientation, religiosity, and personality. Dr. Napoleon Chagnon, professor of anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, presented his work of 32 years on the Yanomamo people of the Amazon, the last stone-age people left on earth. He claimed that warfare and homicide are common in primitive societies, that most killing is done by men over access to women, and that men who have killed more acquire more wives and children. He also told an interesting story of how the Yanomamo people, having been introduced to bananas within the last several generations, have synthesized a creation story of how bananas have been with them since the beginning of time. Similar creation stories have been espoused by the local Institute for Creation Research, e.g., that dinosaurs were created along with humans at the beginning of the universe. Saturday evening was a social hour followed by a banquet (which I did not attend) and the Skeptic Magazine Awards ceremony, headlined by Steve Allen. The awards were The Dumbth Award, The Randi Award, The Media Skeptic, The Skeptical Essayist, and The Skeptical Scholar. Dr. John Hartung, professor of anesthesiology at the State University of New York, has published many papers on evolutionary psychology. He began by describing some violent episodes portrayed in the Old Testament, and questioned its validity as a source of morals. He then laid out his complex theory of human meaning and purpose, which somehow depends on humans existing "forever." If humans were to one day become extinct, he believes that all prior human existence would become meaningless. This was received by a skeptical audience. He suggested one "objective morality" as behaviors that increase the probability of continued human existence. The last talk by Dr. Michael Shermer, professor of cultural studies at Occidental College, was on evolutionary ethics and humanistic morals. He reviewed some elements of a secular and scientific approach to morality. He said that morals should be provisional like scientific hypotheses, if an action is supported as "right" by data, then it should be accepted as moral, provisionally. He suggested that a good test to decide if an action (e.g., infidelity) is moral is to ask the person it would affect (e.g., spouse). The conference concluded with an open forum with all speakers fielding questions from the attendees. One conclusion was that evolutionary psychology is not the science of morals (i.e., how we should behave), but rather a way of making explicit and conscious the psychological rules we sometimes apply implicitly. To learn more about the Skeptics Society, write to skepticmag@aol.com or see their web page via the SDARI home page. ---------------- James A. Murray is a Postdoctoral Fellow at UCSD and a member of the San Diego Association for Rational Inquiry. He can be reached in care of SDARI or by email: jamurray@ucsd.edu.