(Author: G.
Creative Commons: attribution and share-alike.)

(If you haven’t read Part 1 first, check it out; this will make more sense.)

The rights to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” not only express a particular political philosophy, but also reflect empirical characteristics that are intrinsic to the human organism. Jefferson and Franklin, with their scientific background, probably had the intuition that their assertion would some day be proven. As it turns out, they were correct.

Life:

All other factors equal and with few exceptions that prove the rule, all living organisms seek to preserve their own lives as far as possible. This is mundanely obviously true; that is, you don’t need to know much about science to find evidence everywhere you look. For example plants depend on sunlight; partially-shaded plants will tend to grow around the shade to preserve their access to sun. Animals will seek to avoid stimuli that they perceive are potentially fatal. The entire utility of pain in animals is to provide a primary signal that a stimulus is harmful, such that even animals with no capacity to understand death will still seek to preserve their own lives.

Even bacteria and single-celled organisms do something similar, by maintaining their homeostatic balance. Homeostasis provides the baseline from which feedback from the environment is measured by all organisms. When conditions cause perturbation of homeostasis, organisms seek to restore that internal balance. They do this, whether they know it or not, in order to preserve their own lives as far as possible. Homeostasis-seeking behavior is inbuilt into all organisms; without it, they would self-destruct.

Exceptions prove the rule. Deliberate self-sacrificing behaviors (altruistic behaviors) tend to produce advantages in aggregate. In complex organisms, altruistic behaviors usually have the outcome of contributing to the survival of the species.

Among humans the prototypical case is the warrior who puts his/her own life at risk for the defense of the whole. In the United States, the warrior’s oath is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” Interestingly, what our men and women in uniform swear to protect is not America’s gene pool, but its core meme pool.

The last exception is suicide, driven by physical or emotional pain. In the big-picture view this can be seen as the fatal outcome of illness, made tragic primarily by the fact that in most cases the underlying causes are treatable. In a Darwinian sense, there is no difference between a fatal bacterial infection and a fatal depression: illness sometimes takes its toll, one way or another, despite our best efforts.

With exceptions considered, the instinct for the preservation of life, in both its individual sense of self-preservation and its collective sense of defense of the whole, is universal. The right to life is recognition of this aspect of nature.

Liberty:

Liberty is essentially the ability to exercise one’s free will, subject to the limitations of the physical world and one’s own ethics, and such laws as are necessary to maintain a democratic society that values the liberty of all of its members. As it turns out, free will appears to have a physical basis in the very structure of the brain.

The theory of Orchestrated Objective-Reduction (abbreviated “Orch-OR”) was first proposed by Penrose and Hameroff in the 1990s. Penrose had made the case that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem demonstrated that computational processes in the brain must necessarily be non-algorithmic and thus nondeterministic. Hameroff, based on his studies of the human brain and mechanisms of anaesthesia, had a good candidate for the physical mechanism of indeterminacy in neural computation.

Within the neurons in the brain, subcellular structures known as microtubules have features that may be susceptible to quantum effects such as entanglement and wave-function collapse. Microtubules were already known to play a role in the transmission of information within and between neurons, for example by transporting neurotransmitters to the synapses. Hameroff described a theoretical mechanism linking the quantum scale of fundamental indeterminacy, to conventional neurophysiology at the classical (Newtonian) scale.

Penrose’s and Hameroff’s ideas came together as the Orch-OR theory. While Orch-OR still remains controversial, Hameroff has proposed some twenty empirical experiments that could be undertaken to falsify it. (Theories are made up of hypotheses, which in turn are tested by attempting to falsify or disprove them; if they stand up to those attempts, they are considered supported.) The discovery of quantum effects in other biological tissue as reported by Engel et. al. (Nature, 2007) can be taken as providing indirect support for Penrose & Hameroff.

In light of this we can also consider the empirical observation of “noisy neurons:” brain cells whose output appears to be random compared to input. Whence comes this apparent randomness? Perhaps from quantum processes translated to the classical level and then injected into information processing between and among neurons.

Orch-OR is consistent with the Interactionist theory of mind proposed by David Chalmers. According to Chalmers, mind-like characteristics arise as an emergent property of information-bearing systems. That is, an individual mind or something similar is the outcome of the interaction between a physical system such as a brain, and information as-such. One prediction that follows from Chalmers’ theory is that it shouldn’t take a very complex brain to demonstrate mind-like characteristics.

As it turns out, this appears to be correct. In 2007, Maye et. al. published findings in PLoS One that are consistent with the interpretation that the behavior of fruit flies demonstrates evidence of voluntary choice, which is to say, free will. In their experiments, fruit flies were tethered to a strain gauge in a visually uniform environment, and their attempts to change direction of flight were measured. If the fruit flies’ brains were deterministic or algorithmic, we would expect measurable regularities in their flight patterns under these conditions. If their brains were operating on a purely random basis, we would expect to see randomized behavioral output.

What was actually observed was a pattern of behavior that fit neither the deterministic model, the random model, or any applicable nonlinear systems model, but seemed to reflect unpredictable deviations from all of these models. The authors inferred, based on considerable statistical analyses, that voluntary behavior (free will) occurs in the fruit fly, and by inference is possible even in simple brains that operate on the fine edge between deterministic and random processes.

The key here, as with many other interesting properties of brains, is that the system is tuned to an exquisite sensitivity to extremely small inputs. Thus, the physical basis of free will need only be a tiny input to the system in order to produce the output we observe. It seems to me that Hameroff & Penrose’s theory describes just that type of input: exquisitely small but pervasive.

Further, Maye et. al. speculate that free will has evolutionary utility. Obviously it enables animals to better avoid predators. Algorithmic behavior would be sufficiently predictable as to give predators short-cuts to their prey, and random behavior would produce undesired outcomes (being eaten) 50% of the time. Free will improves the odds of surviving not only predators but other selection pressures as well. Free will also seems to improve search behaviors such as food-seeking and mate-seeking for the same reasons. In a general way, it allows animals to take actions that enable them to discriminate finely between signal and noise in their sensory input, which is beneficial in a range of tasks for which the outcomes are reflected through natural selection.

The contrary position, that free will is illusory, is based on determinism, the idea that if one has sufficient knowledge of starting conditions, every subsequent event can be predicted, including the “so-called choices” of humans. This is true for purely Newtonian objects, but ceases to be true in a fundamental sense when the uncertainties of quantum physics are factored into the picture and propagate to the classical level. As well, successes in predicting group and individual behaviors of humans along limited axes of measurement, such as election outcomes and consumer choices, do not extrapolate to the ability to predict human behavior in general: complexity theory tells us that such problems are computationally infeasible to solve in a meaningful way.

Interestingly, pure determinism is also a non-falsifiable hypothesis: the outcome of any experiment performed to test it, even those experiments that failed to support it directly, could be considered pre-ordained in a predetermined universe. Thus determinism must be considered part of the realm of faith rather than of science: something one may believe, but as with the existence or otherwise of God, ultimately cannot be proved or disproved empirically.

While prudence in science requires assuming the null hypothesis until evidence demonstrates otherwise, prudence in ethics calls for examining the implications of theories and findings that bear upon ethical questions. That is, we may reasonably ask what the implications would be if a given set of theories and findings were indeed true.

Between Penrose & Hameroff, Chalmers, and Maye et. al., we have a fairly good case for the existence of free will as a fundamental property of brains, whether simple or complex. The right to liberty is recognition of this aspect of nature.

The pursuit of happiness:

Where Jefferson proposed that the third unalienable right was the right to property, Franklin successfully made the case for replacing it with the right to the pursuit of happiness. This is consistent with the context of natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are characteristics of the human organism itself; whereas property is external. Property is not part of the person, it is something with which the person has practical, customary, and legal relationships. The right to property is more accurately described within the context of those relationships.

The formulation “pursuit of happiness” has a radically different meaning than the word “happiness” alone. Since happiness itself cannot be guaranteed, one can’t speak of a right to happiness as such, any more than one can speak of a right to understand mathematics. However, a society can recognize a right of individuals to pursue happiness, as by analogy a right to pursue the understanding of mathematics.

In cognitive science we have terms for pursuit and its opposite: approach behavior and avoidance behavior. Organisms in general display approach behavior toward stimuli that are beneficial to them: food, mates, places with habitable temperatures, and so on. They also display avoidance behavior toward stimuli that are harmful: predators, hostile environments, physical hazards, and so on. Early psychodynamic theory was on the right track when it referred to the “pleasure principle,” that encompasses approach and avoidance behaviors; and the “reality principle” whereby gratification is deferred to the future.

Approach and avoidance can be observed in the simplest of organisms. In humans and other animals with complex brains and behavioral repertoires, we can observe and often measure objective phenomena that correlate with signs or self-reports of pleasure and pain. For example when you feel a deep sense of personal connection between yourself and some greater whole (whether of a religious or secular nature), we can measure increased activity in the right temporal lobe of your brain. When you are engaged in making decisions in which you have a personal stake, we can measure activity in the prefrontal cortex.

We can also observe the actions of endogenous compounds such as neurotransmitters, neuropeptides, and neurohormones. By administering them or close analogues, or compounds that inhibit them, we can induce a range of degrees of pleasure and displeasure with repeatable regularity. Endorphins produce the pleasure of relaxation and freedom from pain. Various adrenal hormones produce states of arousal from enjoyable excitement to fear and panic. Dopamine produces sensual pleasure.

The degree of specificity of neuropeptides is astounding: in rats, which are normally averse to well-lit areas, scotophobin increases the fear of light, and a scotophobin-blocker decreases the fear of light. Other endogenous compounds produce trust, empathy, and the sensory impressions that often occur in religious experience. It would not be stretching the data too far to assert that for every emotion there is probably a chemical.

The statement “pursuit of happiness” can be translated as “approach behavior toward pleasurable neurochemical states.” It is universal and intrinsic to humans. As with life and liberty, the right to the pursuit of happiness is recognition of a fact of nature.

A more perfect Union:

In the first part of this series I made the case that equality in the eyes of the law recognizes that humans cannot and ought not second guess God and/or Nature with respect to the relative value of individuals. In this part I’ve made the case that the three core rights from which others logically proceed, can be understood as facts of human nature that are based on the very structure of our brains, and are also observable in other creatures including those as simple as the fruit fly.

Taken together, equality under law and natural rights form the basis of “natural law,” the most solid ground upon which you as an individual can stand in society. But even those who believe in social contract theory must defer to nature. As with individuals, so with their societies and governments: those that live in accord with empirical reality will persist, those that do not, will perish.

There is another lesson here: as above, so below; and as below, so above. When looking for solutions to the problems of individuals and societies, it is worth looking to the natural sciences for facts and theories whose implications may be relevant. This is not “reductionism” in the pejorative sense, but a recognition of the fact that nature is parsimonious and internally consistent, and that we are made of the same stuff as the rest of the known universe.

Whether to take that that as a source of despair or as a source of inspiration, is up to each of us to decide freely for ourselves. The Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell described the deep and profound joy of looking at the stars from his space capsule, and recognizing that every atom in each of us comes from the same primordial source. Many are those in the sciences, and in philosophy and religion, who have had similar experiences. Such glimpses of enlightenment are in fact more common and accessible than one might assume, and are empirical facts of our own lives.

Based on their grasp of the parsimony and consistency of nature, the Founders set out to create “a more perfect Union.” Despite its flaws, it has worked, and it has held, and it has improved over time.

Today we stand on the threshold of ecological challenges of a degree and scale never before faced by humanity. The question remains as to how we will deal with what lies ahead. The risk of a new dark age looms, and the prospect of a new enlightenment beckons.

(Author: G.
Creative Commons: attribution and share-alike.)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” -Thomas Jefferson with input from Benjamin Franklin et. al.

Not only are those words inspiring, but as it turns out they also point to empirical truths as elucidated by science.

Jefferson and Franklin (as well as many others of the Founders) were well-versed in scientific literature, disciplines, and ways of thinking. Each also had numerous inventions to his name, some of which became the seeds of modern technologies and some of which are still in use to this day. If you read even abbreviated biographies of both of these individuals you will be in awe; for despite their human flaws, their greatness set standards to which we can aspire but which few today meet.

Created equal.

In the introduction to the Declaration we find the phrasing, “…the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God…” This wording is consistent with Deism, a religious philosophy common to many of the Founders and other Enlightenment philosophers of their day. In brief, according to Deism, God is the architect, Nature is the building contractor, and reason (rather than scriptural revelation) is God’s most important gift to humans for understanding the universe.

The statement “…endowed by their Creator….” could thus be paraphrased, “…endowed by Nature and/or God…” Whether one is theistic or non-theistic, believing oneself to be created by God or by Nature alone or by some combination thereof, the outcome for the present purpose is the same.

God and/or Nature are said to have created all persons as equal. Clearly this does not mean “equivalent” as in “identical,” but rather, of equal value and standing, and with equal rights. In legal terms, all persons are equal under the law.

As a matter of science, the existence (or otherwise) of God cannot be resolved empirically. Any entity having the characteristics of omniscience and omnipotence ascribed to a deity, would be capable of confounding any experiment performed to verify its existence. Since no such experiment can be performed without risk of this deliberate and undetectable confound, no such experiment could have scientific validity. (As it turns out, there is a way to get at this inferentially, but I’ll reserve that topic for a later essay; check back under the Consciousness Studies header when it’s posted.)

However there is no viable reservation with respect to the existence of Nature. As a matter of science we can say that Nature created us, via the process of evolution and natural selection, and proceed from there.

At that point the statement about equality can be seen in naturalistic terms. In an evolutionary sense, in the end we are not all equal: some organisms survive to reproduce (genetically, and in human societies, memetically) and others do not. Success at reproduction is only known after reproductive maturity, and the length of survival is only known at the time of death. In the big picture even such characteristics as appear at first to be defects, may under some foreseeable circumstance turn out to have adaptive value. An obvious example is the sickle cell gene, which can cause a life-threatening anemia but also confers resistance to malaria.

So long as an individual is viable outside the womb, there is a chance they may have characteristics that turn out to have adaptive value. At the beginning of life this cannot be predicted. Prudence as well as fairness dictates that we not attempt to second-guess the greater wisdom of Nature in this regard. Thus as of the moment of birth, all persons must have equal standing under law. Even those convicted of crimes do not lose this fundamental equality despite their loss of freedom as a foreseeable penalty for their deeds. Only following death may any difference from fundamental equality be assessed, and this is of no useful value in a legal sense since the individual who is dead is no longer within the scope of the law.

Finally, references to natural selection as a factor in the recognition of equality, do not in any way lead to the legitimation of Social Darwinism. The latter is a bastardization of science, whereby the desires of some for inequitable ends of their own benefit are used to justify unethical means, about which much more will be said in other essays to come.

Rights: inherent vs. negotiable.

By “rights” we commonly mean, legal guarantees of the ability to choose to act (or to not act), or to choose to obtain (or to not obtain) an outcome, action, thing, or recognition.

When we say that certain rights are unalienable, we mean that their legal basis inheres in the very nature of the individual, and can no more be rescinded than the color of someone’s eyes or the functions of their internal organs. Unalienable rights are not subject to the negotiation of a social contract. They are considered part of natural fact and natural law: part of what Nature or God or both have created, preceding and transcending any contrary act of humans.

While American philosophers, the Founders included, were writing about natural rights and about natural law as the basis for their emerging republics, European philosophers were proceeding in a different direction, toward what would come to be called social contract theory. In brief this is the idea that rights are not inherent in the nature of humans but are created by societies and assigned to individuals in exchange for specified duties.

The problem with this is that it gives us no firm place to stand: all is negotiable, has been negotiated before you were born, and is stuck to you like a “contract of adhesion” for the mere fact of existing. (Attorneys will recognize that term, and the point that contracts of adhesion, over which individuals have no choice and no power to negotiate, are legally null and void.)

As well, if all is negotiable, then whatever human or civil rights you may think you have, may be taken away from you at the stroke of a pen by whatever power claims to represent the will of society. For example if shredding the Fourth Amendment or even the right of Habeas Corpus was “deemed” necessary to protect our “safety,” we would have no grounds to protest.

Natural rights, and natural law, give you a firm place to stand: society, government, and other entities claiming to represent the will of society, cannot diminish your inherent rights any more than they can diminish any other facts discovered by science by simply “deeming” them not to be so. That some would try to diminish both is proof of nothing but their own foolishness; and to quote Aldous Huxley, “Nature goes along her way / regardless of what humans say.”

You and your rights are standing on solid ground. And as we will see in part 2, Nature stands with you.

—

*Today of course we say “persons” rather than “men,” as a simple matter of accuracy, as well as modern grammar and usage, along the line of saying “pets” rather than “dogs” when we are referring to a group of animals that includes both “dogs and cats.”