> Somebody: If it's merely a matter of appropriateness of the metaphor,
> then we can just as well say that other mammals aren't hard-wired for
> circadian rhythms (or anything else) either. If wiring necessarily
> invokes images of computers and binary code, then it wouldn't apply
> for humans, ocelots, or bandicoots. And then the strict distinction
> that was supposed to be made between humans and other species
> vanishes.
Is someone in this thread making the argument that there is some "strict distinction" between humans and other animals? The main point is that it's not helpful to explain human characteristics in terms of "hard wired traits". This is true of other species too!
Example: the fallacy that circadian rhythms are "hard wired". In fact, the sleep/wake cycles for mammalian species are a historically contingent product of evolution. Certain species had greater reproductive success with a night waking cycle (e.g., raccoons), and other had greater reproductive success with a day waking cycle (e.g., chimps). Over time, the circadian rhythms that helped a particular species survive and reproduce transformed neural anatomy and function.
Note however, that there is nothing permanent and immutable about the specific circadian rhythm of a particular species. If environmental conditions shifted, a different waking/sleeping cycle could lead to greater reproductive success, and the brains of that species--over evolutionary time-frames--would be transformed. There is nothing "hard
wired" and unmodifiable about waking/sleeping cycles and neural anatomy and function; they were and will continue to be contingent, dynamic products of species interacting with their environments. --And this certainly includes humans!
Miles