The philosophical problems with the theory of evolution and determinism.

Started by Light, December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Recusant

I will, in this post, address the portion of the OP that I left for later. To avoid this getting too complicated, I will address Light's answer to my first post in this thread in another post.

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AMAlthough determinism can be useful in understanding certain concepts of reality, I do not believe it is applicable to reality as a whole, and will now explain why.

When a child is born, before they even develop the ability to use language, they have certain intuitive senses about the objective reality.  For instance, a baby will sense hunger, then cry.  The sense of hunger then is providing the baby with information about the objective reality, that he/she must eat or die.  With hunger, many other senses begin to develop and become more acute with time.

The sense of taste, smell, temparature, touch, physical pain, etc. all develop to help the child have intuitive knowledge about objective reality, to help ensure its survival.  Along with these senses, gradually develops the sense of agency, an identity.

The determinist will argue that the sense of agency is an illusion.  That, one may sense they are free to choose, but that sense is completely wrong.  However, the determinist will not concede that the other senses are illusions.

You have yet to establish that those who accept evolution as fact must also perforce adopt the philosophical position of determinism. If at some point in the future, scientific evidence (in the field of biology) became available which unequivocally supported that position, then your argument may have some relevance. As it is, you are arguing against a straw man. You seem to be focusing upon the fact that some determinists use biological facts in an attempt to support their position. Fine, but in that case, your argument is properly with the determinists, and not with evolution.

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AMWhy, I ask the determinist, would all humans develop a sense of agency which is a 100% illusionary sense of objective reality, when all the other senses can be shown to give true information, to at least a degree, about objective reality?

Do determinists say that the sense of agency is in the same category as the sense of smell, for instance? If they do, then they are wrong; these are two different senses of the word "sense." Looking at Merriam-Webster we find the following (I'm only going to reproduce the relevant portions of the definition):

Quote2 b : a specialized function or mechanism (as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch) by which an animal receives and responds to external or internal stimuli

This is clearly not the same thing as--

Quote4 b : a definite but often vague awareness or impression

If determinists are conflating these two aspects of the definition, as you seem to be doing, then they need to revise their argument, as I think you do.

Leaving that aside, you seem to also be assuming that metaphysical naturalism is the basis of science, and the basis of a certain sort of determinism. The latter may be the case, but the former is not. Some scientists may hold the philosophical position of metaphysical naturalism, but science itself does not stand on that position, therefore any argument that attempts to dispute science, which is grounded in the assumption that science necessarily arises from, or results in a position of metaphysical naturalism is inherently flawed.

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AMOf course, one could argue that certain senses can be misleading at times.  Fear, is a good example.  A person fears something only to later find out there was no danger.  But without the sense of fear being correct at times about objective dangers, certainly this would lead to a very unsuccessful outcome.  In other words, there would be no humans living now if they had no sense of danger.

So then, although one could say a sense may be misleading at times, it is not the case that any sense is illusionary concerning objective reality always.  Yet, according to the determinist, the sense of agency must be 100% illusionary.

The evolutionist, and therefore determinist, is basically arguing that all human beings are suffering from a life-long illusionary sense of agency.  Almost as if, all humans are to a degree, suffering a delusion, a psychotic symptom.

You have not established that accepting evolution necessarily entails accepting determinism. It seems to me that this is essential to your argument, and until you have repaired this basic flaw, your argument fails.

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AMWhy would one develop a sense which is fully illusionary? Possibly to protect them from the fear of being not in control?  But if that is so, then why would one need the sense of fear to begin with?  If one has no choice, there should be no uncertainty of the outcome of their actions, and therefore no need for fear.

This premise is irrational.

The determinist may also claim that it's useful to 'pretend' to have free will because it helps in society or day-to-day life.  But they are not pretending at all.  They are paying attention to the reality their senses bring them, just as they do if their senses tell them they need food. The actual illusion is believing that determinism is a philosophy that can be applicable to all aspects of life.

The theory of evolution is no fact then, it's a recognition that material lifeforms have descended from a common ancestor, combined with the irrational philosophy that freedom of choice plays no role in the outcome of that process.

As I noted above, your argument addresses determinism, and not the question of whether evolution is a fact. Your attempt to conflate the acceptance of the facts of evolution with the adoption of a philosophical position of determinism has failed.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Asmodean

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 04:56:44 AM
Clearly you must not have read the post, since I just pointed out how your 'fact' of evolution has philosophy integrated within it.
It's not my fact - I am not entitled to any copyrights or research, and you are approaching this ass first. While seats are integrated in a car, using seats tech to argue against cars being a fact is backwards.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Recusant

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 05:36:14 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 22, 2011, 02:03:49 AMThis is an unsupported assertion. The process of evolution has been observed and documented. Cringe all you want, but you're the one who is wrong, not those who say that evolution is a fact....

Natural selection has been observed. So far, you've based your argument on mere assertions, and have provided zero evidence to support these assertions. I would hope that it gets better.
I'm not saying the whole theory is not based on evidence. But certain aspects, specifically natural selection was philosophical. So I shouldn't need empirical evidence, if that's what you're referring to,  to talk about a rationalistic aspect of a theory.

Your assertion that the observed phenomenon of natural selection is instead a philosophical position masquerading as an observed phenomenon needs to be supported by sound evidence. You have not provided evidence of any kind.

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 05:36:14 AM
Quote from: Recusant on December 22, 2011, 02:03:49 AM...[Darwin's] philosophical musings, even if he considered them to be grounded in his studies of biology, are perhaps of academic interest, but are like the vast majority of philosophical musings, essentially opinion.

Philosophical musings? Maybe, but I think that's an understatement unless you think the link I referenced is simply propaganda?

I do think that, but what I think of the Discovery Institute is irrelevant in regards to our discussion here. You are the one making an argument in favor of a position that you hold, and you need to support your position yourself, rather than pointing to somebody else's argument as if the conclusions they reached on a topic constituted some sort of definitive authority.

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 05:36:14 AM. . .However, I still personally interpret the theory as having deterministic elements, as I've read many similar interpretations, so I don't believe it an irrelevant point to bring up, or even simply determinism alone, which is fine to talk about also.

I think that you would do better to focus on determinism, and specifically determinism which attempts to support itself by referring to evolutionary theory, rather than taking the route that you have. Your personal interpretation of the theory of evolution, if used as a basis for argument, needs to be backed up by sound evidence.

"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Whitney

Light, a whole forum of intelligent people don't get how you are coming to the idea that the theory of evolution includes determinism.

Please explain why you reject observed evidence of natural selection.

Please explain in full detail how species surviving by adapting to their environments negates free will.

So far there hasn't been much real discussion of either science or philosophy from your end...just claims and appeals to authority.

Tank

life

Citing Discovery.org demonstrates that you have absolutly no real understanding of evolution by natural selection. Discovery.org is run by a bunch of lying, scum sucking, science denying, creationist bastards.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Light

Quote from: Whitney on December 22, 2011, 03:37:27 PM
Light, a whole forum of intelligent people don't get how you are coming to the idea that the theory of evolution includes determinism.

Well, I do appreciate the time some of you have put into your responses.  If the majority of people here do not think evolution is deterministic then you've opened my mind to other possibilities.  
Quote
Please explain why you reject observed evidence of natural selection.

I don't reject observed evidence, simply questioning some of the reasoning applied to this evidence.
Quote
Please explain in full detail how species surviving by adapting to their environments negates free will.

I see the causality of adaptation being wholly attributed to external factors, genes, rather than internal factors such as the self, or conscious will.

Light

Quote from: Tank on December 22, 2011, 04:16:43 PM
life

Citing Discovery.org demonstrates that you have absolutly no real understanding of evolution by natural selection. Discovery.org is run by a bunch of lying, scum sucking, science denying, creationist bastards.

lol. Ok, I did not know that.  Maybe Ill search for other sources. I simply typed in search 'evolution free-will' and it was one of the first links.

Light

Quote from: Recusant on December 22, 2011, 11:27:54 AM
I think that you would do better to focus on determinism, and specifically determinism which attempts to support itself by referring to evolutionary theory, rather than taking the route that you have. Your personal interpretation of the theory of evolution, if used as a basis for argument, needs to be backed up by sound evidence.

Fair enough.  I actually wanted this discussion to be more about free-will vs determinism, since most of my original post is about that.  Maybe trying to include evolution into that same argument was biting off more than I could chew.

DeterminedJuliet

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 04:21:30 PM
Quote
Please explain in full detail how species surviving by adapting to their environments negates free will.

I see the causality of adaptation being wholly attributed to external factors, genes, rather than internal factors such as the self, or conscious will.

There is a cliff - do you choose to walk off it and die, or do you choose to go gather some food? You choose to go gather some food. You will live and reproduce. Your friend, who chose to walk off the cliff and die will not reproduce, even though this is "choice", it is related to evolution.

Decisions are made in our brains and our brains are shaped by evolution. Creatures who make choices that lead to their survival tend to be more "fit" than creatures who, for whatever reason, make poor choices. I'm glad you used the "free will" of a puppy, because I'm a bit familiar with "puppy psychology".

All puppies go through a "fear stage". This is a developmental phase where they are naturally inclined to be fearful of strange experiences. From an evolutionary perspective, this phase is useful: it teaches silly, happy, playful puppies to be wary of strange things until another dog (or human) shows them that it's "okay". This keeps puppies alive long enough to learn skills which are useful to them as adults (and gives them a chance to reproduce).  Yes, puppies still have "free will", but they are always shaped by evolution. There very well may have been puppies that didn't have this "fear phase", but they didn't live long enough to compete with their "fear phase" brothern.

So, in short, I don't see how you came to the dichotomy that you are proposing, at all  ???

Edit: okay, I just saw your last post, maybe the discussion of "Free will" vs. "determinism" alone will be more fruitful.
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Tank

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 04:24:45 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 22, 2011, 04:16:43 PM
life

Citing Discovery.org demonstrates that you have absolutly no real understanding of evolution by natural selection. Discovery.org is run by a bunch of lying, scum sucking, science denying, creationist bastards.

lol. Ok, I did not know that.  Maybe Ill search for other sources. I simply typed in search 'evolution free-will' and it was one of the first links.
Discovery.org is so well put together that you'd think it was a legitimate scientific site. That's about as far from the truth as one could get. The Wedge Document demonstrates the aims and objectives of the Discovery Institute. In particular the following leaves no question about their agenda.

QuoteGOALS

Governing Goals


To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

etc


I think we can see their agenda.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Whitney

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 04:21:30 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 22, 2011, 03:37:27 PM
Please explain in full detail how species surviving by adapting to their environments negates free will.

I see the causality of adaptation being wholly attributed to external factors, genes, rather than internal factors such as the self, or conscious will.

I think a few people now have explained why this is not the case....so do you still see it this way?  If so, can you explain in a few paragraphs instead of just a sentence?

Light

Quote from: Whitney on December 22, 2011, 04:55:49 PM
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 04:21:30 PM
Quote from: Whitney on December 22, 2011, 03:37:27 PM
Please explain in full detail how species surviving by adapting to their environments negates free will.

I see the causality of adaptation being wholly attributed to external factors, genes, rather than internal factors such as the self, or conscious will.

I think a few people now have explained why this is not the case....so do you still see it this way?  If so, can you explain in a few paragraphs instead of just a sentence?

I'm open to their interpretations.  I haven't fully decided that evolution isn't deterministic, but I don't feel the need to press the point as of now unless I read further opinions which support my idea.

Recusant

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 05:03:34 PMI haven't fully decided that evolution isn't deterministic, but I don't feel the need to press the point as of now unless I read further opinions which support my idea.

The theory of evolution, being a description of how populations of species change over time, could correctly be thought of as a description of a deterministic process. The point is that the theory does not deal with individuals, and does not address the concept of free will. Species do not have a will as such (free or not); they have a tendency to survive and reproduce. The individuals of most species do not have the ability to choose whether they want to survive and reproduce, and to that extent, for them there is no free will; the mechanism of evolution is irresistible to them. However, humans can decide to commit suicide and can decide to remain celibate. Thus when considered from an evolutionary perspective it seems evident that humans do have free will. I doubt whether this fact could be extended to a refutation of the philosophical position of determinism, since that position really isn't based on the theory of evolution, having existed long before Darwin first proposed the theory.

I am still searching through Darwin's notebooks to find the quote used by John West in his article for the Discovery Institute. What has become much clearer to me as I do so is the fact that much of the content of the notebooks is philosophical musings and conjecture on Darwin's part, and not science per se. It has also become clearer that Darwin did not believe in a strictly deterministic view (the quote I used earlier in this thread is an example of this) but did think that certain aspects of the lives of individuals were not subject to choice. I'm not sure where he drew the line, and I don't know whether Darwin thought that it was possible to draw a strong line between things that are subject to free choice for humans and things that are not. What this suggests to me is that the quote is part of a line of thought in which Darwin is examining the question of what sorts of human actions may be thought of as predetermined.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Light

Quote from: Recusant on December 22, 2011, 10:40:38 PM
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 05:03:34 PMI haven't fully decided that evolution isn't deterministic, but I don't feel the need to press the point as of now unless I read further opinions which support my idea.

The theory of evolution, being a description of how populations of species change over time, could correctly be thought of as a description of a deterministic process. The point is that the theory does not deal with individuals, and does not address the concept of free will. Species do not have a will as such (free or not); they have a tendency to survive and reproduce. The individuals of most species do not have the ability to choose whether they want to survive and reproduce, and to that extent, for them there is no free will; the mechanism of evolution is irresistible to them. However, humans can decide to commit suicide and can decide to remain celibate. Thus when considered from an evolutionary perspective it seems evident that humans do have free will. I doubt whether this fact could be extended to a refutation of the philosophical position of determinism, since that position really isn't based on the theory of evolution, having existed long before Darwin first proposed the theory.

I am still searching through Darwin's notebooks to find the quote used by John West in his article for the Discovery Institute. What has become much clearer to me as I do so is the fact that much of the content of the notebooks is philosophical musings and conjecture on Darwin's part, and not science per se. It has also become clearer that Darwin did not believe in a strictly deterministic view (the quote I used earlier in this thread is an example of this) but did think that certain aspects of the lives of individuals were not subject to choice. I'm not sure where he drew the line, and I don't know whether Darwin thought that it was possible to draw a strong line between things that are subject to free choice for humans and things that are not. What this suggests to me is that the quote is part of a line of thought in which Darwin is examining the question of what sorts of human actions may be thought of as predetermined.

Very interesting.  Thanks for that clarification. 

Squid

Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 04:21:30 PMI see the causality of adaptation being wholly attributed to external factors, genes, rather than internal factors such as the self, or conscious will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics